Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 44

Emancipated minor

 * Agree with NikW. The sentence "In 1973, at age sixteen, he was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman, which divided his family and the movement" is incorrect. According to the article, the marriage resulted in him becoming an "emancipated minor". I could never understand why "emancipated minor" was in the lead in the first place, it is a minor part of the biography. It is the marriage that split the family and the mission. Being an "emancipated minor" freed him from his mother's control but didn't effect the progress of the DLM. I suggest we just take it out thus - "In 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat married a Western woman which divided his family and the movement". Maybe we can add "against his mother's wishes" as per "In 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat married a Western woman against his mother's wishes which divided his family and the movement".Momento (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think becoming an emancipated minor is a very unusual thing, that it happened in someone who leads a very unusual life is noteworthy, and I don't think it should be taken out. Having said that, I also think we should deal with the charisma issue above before we go off on another tangent like this one. It's difficult enough to get one thing done at a time around here, it's almost impossible to do two things at once, I have no problem with discussing this next if we need to. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 17:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a great many things about Prem Rawat that are unusual, and I suppose we need to decide which of them are significant enough to belong in the lead. I agree that this is pretty important, as it underlines his lifelong determination to do things his own way. But the status of American "emancipated minor" needs to be got right. As I understand it, the fact of his marriage was among the evidence when he was considered for this status. Is that correct? Maybe there could be a simple and quick resolution for this apparently simple issue. (First time for everything.) Rumiton (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rumiton I am surprised to think that you believe "we need to decide which of them are significant enough to belong in the lead". What "belongs" in the lead are the major points mentioned in the article. Rawat's marrying at 16 years old to a westerner and the splitting of the family were the major events 1974. Being an "emancipated minor" was never mentioned by anyone. Rawat automatically became "emancipated" by getting married. Momento (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The key word is "major." And we DO have to decide which of the the many topics mentioned in the article are the "major" lead-worthy ones. Rumiton (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We have given only two sentences in the lead to describe his "teachings" which has its own article. People are objecting to having two words (charismatic leader) added to describe a whole section. Yet the only mention of "emancipated minor" is "As a result of his marriage he became an emancipated minor". It is a small mater in the article that doesn't warrant highlighting and whether or not you think becoming an "emancipated minor" "underlines his lifelong determination to do things his own way" that is not the way it is treated in the article.Momento (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate - "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". It is not up to editors to decide that a topic that is only briefly mentioned in the article should be given more prominence than a topic that is covered at length.Momento (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions for correcting the chronology of this sentence - (I've changed the date from the obviously incorrect 1973) "In 1974, at age sixteen, he was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman, which divided his family and the movement".Momento (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't remember the details, but I do remember that we had a very long protracted discussion about when exactly Prem became an emancipated minor, and there was much debate about when exactly this happened, I know there's pages and pages of it in the archives, so unless you can point me to some definitive sources that we missed before, I would like to leave the date as it is, at the very least until I've re-read all those archived discussions about it, I definitely remember this was a big topic for a while here. Also, again, no consensus for this change, and it's hard to believe with the scrutiny that every word of this article has gone through that Jossi and friends (there's that cartoon again!) would have left such an obvious error in the lead. I will post a link to the archives for ppl to read when I find it. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 03:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It spreads across close to a dozen archives but here is the link I was remembering. I don't know where "1973" came from in the lead, but yes, it does seem, that somewhere along the way, we bumped the date, and 1973 is wrong, I'll re-add Momento's date-change based on my re-reading of all the archives, and finding no support for 1973 and lots of support for 1974. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 05:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is certainly amazing that obvious errors like that have survived the almost (almost?) fanatical scrutiny these articles have undergone. I still can't work out if anyone decided whether emancipation or marriage came first. Was it resolved? (And does anyone still think it matters?) Rumiton (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice that the date error was first made by Sylviecyn at 14:00 on [| 26 Jan 09], and never discovered by anyone. Goes to show that a good hard further look could do no harm. Rumiton (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything that talks about "emancipated minor" in the cites given in the lead, Hunt and Miller and when "emancipated minor" appears in the article it is not sourced. There was a debate about it and some editors researched it and came to the conclusion that the 'emancipation" came as a result of being married.However there is a lot about Rawat disobeying his mother to marry - Galanter - "This he did against his mother's wishes and the event precipitated a schism in the family, ultimately leading to the estrangement of the American branch of the religious sect from its main body in India, where his mother and brothers remained". Geaves in Partridge "This conflict resulted in a split between Maharaji and his family, ostensibly caused by his mother's inability to accept Maharaji's marriage to an American follower rather than the planned traditional arranged marriage". Melton "In December 1973, when Maharaj Ji turned 16, he took administrative control of the Mission’s separate American corporation. Then in May 1974, he married his 24 year old secretary, Marolyn Johnson, and declared her to be the incarnation of the goddess Dulga usually pictured with ten arms and astride a tiger... Mataji, Maharaj Ji’s mother, disapproved of the marriage and the life style of the now successful guru. Relations within the Holy Family were strained considerably". Stoner and Parke "He married his tall, blonde, and older secretary, Marolyn Lois Johnson, a former United Airlines stewardess from California. Maharaj Ji's mother back in India didn't approve of the marriage, or the young man's gaudy lifestyle. At sixteen he was not old enough to marry without parental permission in Colorado, so he petitioned the court. The judge agreed that the boy guru was old enough to marry, saying that he had an income and appeared mature beyond his years".Momento (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is no source at all (hard to believe), it should probably go. Could it be that someone just assumed he had become "emancipated"? Rumiton (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't the court documentation (which is openly avalible here in the US) be good enough? Ronk01 (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Two sources discuss it at length. Cagan writes "In Denver in April 1974, Maharaji applied to become an emancipated minor, because he and Marolyn were now engaged, and he knew his mother would not condone his marriage at sixteen (or any other age, considering the American wife he had chosen). With his emancipation, he could obtain a legal marriage license without his mother’s signature. After spending about forty-five minutes with a judge, he was granted his request. (p. 197) [...]Also, since he had arrived in the U.S. at the age of thirteen, he was provided support by the organization in the U.S. in keeping with his guest status until he became an emancipated minor capable of pursuing his own interests privately". And AP in Tues. May 21, 1974 Greeley Tribune "The guru needed a court order to obtain a marriage license since he's too young to be married in Colorado without parental permission. Juvenile Court Judge Morris E. Cole issued the order and the license was obtained Friday from the city clerk's office. Cole interviewed the couple for 15 minutes in his chambers before issuing the court order May 7. The guru's father is dead and his mother couldn't be reached in India to give her consent. Cole said the boy "makes quite a bit of money and he seems quite mature—much older than 16." Since only one source actually mentions "emancipated minor" I suggest we remove "emancipated minor" from the lead and the article.Momento (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ronk01, How does one obtain a copy of the court docs? In their absense, the statement should probably be removed. I don't see it as controversial or potentially a BLP issue, but one source only isn't enough. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the best way would be to find out which county this occured in, then petition the county clerk via email for the documentation. Thi snormally works. Ronk01 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton, I think the point might be moot. The big issue (Which I linked above) was whether or not he became emancipated to get married, or if by being married he became emancipated, either way, the outcome was/is the same, he was emancipated, there's no question of that, and therefore the statement should not be removed, although if the difference of how he became emancipated concerns you, I'm not automatically oppposed to a re-write of that particular sentence if we must. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 18:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If we would like to follow Wiki "policies. guidelines and practices", "emancipated minor" would be removed from the lead immediately and probably removed from the article. One source is not good enough for the lead and a disputed fact for the article. By far the dominant fact around this issue is that Rawat got a judges permission to marry against his mother's wishes which factured the family and the movement.Momento (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento, Wikipedia does not require sources to source sources! To demand such is absolutely ridiculous. Ronk01  talk,  14:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Where did I demand "sources to source sources"?Momento (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I propose that we replace "In 1974, at age sixteen, he was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman, which divided his family and the movement". with "In 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat married a Western woman against his mother's wishes which divided his family and the movement".

By saying "One source is not good enough for the lead and a disputed fact for the article" you are implying that a source in needed to back up another source. Ronk01  talk,  00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maelefique, your understanding above was ...becoming an emancipated minor is a very unusual thing, and I thought so then, too. But if emancipation automatically follows marriage, then the unusual thing is the 16 year-old's marriage, no? Rumiton (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Rumiton, but perhaps we should indicate in some manner that emancipation was either required for, or granted by marriage? Ronk01  talk,  15:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, some one hacked my account. I have removed it.Momento (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly Rumiton, my understanding is that he was emancipated first, which allowed him to be married. If you read the archive, that may not be your conclusion though. Ergo, we can't take out the emancipation. Ronk01's suggestion might be workable, although I don't have a specific phrasing in mind. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Emancipation then marriage is the previous understanding, but someone raised the question that he may have got permission from a judge to get married, after which his emancipation was automatic, not applied for. In support, apparently only one source uses that expression. If we don't know for sure if he DID get granted emancipation status, we can't find out which county it was awarded in. It's a bit of a bind. Anyway, I don't care much. Rumiton (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC) But Maelefique, I think the suggestion you attribute to Ronk was actually made by Momento. There could be implications. Rumiton (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem Momento Ronk01   talk,  19:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We discussed this at some length a couple of years ago, with input from a lawyer. Old discussion is here. -- JN 466  13:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which ever came first isn't really important. What is important is that - ""In 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat married a Western woman against his mother's wishes which divided his family and the movement".
 * The archive seemed to go on forever, without reaching a conclusion. I think you have captured the essence. Rumiton (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I do however still feel that we should indicate somehow that he was emancipated for, or became emancipated by his marriage. Emancipation of a minor is a major action, and if it did happen (which if he was married without parental consent, it must have) it needs to be on his Wikipedia page. Ronk01  talk,  14:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is on his Wikipedia page, it just doesn't belong in the lead.Momento (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, you have said many times that the lead must accurately summarize the highlights and main points of the article, emancipated minor status is a pretty big highlight in my opinion. Ronk01  talk,  04:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I haven't used the word "highlights" since that word and inference does not appear in WP:LEAD. What I have said many times is that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" since that IS what WP:LEAD says. There is only one sentence (without a source) in the article that refers to Rawat being an "emancipated minor". Compared to five sentences and eight sources who refer to Rawat getting married "against his mother's wishes" and the consequences of that action. Which point do you think is the "most important point" that belongs in the lead according to Wiki's standards?Momento (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

More puerile nonsense. Momento, you're now arguing that the number of sentences (in a long fought-over, compromised patchwork of an article) are a reliable indicator of the importance of a point. There was a time when the article was loaded with irrelevant blurb, inserted by over-excited premies, about Prem Rawat's latest speaking engagements etc. If you'd pounced with your little re-arrangement plans then you'd be 'Wiki-lawyering' that these things should take priority in the Lead. It's SO obvious where you're going with all this. You want to make the Lead emphasise things YOU want to include and will argue the hind leg off a donkey to do that. And by some horribly unfortunate twist of fate, you can afford the time to inflict this inexorable enterprise of yours on everyone here again. This maybe worked in the past when you had the administrative 'authority' of Jossi to back you up and drive off people who disagreed with your POV. I watch with interest to see how far you can stretch the patience of Wikipedians this time around.PatW (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ...he simply won't answer questions if they are too hard to answer. Was what you wrote above a "question?" To me, it just seemed like a personal attack, entirely devoid of any article-improving qualities. I notice on your talk page that you have been banned and cautioned for this kind of behaviour before. If you want to improve this article, sensible caution would suggest a more moderate approach. Rumiton (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I removed most of what I wrote as it was an unnecessary afterthought to my response to Momento. PatW (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Pat, I get what you're saying, but let's just stay focused on the edits, not the editors. I think most of the motivations around here are completely understood, and personally, I'm less interested in the motivations than I am in the result. From my view, there's been far less controversial edits here in the last couple of months despite the large amount of talking, and that's a good thing. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 17:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rumiton for having the integrity to challenge PatW about his personal attacks.Momento (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, I will say this again, emancipated minor status is a huge part of Rawat's history, and it must be represented in the lead. Ronk01  talk,  19:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be a "huge" thing to you but it is clearly a very minor part in the article and that's what counts.Momento (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me for attacking this argument (lest I offend you sensitive flowers to again delete my words) but...I could equally say 'It may be a very minor part in the article to you but it's clearly a thing of major interest and that's what counts.' So is it still just the number of sentences thing or have you got a better supportive argument for your position Momento? If not, maybe you'll recognise that it's time to back down and concede that it should be left in. (PS. Maelefique, why do Americans so often fail to grasp the value of sarcasm??)PatW (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You'd have to ask one, since I'm not one, I wouldn't know. For the record, I didn't delete your text because I was offended, I deleted it because it was completely without basis for being on this page, it had nothing to do with the article, and frankly, I'm getting tired of reading your repetitive comments that have nothing to do with the edits, even if you keep finding new ways to say the same thing. Honest, we *all* get it, you don't agree with all the editors here. You think some of them have an obvious agenda to change the written record of what happened. You think they are going to push everyone around until they get things the way they want. Ok, we get it already! Enough. If you see an edit proposed you don't like, argue against it, with facts and sources, not "I remember..." or "I was there when...", because none of that is in any way useful to editing the article, despite how strongly you feel about it. and finally, to quote from the top of this page, "Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty" so think of it as an attempt to help prevent you from being banned if that helps you. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 01:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be left in the lead, many people get married, few get emancipated. It's a clear example of something that makes Prem Rawat different than an "average" person (for lack of a better word). Besides which "he was emancipated." How much more detail is needed to explain it fully (it gets 4 sentences now)? And before you answer that, keep in mind, the "biggest event in human history" (Millenium'73), gets about 5 sentences, and the Peace Bomb gets 1. If you think it's not a big deal, that's fine, but if you think it is, then surely the answer is to fix the flawed article, not to corrupt the lead. Although, as I said, how much more explaining does it need? It paints a complete picture of itself already I think, and I don't see a disconnect between the lead and the article on this. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 00:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are five good reasons why Rawat's getting married at 16 is far more important than becoming emancipated - 1) every person who gets married at 16 becomes an "emancipated minor" but not every person who becomes an "emancipated minor" at 16 gets married at 16. Therefore getting married at 16 must be less usual than becoming emancipated at 16. 2) it wasn't getting emancipated that split the family, it was getting married against his mother's wishes. 3) Rawat either became emancipated so he could marry at 16 or became emancipated as a result of getting married, either way becoming emancipated is a by product of wanting to get married against his mother's wishes. 4) there are few reports of Rawat becoming emancipated but his marriage was news around the world. And 5) the article devotes far more space and sources to his marriage and the consequences than to emancipation and that is what we should follow. The reason I am pushing that we follow Wiki protocol for the lead is because I want to avoid exactly this situation. That an editor or editors can decide to feature in the lead something that is not prominent in the article. Whether Rawat got emancipated or not is not a POV issue, I couldn't care less but I do care that if we allow the lead to reflect editor's opinions rather than the article, we're on the road to hell.Momento (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Reason 1 is faulty logic, you could get married at 16 without being emancipated if your parents allowed it. Reason 2 isn't a reason, as the lead already says ..."and married a Western woman, which divided his family and the movement". Reason 3 doesn't make sense. He did not become emancipated as a result of wanting to get married against his mother's wishes; it was because he wanted to get married and this was the only it way it was legal. Reason 4, newpaper articles are not going to be as in-depth as this article, which includes both items. Reason 5, road to hell? Easy on the hyperbole there big fella... There is more in the lead about the marriage already too. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 02:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OK Momento lets get to grips with your reasoning and logic. I understand that Emancipation is sought by minors and that being in the military or married are conditions that are generally necessary for a court to make a favourable judgement. If that was the case then it is of considerable interest and should be mentioned in the same breath as his marriage as they are both plainly connected. It's also interesting and unusual that Rawat at 16 was able to prove to a court his financial independence from his family which is also implicit in the emancipated minor status.PatW (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Surely you meant 'Therefore getting married at 16 must be MORE usual than becoming emancipated' If not where is the logic?
 * 2) It was both his marriage AND the emancipation that split the family. Emancipation inherently implies a financial independence and therefore a real split.
 * 3)I suspect that Rawat became emancipated in order to facilitate his marriage in fact I believe I've heard as much. This can be ascertained. Your statement "becoming emancipated is a by product of wanting to get married" is 1) possibly untrue in Rawat's case. How do you know how much he wanted financial independence? 2) Generally untrue since not every person who becomes an "emancipated minor" does it for marriage reasons.
 * 4)Yes there are reports of him both becoming emancipated and of him being married. So what? We all think that both being an emancipated minor AND married at 16 complete with the legal implications is interesting and unusual. Why separate the two interesting facts that are both reliably sourced? Especially as you will see they belong together.
 * 5)All this about the article saying more about the marriage than the emancipation is irrelevant BECAUSE they are both equally interesting despite the fact that one warrants more verbage. The amount of verbage is not a measure of importance. How could it ever be? In an article about the Queen is it more important to state say the date of her marriage in the lead or should that be omitted because the article goes on more about other things in depth? Really Momento this is a nonsensical tack.
 * In answer to PatW -

Let's start with one point and see if you can agree you're wrong - 1) Every body who gets married under 18 automatically becomes an "emancipated minor" by virtue of the marriage regardless of whether their parents gave permission or not. But not every "emancipated minor" gets married at 16. Therefore there must be more emancipated minors than people getting married at 16. So I am correct in saying "getting married at 16 must be less usual than becoming emancipated at 16".Momento (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Firstly, in the USA under 18's apparently do not automatically become 'emancipated minors' by virtue of marriage. Legal emancipation is an entirely separate legal agreement that is always sought and, if deemed appropriate, granted by a judge. It would seem to be correct however that not every emancipated minor' gets married at 16. Ergo your argument is not valid. Secondly- In order to conclude that there must be 'more emancipated minors than people getting married at 16' one must know at least 3 things: So again, consider this:- "Emancipations are rarely granted, because of the narrowness of the definition of "best interest". On one end of the spectrum are minors who have been victims of abuse; in most cases, the state's department of child services is notified and the child is placed in foster care. On the other end of the spectrum are minors who are seeking emancipation for superficial reasons, such as not being pleased with their parent's/guardian's rules. In those cases, the emancipation will most likely be denied." AND the fact that in the USA minors need legal emancipation to become married in the absence of parental permission AND in some states minors apparently only need parental permission to become married. So, in the abscence of statistics, it seems quite clear that to conclude that there are are more emancipated minors than people getting married at 16 is just wishful thinking on your part. So no, I don't admit I'm wrong but feel free to carry on explaining why you think I am.PatW (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) how many people become emancipated minors for reasons other than marriage
 * 2) How many people become emancipated minors in order to get married
 * 3) how many people are married at 16 without being emancipated but with parental permission.
 * PatW, I am pleased to be corrected by you. The info that marriage doesn't automatically create emancipation in all states was news to me although it is true of Colorado.Momento (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, your argument that the number of sentences determining placement in the lead is patent nonsense. Some articles on musicians give only five or six sentences regarding how an individual died, but over a paragraph regarding their CD releases. Clearly deaths are more deserving of the lead than CDs, Or would you rather that we left out the part about them dying because there weren't enough sentences regarding it? Ronk01  talk,  03:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument is known as a Strawman since I have not suggested that "the number of sentences determines placement in the lead". What I have suggested is that we are obliged by WP:LEAD to determine what material goes in the lead based on "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources". If you allow the opinion of one source, Cagan, to be displayed in the lead then what is your argument going to be if I would like to insert this opinion (in bold) from one source to be inserted into the lead - "The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma. which changed his students in a positive way, "more peaceful, loving, confident and appreciative of life".Momento (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I like that one Momento. Yes, please, let's put that in. Rumiton (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also like the term "emancipated minor", it carries a robust, democratic flavor that seems in keeping with the subject. But the thousands of words fecklessly expended in trying to understand the relationship between this and his marriage might suggest it could be best left out. Rumiton (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Hello to all. I've been reading this page with interest. The laws governing emancipated minor status vary from state to state here in the U.S. Prem Rawat would not have been able to get married at age 16 in Colorado without first obtaining his mother's legal consent, therefore, he had to file a petition with the family court in Colorado for emancipation. However, when someone is granted such status, it's not for the sole purpose of marriage. In Colorado, a minor may file a petition for emancipation at age 15, and if granted, the minor then becomes a legal adult and the emancipation severs the child's relationship with the parent as their legal guardian. That's the purpose of an emancipation. Petitions for the emancipation of minors are not rare in the U.S., but the main consideration a court takes into account is the financial independence of a minor, i.e., their ability to support themselves without their parents. Whether or not the court granted Rawat's emancipation for the sole purpose of his desire to marry Marolyn, is moot, given that soon after that he did get married. But it was, in fact, his legal emancipation that gave Prem Rawat the ability to enter into a marriage contract without his mother's consent, not the opposite. With emancipation, Rawat also gained the ability to enter into other legally binding contracts besides marriage, such as real estate and other financial transactions. So, the two issues, Rawat's emancipated status and his marriage, are intrinsically connected and both must be mentioned in the lead, regardless of the weight given the subject in the article. Moreover, it was young Guru Maharaj Ji's status as a public person (he came to the western countries specifically to publicly promote himself as the Perfect Master, purveyor of world peace, Lord of the Universe, etc.) that made his story so unique, the result of which was that the story of his emancipation, marriage, and family split received wide news coverage. That's an important part of Rawat's biography. After all, he's not well-known in the present day, but was well-known at the time of his emancipation and marriage. The subject of all three things: emancipation, marriage, and family split was huge news in 70s. There are plenty of articles that could be cited and expanded upon in the article about this subject if there's not enough about it in the article to suit Momento's sensibilities. Btw, an interesting fact that I discovered researching this matter is that, even when someone becomes a legally emancipated minor, and even if they get married, their new majority status does not give them the legal right to drink alcohol until they reach the legal drinking age in their state of residence. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You make a number of assertions there, but they seem to be contradicted by some Colorado legal aid sites I have been looking at, in which 14 and 16 year-olds frequently enquire about the possibility of independent living. The answer they all get is that there is no "statute" for emancipation in Colorado: emancipation is recognised as a fact under certain circumstance. Under title 19-2-511 of the CHILDREN’S CODE, a juvenile over fifteen years of age and under eighteen years of age who has, with the real or apparent assent of the juvenile's parents, demonstrated independence from the juvenile's parents in matters of care, custody, and earnings may be recognised as an emancipated minor. The term may include, but shall not be limited to, any such juvenile who has the sole responsibility for the juvenile's own support, who is married, or who is in the military. In other words, the court order allowing his marriage must have come first, then the recognition of his emancipated status automatically followed. Unless it was different in 1974. See here [] and here []. It seems that this issue will not go away, so we need to get it right. Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But now I find this [] apparently less official site which makes a different case. Perhaps the laws recently changed? Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This site says "Just because a child becomes emancipated there are still certain responsibilities the child must take care of themselves: Cannot get married unless he/she has parents permission". Which, combined with the info above, suggests that Rawat got permission to marry and that led to emancipation. Momento (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst I'm enjoying all the discussion into which came first, emancipation or marriage, the actual point of this discussion is - should emancipation appear in the lead when only one source, uncited, mentions it. And as I suggested above, if it is allowed what is to stop editors from proposing other minor aspects of the article for the lead?Momento (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

ConsensusPatW (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As we've seen here recently people tend to vote on POV lines. I'd rather we followed Wiki policies, guidelines and practices as strictly as possible. It would mean that "emancipation" wouldn't appear in the lead but it would also stop other single sourced items appearing in the lead such as "Downton concluded that the students had changed in a positive way, "more peaceful, loving, confident and appreciative of life".[130]Momento (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IN the meantime we should at least change the lead to reflect the article which says "Rawat became emancipated as a result of the marriage" not "emancipation" first and "marriage" second as stated in the lead.Momento (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Momento, I believe that you made several comments regarding verbage and lead priority. Second, The best option we have here would be to acquire a pimary source like court documentation. Primary ources like that are not open for contention, so that would settel the which came first battle. Second, according to WPLLEAD, which Momento so voraciously cites, major items deserve coverage. Emancipation (or minor marriage) that split his movement is VERY major. Ronk01  talk,  04:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all Ronk01 this has been a discussion about the number of sentences and sources given to Rawat's "emancipation" and to Rawat's "marriage". By weight of material and sources the "marriage" is a far bigger issue than his "emancipation" which has one uncited sentence. If you want to go and find a source for "emancipation" just do it. Secondly his "emancipation" didn't split the movement and there isn't one source to suggest it did. What split the movement was his "marriage against his mother's wishes" because she still had control of DLM in India and legally cut him out.Momento (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about editing this article
Before I spend further time arguing about things that I don't see as issues, or chasing around finding evidence to support someone else's case, I'd appreciate some clarity on the ground rules here. If people want to re-edit something (like this emancipation sentence in the Lead for example) do they actually need a consensus or vote of confidence from others to do so? If so, do they need to formally request the edit at some point? It seems to me that (in the above case) it would have been better maybe if Momento and Rumiton just discussed their proposed edits amongst themselves and only needed to draw others in when they have supportive evidence for a case that they are confident can be put to the vote. I just realised that I'm spending a lot of time possibly getting unnecessarily frustrated and even angry, getting involved in arguments that are essentially possibly not mine. This is actually because I'm worried that the edits will just go ahead behind everyone's back as it were. Is this an unnecessary worry? I notice Willbeback has not seen the need to join the discussion at all. Maybe because he sees no need and he'll just vote when Momento and Rumiton have hashed it out? PatW (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pat, it would be brilliant if you could find time to get some wider experience at editing Wikipedia. To answer your questions:
 * 1) A Wikipedia article is never finished. There will always be someone around who wants to improve something, and in general this is a good thing. If a change they make is disputed, a talkpage consensus is required, but this is not the same thing as a vote. If that were the case, anyone could stack the talkpage with their own like-minded allies. Generally issues are resolved by reference to Wikipedia principles, which admittedly are quite complex, but are based on common sense.
 * 2) For any group of editors to discuss proposed edits "among themselves" is forbidden. This is called "tag teaming" and "cabalism" and is against the independent spirit of Wikipedia. You might notice that Momento and I quite often publicly disagree on how to proceed, as we do with everyone else. This is healthy, and reflects a spirit of independent editing.
 * 3) I do think it is an "unnecessary frustration" for you to feel you have to get involved in every issue, especially if you don't think some of them are very important, but feel you have to stop "them" from winning points, which is how I read your question.
 * 4) Willbeback stated some weeks ago that he had had enough of the endless discussions and felt the article was good enough in its then current form. Since then, a surprising number of errors have been discovered in the article, mainly by Momento, and they have been corrected, which points up the need for more scrutiny. This "emancipated" thing may be another. I just am not yet sure, and the online sources seem contradictory. Rumiton (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Come on - that wasn't the gist of my question. Please don't be so patronising as to give me a kindergarten Wikipedia lecture. What I am really driving at is clarification as to the actual implications of the status of this page being 'under protection' particularly with regard to how that effects you and Momento's actual 'going ahead' with these edits without consensus. Momento and you both seem to think you can just do that and have said us much above. This is a serious matter as bragging about that comes across as a threat. Well..can you or can't you go ahead with edits without consensus? And what is your understanding of getting consensus? Whose consensus do you think you need?PatW (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any point in trying to continue this dialogue. Rumiton (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with you Rumiton. One minute PatW is complaining about all the discussion taking place about edits, the next moment he's complaining about "going ahead with these edits without consensus". One minute PatW complaining about being "patronised for being given a kindergarten Wikipedia lecture", then next moment he's asking "can you or can't you go ahead with edits without consensus".Momento (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see now that the article is 'semi-protected' as from Dec 2009. This is the thing I am trying to understand better. You could have simply told me that. PatW (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not mind readers. How can you expect anyone to come to that conclusion from reading your jumble of confused comments that it related to "semi-protected' as from Dec 2009". But one thing always remains clear in your communications and that is a need to blame someone for your problems.Momento (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not blaming anyone for my confusion and I'm not about to suffer paroxysms of guilt about my incomplete knowledge of Wikipedia. I thought this page was protected and 'under mediation' and that might have implications about 'consensus' that I've missed. You don't need to be a mind reader to have got that from my questions. Regarding your comment that I always blame others for my problems, let me clarify. If someone blames me for something I try to be accountable. If I hold someone to blame for something I expect the same standards. I don't hold with this idea that all blame can be dismissed as 'victim mentality'. I think I could be forgiven for asking you to clarify your understanding of 'consensus' since you have been rather scornful of others opinions, often don't answer questions in discussions about your proposed edits and throw the rule book at people in a dismissive manner.PatW (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't you write above "You could have simply told me that"? That means - we should have explained something to you and it was simple for us to do so but we didn't anyway. And what are we supposed to explain to you? We're supposed to read your questions about one of the fundamentals of Wiki editing (consensus) and realise that it's not actually about "consensus" but is really a hidden question to which the answer is "this page 'semi-protected' as from Dec 2009"! And just to clear up your inflammatory language. Yes, you should read the rule book. Yes, I won't respond to personal attacks. And yes, I am dismissive of arguments that aren't based on Wiki policies, guidelines and practices. Good bye PatWMomento (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I owe an apology/explanation it is possibly to Rumiton for saying I thought he was being patronising. That obviously sounded more aggressive than I intended. I did appreciate his response but just felt that he had gone to great lengths to explain things I had not asked (that I already demonstrably know) and yet had not elaborated on my particular question about consensus. That's why I duly refined my question for him and you. My original question was not aimed at you specifically. I was asking for anyone's help. Again you've kind of hijacked this and made it seem much more negative than I certainly intended. The page protection thing is quite complicated and I was wondering if there was the need for so much time-consuming discussion when that might mean there was going to be some future 'vote'. Then it could be at least on a well-presented case with evidence such as Ronk and Rumiton have suggested re the Primary Source Legal Docs. That would mean that if someone wants to make an edit it rather behoves them to do the donkey work getting firm evidence and others could not have to get involved in tortured arguments that I'm sure most will agree would be great to avoid.PatW (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would politely ask the both fo you to discontinue this thread, it has no purpose in improving this article. Ronk01  talk,  02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. Feel free to delete it. What I was asking for clarification about is going to be played out above.PatW (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about editing this article
Before I spend further time arguing about things that I don't see as issues, or chasing around finding evidence to support someone else's case, I'd appreciate some clarity on the ground rules here. If people want to re-edit something (like this emancipation sentence in the Lead for example) do they actually need a consensus or vote of confidence from others to do so? If so, do they need to formally request the edit at some point? It seems to me that (in the above case) it would have been better maybe if Momento and Rumiton just discussed their proposed edits amongst themselves and only needed to draw others in when they have supportive evidence for a case that they are confident can be put to the vote. I just realised that I'm spending a lot of time possibly getting unnecessarily frustrated and even angry, getting involved in arguments that are essentially possibly not mine. This is actually because I'm worried that the edits will just go ahead behind everyone's back as it were. Is this an unnecessary worry? I notice Willbeback has not seen the need to join the discussion at all. Maybe because he sees no need and he'll just vote when Momento and Rumiton have hashed it out? PatW (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pat, it would be brilliant if you could find time to get some wider experience at editing Wikipedia. To answer your questions:
 * 1) A Wikipedia article is never finished. There will always be someone around who wants to improve something, and in general this is a good thing. If a change they make is disputed, a talkpage consensus is required, but this is not the same thing as a vote. If that were the case, anyone could stack the talkpage with their own like-minded allies. Generally issues are resolved by reference to Wikipedia principles, which admittedly are quite complex, but are based on common sense.
 * 2) For any group of editors to discuss proposed edits "among themselves" is forbidden. This is called "tag teaming" and "cabalism" and is against the independent spirit of Wikipedia. You might notice that Momento and I quite often publicly disagree on how to proceed, as we do with everyone else. This is healthy, and reflects a spirit of independent editing.
 * 3) I do think it is an "unnecessary frustration" for you to feel you have to get involved in every issue, especially if you don't think some of them are very important, but feel you have to stop "them" from winning points, which is how I read your question.
 * 4) Willbeback stated some weeks ago that he had had enough of the endless discussions and felt the article was good enough in its then current form. Since then, a surprising number of errors have been discovered in the article, mainly by Momento, and they have been corrected, which points up the need for more scrutiny. This "emancipated" thing may be another. I just am not yet sure, and the online sources seem contradictory. Rumiton (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Come on - that wasn't the gist of my question. Please don't be so patronising as to give me a kindergarten Wikipedia lecture. What I am really driving at is clarification as to the actual implications of the status of this page being 'under protection' particularly with regard to how that effects you and Momento's actual 'going ahead' with these edits without consensus. Momento and you both seem to think you can just do that and have said us much above. This is a serious matter as bragging about that comes across as a threat. Well..can you or can't you go ahead with edits without consensus? And what is your understanding of getting consensus? Whose consensus do you think you need?PatW (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any point in trying to continue this dialogue. Rumiton (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with you Rumiton. One minute PatW is complaining about all the discussion taking place about edits, the next moment he's complaining about "going ahead with these edits without consensus". One minute PatW complaining about being "patronised for being given a kindergarten Wikipedia lecture", then next moment he's asking "can you or can't you go ahead with edits without consensus".Momento (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see now that the article is 'semi-protected' as from Dec 2009. This is the thing I am trying to understand better. You could have simply told me that. PatW (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not mind readers. How can you expect anyone to come to that conclusion from reading your jumble of confused comments that it related to "semi-protected' as from Dec 2009". But one thing always remains clear in your communications and that is a need to blame someone for your problems.Momento (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not blaming anyone for my confusion and I'm not about to suffer paroxysms of guilt about my incomplete knowledge of Wikipedia. I thought this page was protected and 'under mediation' and that might have implications about 'consensus' that I've missed. You don't need to be a mind reader to have got that from my questions. Regarding your comment that I always blame others for my problems, let me clarify. If someone blames me for something I try to be accountable. If I hold someone to blame for something I expect the same standards. I don't hold with this idea that all blame can be dismissed as 'victim mentality'. I think I could be forgiven for asking you to clarify your understanding of 'consensus' since you have been rather scornful of others opinions, often don't answer questions in discussions about your proposed edits and throw the rule book at people in a dismissive manner.PatW (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't you write above "You could have simply told me that"? That means - we should have explained something to you and it was simple for us to do so but we didn't anyway. And what are we supposed to explain to you? We're supposed to read your questions about one of the fundamentals of Wiki editing (consensus) and realise that it's not actually about "consensus" but is really a hidden question to which the answer is "this page 'semi-protected' as from Dec 2009"! And just to clear up your inflammatory language. Yes, you should read the rule book. Yes, I won't respond to personal attacks. And yes, I am dismissive of arguments that aren't based on Wiki policies, guidelines and practices. Good bye PatWMomento (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I owe an apology/explanation it is possibly to Rumiton for saying I thought he was being patronising. That obviously sounded more aggressive than I intended. I did appreciate his response but just felt that he had gone to great lengths to explain things I had not asked (that I already demonstrably know) and yet had not elaborated on my particular question about consensus. That's why I duly refined my question for him and you. My original question was not aimed at you specifically. I was asking for anyone's help. Again you've kind of hijacked this and made it seem much more negative than I certainly intended. The page protection thing is quite complicated and I was wondering if there was the need for so much time-consuming discussion when that might mean there was going to be some future 'vote'. Then it could be at least on a well-presented case with evidence such as Ronk and Rumiton have suggested re the Primary Source Legal Docs. That would mean that if someone wants to make an edit it rather behoves them to do the donkey work getting firm evidence and others could not have to get involved in tortured arguments that I'm sure most will agree would be great to avoid.PatW (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would politely ask the both fo you to discontinue this thread, it has no purpose in improving this article. Ronk01  talk,  02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. Feel free to delete it. What I was asking for clarification about is going to be played out above.PatW (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Emancipated Minor (II)
I have started a continuation of the previous thread because the origional was simply too long an cumbersome to navigate all of the way to the bottom of the 1,000+ word thread. Ronk01  talk,  04:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Above Momento still insists IN the meantime we should at least change the lead to reflect the article which says "Rawat became emancipated as a result of the marriage" not "emancipation" first and "marriage" second as stated in the lead. I thought we had established that Rawat sought legal emancipation before and specifically so as he could get married. This is stated black on white to be the case in the Cagan book (which I gather we use selectively on matters that are non POV) and would also seem to be obvious since his mother was against the marriage so he'd have needed the legal emancipation first. (Read Sylviecyn's post above for further clarity on this). Momento, what evidence is there a) that legal emancipation is an automatic result of marriage where parents consent is absent? b) that Rawat did not seek legal emancipation before his marriage? c) Do you still claim that Rawat just became emancipated as a result of the marriage?PatW (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read my post above? Colorado legal aid sites advising young teenagers that there is no such thing as getting granted emancipation status, that they have to join the military or get themselves married to get legally considered emancipated. We don't follow any source if it can be clearly shown they have made a mistake, and this isn't a POV issue, as far as I can see. It's just a matter of not making a mistake. Rumiton (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I read it before you actually. But the point is that a 16 year old cannot get married without parental consent unless they have a court order/legal emancipation to do so. Most people are obviously satisfied that the Cagan report is correct on this. If you think the article's wrong prove it by all means. But please - satisfy yourself first by finding these records before you draw other people into an argument they don't feel needs to be had. PatW (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One issue is that the lead says "In 1974, at age sixteen, he was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman, which divided his family and the movement". Whereas the article says "As a result of his marriage he became an emancipated minor". Which is right? It seems to me that only Cagan claims he was emancipated and then married. All the legal stuff suggests he got a court order to marry and became emancipated as a result of the marriage. The second issue is that it was his marriage that freaked his mother out and caused her to proclaim Satpal as guru and head of Indian DLM not being emancipated. My view is that it is more important to say in the lead that "he got married against his mothers wishes and that precipitated the split" than to say "he got emancipated and then married" or "married then emancipated". Naturally I'm happy to edit this article without all this discussion. So far I have proposed three simple and correct edits (removing Aldridge, adding charisma and changing the wedding date) but it takes a long time for some people to recognise that the edits should be made according to Wiki policies and guidelines.Momento (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to sat that if anyone can produce a reliable primary source that proves the marriage came before emancipation, I would be willing to accept removal of emancipation from the lead. Secondly, Momento, consensus supported keeping Aldridge, he is a reliable source. Finally, as I understand Colorado law at the time, he would have required either emanicpation (which I believe was avalible at the time) or a court order, both of which are rather unique and as such, should be included in the lead. By the way, Will is on a Wikibreak, I think he will be back (he he) here soon. Ronk01  talk,  14:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you clearly don't understand a fundamental principle of BLPs and that is "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material". If you can't point us to the place in the article where we are given a source for the claim Rawat was "emancipated", I will take it out of the "lead" to demonstrate how this works.Secondly since I was obviously talking about the lead, "removing Aldridge" is perfectly correct. And finally, it doesn't matter whether something is "rather unique" or a fully fledged miracle witnessed by a million people, if it isn't sourced it doesn't belong in the lead.Momento (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, you have become openly aggressive, and quite frankly, rather rude. There are sources to prove emancipation, along with the legal prequisute of emancipation before marriage without parental consent (court order would not have been good enough in this case apparently) There are court documents, irrefutable evidence of emanicpation, that can be accessed by someone with a bit ofr time on their hands. That kind of sourcing clearly puts you in the wrong here Momento. Ronk01  talk,  01:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove "emancipation" from the lead and you can put it back when you provide the sources you say exist because they don't exist in the article.Momento (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, you do not have consensus to do that. Ronk01  talk,  02:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * According to - "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline (such as BLP) does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right". And that certainly applies to "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material". I have asked you repeatedly to provide a source for the "emancipation" claim and you have not. I have discussed this "emancipation" issue ad finitum to try and get you and other editors to agree it should be removed but no one seems to understand WP:BLP and no one has provided a source to justify its existence in the lead. So I'm taking it out. You can put it back when you find an unambiguous source that establishes beyond doubt that Rawat was "emancipated".Momento (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm against anyone making any changes to the lead and if Momento does this without consensus, he'd most likely be violating the ARBCOM probation rules for the Rawat article. I still don't see the sense in anyone trying to parse whether it was the emancipation that came before marriage or vice versa.  Clearly Rawat had to be emancipated before he could legally marry anyone in Colorado in 1974 without parental permission.  It's simply not an important issue -- it's more like "make work" -- and I don't think it matters much what the sequence of events was so any further discussion seems like splitting hairs.  Besides, it's not a contentious issue so I don't understand why so much time has been wasted discussing it because there's nothing to prove or disprove.  Btw, I checked, and the court records are not available online from the Colorado Judicial website, they're only available through links that charge a fee (or if someone goes directly to the court, which would also charge a fee for copies).  It's also possible that the emancipation matter was handled in a Family Court so the transcript might be sealed because Rawat was a juvenile at the time (it's often the case with juvvie matters).    Sylviecyn (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sylviecyn, you bring up a good point, the documents may not be avalible, though since that was an emancipation hearing, it may not have been in family court. Interesting, I will have to see if the documentation is avalible at all. In the meantime, no changes should be made. Ronk01  talk,  02:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, I have reverted because the information is sourced (last time I checked, the source was pretty unambiguous to me). BLP violations only occur when there is no sourcing (or extremely POV sourcing) to substantiate the claim. Ronk01  talk,  03:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please show us the material and source that supports "emancipation" because I can't find any reference to "emancipation" in Hunt or Miller.Momento (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cagan and The Greeley Tribune both mention emancipation. Ronk01  talk,  22:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Greely Tribune is cited in the article but doesn't mention "emancipation". It is cited in support of "In May 1974, a judge gave Rawat his consent to marry without parental permission", which contradicts your edit. And Cagan isn't cited in the article in relation to "emancipation" and the only mention of "emancipation" in the article contradicts Cagan. So where are the sources cited in the article to support your edit "In 1974, at age sixteen, he was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman"? Momento (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can Momento or Rumiton tell me if this page is really Prem Rawat's, or if someone else just set it up as some kind of homage? While it has very little in the way of "authority", and all they do is quote us, I do note that it includes the blurb about emancipation, and if this is really his page, I would think he would know... -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be Rawat's page with the title "Guru Maharaj JI" and it's unlikely to be a premie.Momento (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to review Cagan again Momento. Ronk01  talk,  15:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cagan is not cited as the source for your edit. And the Greely Tribune isn't a source. So that means it is unsourced and I have removed it again.Momento (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Cagan book is not a reliable source for this BLP. The book is full of errors, the publisher has no reputation for fact checking, and Cagan has a poor reputation even as a celebrity biographer. This has been discussed very extensively in the past. There are plenty of other sources with much higher reliability. If we can't find material in reliable sources then it should be left out.    Will Beback    talk    23:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that is true, it needs to be removed from the article as well until someone gets their hands on court documentation or a more reliable source. Ronk01  talk,  00:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the sources I have at hand and none of them seem to mention the emancipation explicitly. Many discuss the peripheral issues of the family split, and of the subject taking control of the US or Western arm of the movement, but not that one detail.   Will Beback    talk    01:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Then emancipation needs to be removed from the article. Ronk01  talk,  05:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Court records and such
These would be interesting from an editor's point of view (not in the WP sense) as they might clarify for us the sequence of events, but as primary documents they would not be acceptable for inclusion. We would need reputable secondary sources to explain to us their significance. These seem to be in short supply. Rumiton (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Might I point out that these primary sources are only needed by you and Momento to prove your case. Everyone else is happy with with the wording. PatW (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton, yuor stance here would seem to contradict WP policy, reliable primary sources (like governmnt documents) are more than acceptable in articles. Ronk01  talk,  14:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.Momento (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, you are back to sources needingt sources, this is simply not true! Government documentation is without question a reliable source that does not need backing. Unless you are saying that editors writing about a law need to have secondary sources to support the content of the law as stated in the law itself. Ronk01  talk,  14:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You should spend more time reading Wiki policies and guidelines and less time asserting your opinion.Momento (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, I should note that as an individual who had never heard of Prem Rawat before I picked up the Aldridge Mediation case, I have not formed any opinion of Guru Maharaji. However, after carefull research during the Mediation, I have come to the conclusion that this article is seriously flawed in that certian sections seem almost like they were scrubed clean (I notice that unlike many prominent public figures, Rawat has no "Criticisim/Controversy" section, rather suspicious if you ask me). I should also inform you that I have in fact throughly read relevant Wikipedia Policies in the course of my six mediations. Ronk01  talk,  02:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of this? There is a strong consensus that separate criticism sections become "POV magnets" and violate BLP neutrality, as well as being poor writing. The body of the text should cover the negatives as well as the positives, providing they are all properly sourced. Rumiton (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that the paragraph I posted above that you say "is simply not true" is a verbatim extract from WP:PRIMARY?Momento (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Because that regards interpretation of primary sources, not extraction of raw facts, which is allowable. Ronk01  talk,  02:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

At one point there was an entire article dedicated to the criticism of Rawat, I think it's safe to assume that there's a lot of available material if we want to weave criticism of Rawat into the general narrative, instead of just leaving it out like it is now. Interestingly, a search for "Criticism of Prem Rawat" now brings you directly to the Prem Rawat article, which is in no way a critical article. That doesn't seem right. (Oh ya, and emancipation is a big deal, and should stay in the lead) :) -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 16:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Maelefique here, there is simply to little criticisim of Rawat here for this article to be legitimate, look at any other major BLP, they all have some for of criticisim. Here, we only have intelectual content, and opulent lifestyle, since there was an entire pae devotred to criticisim, the material is out there, it simply needs to be used. However, this article has been expertly scrubbed clean of any criticisim wsith teeth, (like what can be found in many legitimate media sources and academic journals)Though sometimes I wonder if Momento is another sock of Jossi, what with the fact that he has not worked on another article in over two years. Ronk01  talk,  17:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ronko01, your attitude is disintegrating fast, and you are losing any respect you may have brought with you as a mediator. If you have allegations to make against Momento or anyone else, make them through proper Wikipedia channels. Your insinuations are unworthy and I suggest you apologise for them. Rumiton (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I have become rather disgruntled by Momento's rather stubborn positions, he refuses to compromise when the sources are shown to him. Like on the Aldridge matter I mediated, he refused to accept anything but the absolute and total erasure of the material from the entire article, even arguin after near-total consensus had been formed. I had a scrub nrse like that once, and I rather promptly fired her. Ronk01  talk,  14:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about editing this article
Before I spend further time arguing about things that I don't see as issues, or chasing around finding evidence to support someone else's case, I'd appreciate some clarity on the ground rules here. If people want to re-edit something (like this emancipation sentence in the Lead for example) do they actually need a consensus or vote of confidence from others to do so? If so, do they need to formally request the edit at some point? It seems to me that (in the above case) it would have been better maybe if Momento and Rumiton just discussed their proposed edits amongst themselves and only needed to draw others in when they have supportive evidence for a case that they are confident can be put to the vote. I just realised that I'm spending a lot of time possibly getting unnecessarily frustrated and even angry, getting involved in arguments that are essentially possibly not mine. This is actually because I'm worried that the edits will just go ahead behind everyone's back as it were. Is this an unnecessary worry? I notice Willbeback has not seen the need to join the discussion at all. Maybe because he sees no need and he'll just vote when Momento and Rumiton have hashed it out? PatW (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pat, it would be brilliant if you could find time to get some wider experience at editing Wikipedia. To answer your questions:
 * 1) A Wikipedia article is never finished. There will always be someone around who wants to improve something, and in general this is a good thing. If a change they make is disputed, a talkpage consensus is required, but this is not the same thing as a vote. If that were the case, anyone could stack the talkpage with their own like-minded allies. Generally issues are resolved by reference to Wikipedia principles, which admittedly are quite complex, but are based on common sense.
 * 2) For any group of editors to discuss proposed edits "among themselves" is forbidden. This is called "tag teaming" and "cabalism" and is against the independent spirit of Wikipedia. You might notice that Momento and I quite often publicly disagree on how to proceed, as we do with everyone else. This is healthy, and reflects a spirit of independent editing.
 * 3) I do think it is an "unnecessary frustration" for you to feel you have to get involved in every issue, especially if you don't think some of them are very important, but feel you have to stop "them" from winning points, which is how I read your question.
 * 4) Willbeback stated some weeks ago that he had had enough of the endless discussions and felt the article was good enough in its then current form. Since then, a surprising number of errors have been discovered in the article, mainly by Momento, and they have been corrected, which points up the need for more scrutiny. This "emancipated" thing may be another. I just am not yet sure, and the online sources seem contradictory. Rumiton (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Come on - that wasn't the gist of my question. Please don't be so patronising as to give me a kindergarten Wikipedia lecture. What I am really driving at is clarification as to the actual implications of the status of this page being 'under protection' particularly with regard to how that effects you and Momento's actual 'going ahead' with these edits without consensus. Momento and you both seem to think you can just do that and have said us much above. This is a serious matter as bragging about that comes across as a threat. Well..can you or can't you go ahead with edits without consensus? And what is your understanding of getting consensus? Whose consensus do you think you need?PatW (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any point in trying to continue this dialogue. Rumiton (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with you Rumiton. One minute PatW is complaining about all the discussion taking place about edits, the next moment he's complaining about "going ahead with these edits without consensus". One minute PatW complaining about being "patronised for being given a kindergarten Wikipedia lecture", then next moment he's asking "can you or can't you go ahead with edits without consensus".Momento (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see now that the article is 'semi-protected' as from Dec 2009. This is the thing I am trying to understand better. You could have simply told me that. PatW (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not mind readers. How can you expect anyone to come to that conclusion from reading your jumble of confused comments that it related to "semi-protected' as from Dec 2009". But one thing always remains clear in your communications and that is a need to blame someone for your problems.Momento (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not blaming anyone for my confusion and I'm not about to suffer paroxysms of guilt about my incomplete knowledge of Wikipedia. I thought this page was protected and 'under mediation' and that might have implications about 'consensus' that I've missed. You don't need to be a mind reader to have got that from my questions. Regarding your comment that I always blame others for my problems, let me clarify. If someone blames me for something I try to be accountable. If I hold someone to blame for something I expect the same standards. I don't hold with this idea that all blame can be dismissed as 'victim mentality'. I think I could be forgiven for asking you to clarify your understanding of 'consensus' since you have been rather scornful of others opinions, often don't answer questions in discussions about your proposed edits and throw the rule book at people in a dismissive manner.PatW (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't you write above "You could have simply told me that"? That means - we should have explained something to you and it was simple for us to do so but we didn't anyway. And what are we supposed to explain to you? We're supposed to read your questions about one of the fundamentals of Wiki editing (consensus) and realise that it's not actually about "consensus" but is really a hidden question to which the answer is "this page 'semi-protected' as from Dec 2009"! And just to clear up your inflammatory language. Yes, you should read the rule book. Yes, I won't respond to personal attacks. And yes, I am dismissive of arguments that aren't based on Wiki policies, guidelines and practices. Good bye PatWMomento (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I owe an apology/explanation it is possibly to Rumiton for saying I thought he was being patronising. That obviously sounded more aggressive than I intended. I did appreciate his response but just felt that he had gone to great lengths to explain things I had not asked (that I already demonstrably know) and yet had not elaborated on my particular question about consensus. That's why I duly refined my question for him and you. My original question was not aimed at you specifically. I was asking for anyone's help. Again you've kind of hijacked this and made it seem much more negative than I certainly intended. The page protection thing is quite complicated and I was wondering if there was the need for so much time-consuming discussion when that might mean there was going to be some future 'vote'. Then it could be at least on a well-presented case with evidence such as Ronk and Rumiton have suggested re the Primary Source Legal Docs. That would mean that if someone wants to make an edit it rather behoves them to do the donkey work getting firm evidence and others could not have to get involved in tortured arguments that I'm sure most will agree would be great to avoid.PatW (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would politely ask the both fo you to discontinue this thread, it has no purpose in improving this article. Ronk01  talk,  02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. Feel free to delete it. What I was asking for clarification about is going to be played out above.PatW (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Elan Vital
Based on their homepage at http://www.elanvital.org, it looks like EV will be closing their doors this year, and they encourage new donations to be "shifted to WOPI" (Words of Peace International), complete with a link to their donations page. What's the opinion that we need to add this info to either here or, probably more appropriately, to the DLM article? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot can happen, and I understand things are still being worked out. I would wait until there is a concrete move. Rumiton (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since that is a major potential change, the fact that it cold happen should be mentioned on the DLM article. Ronk01   talk,  14:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Rumiton) It isn't that major at all. All the current functions will still be carried out, the people doing them will just be organised into different offices. 220.239.66.35 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But shouldn't it still be mentioned (even if we do it after the change takes place)? Ronk01  talk,  18:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. I'm just suggesting we wait until the roles get clearer. Rumiton (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well since Rawat's income is soley from donations, it might belong on this article. Ronk01  talk,  15:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem?
I was just going over the lead, and I noticed that it states that after his marriage Rawat took a more active role in the Indian DLM, wouldn't this contridict "divided his family and movement" and the sources (Miller I believe) that state that his mother cut him out of the Indian DLM and delcared his brother Satpal Guru? Ronk01  talk,  00:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost. The lead says "Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance> But the lead should probably say something like - "In 1974, at age sixteen, he defied his mother and married a Westerner which divided his family. His mother denounced him and kept control of DLM India whilst Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM and took a more active role in its guidance. . "Momento (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead should be short. What's inaccurate in the current text?   Will Beback    talk    03:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead is actually 54 words shorter than it was before I started correcting it in May. So even adding a few words of clarification will still keep it more than 40 words shorter than the previously acceptable length. As for accuracy, the current sentences say that "the marriage divided the movement", it did not. His mother divided the movement by replacing Rawat as leader in India. So my proposal makes the lead shorter and more accurate than the previously acceptable version i.e. "In 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat defied his mother and took legal action in order to marry a Westerner. The marriage divided his family and his mother denounced him and appointed his brother as head of DLM India; Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM and took a more active role in its guidance.  Momento (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's one interpretation. Which sources are you suggesting to support that view? I don't see anything about it in Hunt, and I don't have Miller at hand. Please quote the source you're looking at.   Will Beback    talk    04:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. Forgot to put in Greeley Tribune for "legal action" in the first sentence. Geaves in Partidge for the "defying mum" But the Hunt and Miller sources don't fit, the lead really was a mess. Sources for the second sentence are Melton Gale Downton Rushton Leader and LA Times . Obviously we shouldn't put all these cites in.Momento (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time I have agreed with Momento, but I agree with his proposed sentece, it is accurate, concise, and well sourced. Ronk01  talk,  05:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First time? What about "emancipation"? And "1974". And Aldridge out of the lead? And removing the meaningless "eighty countries etc". And "charismatic leadership"? That's five good edits that I hope you agree with?Momento (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ronk01 - are you saying that you now have access to all of the sources being used in this article? If not, then I'm not sure I understand how you're making your decisions on summarizing them.   Will Beback    talk    10:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not, as you said, I am basing my decisions on summaries. Out of curiosity, does anyone have all of the sources? Because if there is a source supporting emanciption, I would like it back in the article once it is found. Ronk01   talk,  15:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Emancipation is something that I have to agree based upon policy (I still have reason to believe that he was emancipated) As the mediator in that case, I cannot comment on my opinion, eighty countries I forgot about, but I did agree there, charismatic leadership was good, and I agree that it represents a major portion of article content, and was needed, but I still personally believe that you were using it as cover to remove intelectual content (I'm a bit paranoid after the war over the title of the Epinephrine article (not an edit war though, thank god I got it to mediation in time before one did start)) Ronk01   talk,  05:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have followed that controversy after looking into a medical problem I have had. Ronk, I have to say...I think the article should be named Adrenaline. I'm sorry. I was hoping for some common ground. Rumiton (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rest easy doc, I'm simply going through this ramshackle lead and repairing as I go. You might want to check the sources for "lack of intellectual content" because I have a funny feeling that it isn't supported by any reliable source. And who knows what we'll find when we get to "opulent lifestyle"?Momento (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If Geaves is the only source for this then that's problematic since he's a biased source and should only be used with attribution. This seems like a minor issue that doesn't need to be in the lead.   Will Beback    talk    06:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Derks and van der Lans also say it. I guess that means all the Christian writers must be biased too.Momento (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Snide or sarcastic comments aren't helpful. Please follow the golden rule and treat other editors the way you'd like to be treated.   Will Beback    talk    10:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, you are certainly correct but your argument would be so much more persuasive if you applied it equally to guys you might agree with, like Ombudswiki. A little even-handedness would mean so much. Rumiton (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being sarcastic, I'm serious. Either the principal applies to all sources who have a an opinion or they don't. I'd suggest the more defensible position is that all sources are biased by their beliefs rather than only followers of Rawat are subject to bias.Momento (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Derks and van der Lans say this about the mother, the marriage, and the schism:
 *  However, in 1975 there was a schism within the movement. Guru Maharaj Ji's mother did not approve of his marriage to his American secretary and dismissed him as the movement's leader. The American and European adherents did not accept his dismissal and remained faithful to him. The movement split up into an Eastern and Western branch. 
 * They don't use the word "defy", which implies that the mother had foreknowledge of the marriage and disapproved of it before it occurred. Do we have a source that uses "defy"?    Will Beback    talk    10:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the article talks about the "lack of respect for her wishes". As in If his mother told him "I want you to marry an Indian and he married an American", he defied her before she even knew it. Why don't we say "In 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission". Which is closer to the source and shorter. Momento (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That would work, we just have to remember to make it clear that he lost control over the Indian DLM. Ronk01  talk,  15:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm splitting this thread because it's been going on for a while and seems to have wondered around a bit.   Will Beback    talk    20:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem 2
Existing text: Proposed text: So the proposed change is basically to add "defied" to the first sentence and "denounced" to the second sentence. Let's look at the relevant passages in the article: We don't use the word "defied", nor does it say anything about defying a specific wish. We don't use the word "denounced" either, though we do say that she explained her decision to remove him as head of the DLM. If we want to improve the intro then I don't think adding "defied" makes it closer to the text. OTOH, we can add a better description of how she denounced him, if we want to spend more space on this. Placing the "more active role" after the marriage is inconsistent with the chronology in the article, which says he did so when he turned 16, in 1973, prior to the marriage.  Will Beback   talk    20:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In 1974, at age sixteen, he married a Westerner which divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance. 
 * In 1974, at age sixteen, he defied his mother and married a Westerner which divided his family. His mother denounced him and kept control of DLM India whilst Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM and took a more active role in its guidance. . 
 * Because of Prem Rawat's youth, his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal, managed the affairs of the worldwide DLM. When Rawat reached sixteen years of age he wanted to take a more active part in guiding the movement. According to the sociologist James V. Downton, this meant he "had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable". In December 1973, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's US branch, and his mother and Satpal returned to India. 
 * In May 1974, a judge gave Rawat his consent to marry without parental permission. His marriage to Marolyn Johnson, a 24-year old follower from San Diego, California, was celebrated at a non-denominational church in Golden, Colorado. Rawat's mother, Mata Ji, had not been invited. As a result of his marriage he became an emancipated minor. Rawat's marriage to a non-Indian finally severed his relationship with his mother. She retained control of the Indian DLM and appointed her eldest son, Satpal, as its leader. Mata Ji said she was removing Rawat as Perfect Master because of his "unspiritual" lifestyle and lack of respect for her wishes.  Rawat retained the support of the Western disciples. Most of the mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed. 
 * Actually WB the sentence I proposed doesn't contain "defied", it is -"In 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission".[36] Which is closer to the source and shorter.Momento (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the old thread got a bit tangled which is why I started this to make it clearer. Could you please post here your current proposal in its entirety, with the actual citations?   Will Beback    talk    00:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the first sentence the proposal is "In 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission". Which is closer to the source and shorter than the existing sentence and a summary of the article's - "In May 1974, a judge gave Rawat his consent to marry without parental permission.[70] His marriage to Marolyn Johnson, a 24-year old follower from San Diego, California, was celebrated at a non-denominational church in Golden, Colorado.[71] Rawat's mother, Mata Ji, had not been invited.[72] As a result of his marriage he became an emancipated minor. Momento (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)".
 * Fot the second sentence the proposal is - "His mother denounced him and kept control of DLM India whilst Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM and took a more active role in its guidance". Which is a summary of the article's - "Rawat's marriage to a non-Indian finally severed his relationship with his mother. She retained control of the Indian DLM and appointed her eldest son, Satpal, as its leader. Mata Ji said she was removing Rawat as Perfect Master because of his "unspiritual" lifestyle and lack of respect for her wishes.  Rawat retained the support of the Western disciples."Momento (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Momento, could you please edit your proposal so that it includes the actual citations? "72" doesn't mean anything to me, and I don't want to waste time trying to figure it out. Thanks.   Will Beback    talk    02:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, I'm not going to waste my time cutting and pasting citations when it is so easy for you to go to the article and follow the cites from there. That's what I did when you posted the "relevant passages" without the "actual citations".Momento (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know where the "and took a more active role in its guidance" in the existing lead comes from. It can probably be removed.Momento (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed while reading the article, the body of the article still reffrences emancipation Ronk01   talk,  02:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove it. I don't want people writing in that "Momento is making partisan edits".Momento (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So the proposal is actually:
 * "In 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission". His mother denounced him and kept control of DLM India whilst Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM and took a more active role in its guidance.

I don't see the big difference, but I'm fine with the first sentence as proposed and it is marginally more accurate. I don't see the need for the change in the second sentence, but arguing with Momento is tiresome so if he's going to insist on this additional change then fine, go for it. Are we going to spend all summer (or year) re-writing this article line by line?  Will Beback   talk    08:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're doing all year but I'm going to keep removing errors from the lead. I've done a bit more research, Mata Ji "renounced" Rawat in April '75. So the proposal now is - "In May 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry Marolyn Johnson without his mother's permission. His mother later renounced him and appointed his eldest brother as head of DLM India but Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM". I've added a few words (still shorter than the April version) so it reads a bit better with more info.Momento (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the error in the current material?   Will Beback    talk    21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PLease read what I wrote, it's all there.Momento (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's incorrect to describe the current material as erroneous. The only error I've seen corrected is the the 1973 date for the marriage/emancipation.   Will Beback    talk    22:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Errors in fact, errors in chronology, errors against policies and guidelines, errors in citing, errors in undue weight. They're all errors and I'm going to fix them because it will make for a better article.Momento (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ronk01, I thing this is the smoking gun. From PRESS-TELEGRAM (PM) Long Beach, Calif., Wed., May 22, 1974 "Maharaj Ji needed a court order from Juvenile Court Judge Morris Cole to obtain a marriage license because Colorado law requires men to be 18 to be married without parental permission".Momento (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Does the source actually say "renounced"? It would be an unusual usage. Rumiton (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. These are largely newspaper reports. There may be a better word.Momento (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Checking newspapers and scholars there are 2 x "removed" him, 5 x "renounced" him and 3 x "disowned" him. One of the "renounced" is coupled with "responsibility for". I suggest we go with "disowned" because it is easier to understand than "renounced" which I think is mentioned several times as a result of sloppy copying by newspapers.Momento (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Momento, That selection could indicate that Rawat got a court order, and that he was emancipated by the marriage, and since it's a secondary, we could use it in teh future.
 * I don't think there's anything in that quote to suggest "emancipation", on the contrary it confirms that the court order was to get "permission to get married without parental permission" not to become "emancipated".Momento (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As I understand, under the law, if he wanted to run the Western DLM on his own, he would have had to have been independent of his mother, which would require emancipation, but that is'nt sourced yet, so it stays out. Ronk01  talk,  15:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ronk01, you are probably correct about the law, but not about the DLM's management structure. IIRC, Rawat never had any official position in the DLM. Their articles of incorporation list him as their spiritual inspiration, but he wasn't the chairman or president or anything like that. Nonetheless, he did not need an official or legal role to be the actual head of the mission. Many sources say that he began to exert control shortly after the failure of Millennium '73 festival, when he turned 16, before he got married. So the emancipation itself did not change anything.   Will Beback    talk    21:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Everyone else, while I oppose a line by line revision of the article, some of the sources should probably be reviewed for BLP compliance Ronk01   talk,  23:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources have been vetted extensively in ythe past, but something may have been overlooked or some policy change may have altered the terrain. If there are specific sources of concern I suggest we start a fresh thread about them.   Will Beback    talk    23:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless there are any objections I propose replacing "In 1974, at age sixteen, he married a Westerner, which divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance." with "In May 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry Marolyn Johnson without his mother's permission. His marriage and growing independence prompted his mother to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of DLM India but Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM". I've added the bit about "growing independence" to clarify that it wasn't just the marriage as noted by Downton in the article - "According to the sociologist James V. Downton, this meant he "had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable".[21][61] In December 1973, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's US branch, and his mother and Satpal returned to India.[7].Momento (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I object. First, that isn't the text we've been discussing, so it's perpetory to talk about adding it without further discussion. Second, why do we need to mention the wife's name in the lead? Aside from the marriage, she's not an important figure in this biography. The sources that mention her tend top focus on the fact that she was non-Indian, much older, and his secretary. Third, the second sentence is a run-on. It 'd be better split into two: "His marriage and growing independence prompted his mother to disown him. She appointed his eldest brother as head of DLM in India but Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM".    Will Beback    talk    23:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is exactly the text "we've been discussing" except for changing "renounce" to "disowned" which I mentioned previously and adding "growing independence" which I also explained in the proposal. Secondly didn't I say "Unless there are any objections" and wasn't my statement "I propose"? I don't think I could be any clearer that this was a "proposal". So your suggestion that it is "perpetory to talk about adding it without further discussion" is completely in your imagination. As you know Will I have had many problems with you distorting what I say and you admit to doing it. Your last excuse in April, "I probably did distort your position because I don't understand it",  isn't good enough. Please take this as your final warning.Momento (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the edit. Rawat didn't seek a judgement to marry a "non-Indian, much older, and his secretary", he asked for a court oder to marry "Marolyn Johnson". But I'm happy to leave "Marolyn Johnson" out of it. And happy to divide the second sentence as you propose.Momento (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree to removing the characterization of the spouse as a Westerner, which is by all accounts the source of the feud. We can include her name, but we should also include the fact that she was a westerner. Note the title of the source- "Guru, 16, marries secretary".   Will Beback    talk    00:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As a general policy, I think the less use of names of living people in controversial situations in Wikipedia articles, the better. Rumiton (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead is written from Rawat's perspective and "Rawat took legal action in order to marry Marolyn Johnson without his mother's permission". It can't say "In May 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry a westerner without his mother's permission" because you don't need a special legal judgement to marry a "westerner". You can have "In May 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission". And it wasn't that Johnson was a westerner, it is that she was non-Indian. His mother would have had the same reaction, or worse, if Rawat has married an Oriental.Momento (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The major addition to "Marolyn Johnson" in the reports of the marriage is that she was "24".Momento (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This article should not be written from Prem Rawat's perspective. If editors think that is the correct approach then it might explain some of the problems here. If there are sources for Mata Ji's views on marrying Orientals please provide them; otherwise this seems to be speculation.   Will Beback    talk    22:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead and indeed the whole article is about Rawat. And Rawat didn't seek a judge's permission to marry "a westerner", he sought permission to marry "without his mother's permission". Inserting "westerner" into that sentence is WP:SYN.Momento (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that a number of sources refer to her as something like "his 24-year-old American secretary". If WP:SYN is a concern, then that would be a non-syn description.   Will Beback    talk    23:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is sufficient to say "24 year old Marolyn Johnson".Momento (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to include her name in the intro? We don't include the names of his mother or brother.   Will Beback    talk    00:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have already said, I'm happy to leave "Marolyn Johnson" out of it. As in ""In May 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission". In which case the second sentence can be "His marriage to a westerner and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of DLM India but Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM"Momento (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you say that "western" is a violation of WP:SYN then why are you now proposing to use it?   Will Beback    talk    08:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please carefully read what WP:SYN says and then carefully read what I wrote about "westerner" and you'll be able to answer that question yourself.Momento (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got about 30 sources for "secretary". I haven't counted the sources for "American", but I expect there are a dozen or two. What sources would we use for "Westerner" to avoid the WP:SYN problem? do we have more than a dozen? If not, maybe we should go with "secretary" instead.  Will Beback    talk    11:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Secretary" doesn't come into it. It's either "In May 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry Marolyn Johnson without his mother's permission". Or we leave out "Marolyn Johnson". The second and third sentences remain as you suggested with the addition of "westerner" -  "His marriage to a westerner and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him. She appointed his eldest brother as head of DLM in India but Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM". There are numerous sources for the second sentence about the marriage "to a westerner" being cause for the split ie.  Geaves, Melton, Derks and Lans, newspapers. Momento (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you quote the sources you're thinking of for "westerner"? I'm having trouble finding them. As for the age issue and the "secretary" description, those are mentioned in a large number of sources, so I'm not sure why you're discounting them.   Will Beback    talk    22:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that if you want to put "westerner" in the lead the appropriate place is in the second sentence rather than the first because the first sentence deals only with getting the marriage licence which is unrelated to her being a "westerner". The sources for the second sentence that relate to "the marriage" being the cause for the split give a couple of reasons why the "marriage" caused the split. Derks and Lans "However, in 1975 there was a schism within the movement. Guru Maharaj Ji's mother did not approve of his marriage to his American secretary and dismissed him as the movement's leader". Geaves in Partridge "This conflict resulted in a split between Maharaji and his family, ostensibly caused by his mother's inability to accept Maharaji's marriage to an American follower rather than the planned traditional arranged marriage". People "His mother was further offended last year when he married his American secretary, Marolyn Johnson, eight years his senior". Rushton daily "Sources close to Rajeshwari Devi said she was upset because of his marriage last year to his secretary. The guru and his wife have a daughter". TIME "What made the Revered Mother turn against the young guru... Then last year the guru wed his secretary, Marolyn Johnson, a non-Hindu former airline stewardess, and declared her to be the incarnation of the ten-armed, tiger-riding goddess Durga. Traditionally, a Hindu mother-in-law expects obeisance from her son's wife". Cagan talks about "Mata Ji would not condone his marriage at sixteen (or any other age considering the American wife he had chosen).Momento (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest this text:
 * In 1974, at age sixteen, he married his 24-year-old American secretary, which divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance. 
 * That's a correct summary of the sources and the article.   Will Beback    talk    23:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And what happened to "Rawat took legal action in order to marry Marolyn Johnson without his mother's permission"?Momento (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, as a compromise, how about:
 * In 1974, at age sixteen, he married his 24-year-old American secretary without his mother's permission, which divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance. 
 * That covers the permission issue.   Will Beback    talk    00:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about ""In May 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission. His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him. She appointed his eldest brother as head of DLM in India but Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM". Since getting married "without his mother's permission" is inconsequential compared to getting a court judgement to obviate it and neither Melton, Miller or Hunt mention "a more active role in its guidance".Momento (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Would I be able to get copies of the sources cited by Momento? As some of you know, I am collecting sources relating to this article, and I do not yet have those. (By the way, I support Will's sentence.  Ronk01   talk,  00:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm checking on some of this, but in the meantime ou might take a look at some of the sub-pages that are listed at the top of this page, just below all of the banners. There are several pages of "sources", including one devoted to excerpts from scholars: Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars.   Will Beback    talk    02:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Emancipation, again

 * We already know this - don't we? The court order was to marry, not to become an emancipated minor.   Will Beback    talk    21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it but it was in the lead and the article and for days PatW, Maelefique, Sylviecyn and Ron01 argued against taking it out.Momento (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I argued for this because I thought we'd agreed ages ago that Cagan material was acceptable if not too contestable an issue. If the facts are clearly otherwise I'm not opposed of course. However I'm getting lost now..is this truly cut and dried?PatW (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Knowing how much you hate "revisionism" PatW I suggest you go back and see what you actually said.Momento (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors are arguing against making unnecessary changes. It was Momento who added the "emancipated minor" text three years ago. It seems to be a common factor on this page that Momento demands we remove material that he used to demand we include. I don't get it, but it's tiresome either way. As for Cagan, that book is insufficient when used alone and unnecessary if other sources make the same assertion. It does not meet the strict requirements of BLP, and should not be used in any context. I'm splitting this thread, which is not about Cagan or emancipation - let's try to stick to one topic per thread.    Will Beback    talk    22:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop creating new threads. You split the "Problem?" thread claiming that "it's been going on for a while" when it had been going less than 20 hours. Now you have interrupted the "Problem2" thread to start a thread about "Emancipation" when it has already been resolved". Who cares who put "emancipation" in three years ago as long as it was sourced and discussed? We now have more accurate info and our job as editors is improve the article as new evidence emerges. And are you now saying "emancipation" should be in or have I done the right thing by proposing it should be removed?Momento (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's keep one topic per thread. If we do that then there won't be any need to split threads. We've already discussed the emancipation issue at length, so I don't know why it keeps coming up. I haven't interrupted the Problem2 thread, it's still there and ongoing. As for the emancipation issue itself, if no one can find a reliable source for it then it should be removed. I'm not aware of any such source.   Will Beback    talk    23:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Prem Rawat's Brother Satpal
Above Will points out that Rawat's brother is not mentioned by name. What kind of absurd encyclopaedia is this that omits to mention the name of the subjects brother whose position fundamentally questions Prem Rawat's claim to be the legitimate successor to his father?? This is happening now it's not some dead and buried history as premies would like to brush it under the carpet as. Right now in India (and even here in the UK) Prem Ratwat's brother Satpal has a mission based on the premise that HE was the chosen successor of their father Shri Hans. There can be no argument that there isn't a ton of evidence to support this type of inclusion. This omission (IMHO) is just the tip of the iceberg and I would like to see many of these removed things reinstated. You can check out the activities of the brother Satpal in India on the mission website here:  where it claims  "His father passed away in 19th July 1966, bequeathing his mission and unfinished work to his eldest son." That would of course suggest that the entire Indian Mission consider Prem Rawat's similar claim  bogus. Who is correct is a matter of opinion but Wikipedia should definitely provide more contextual facts like this so readers who are interested in such things can be better informed and research the matters themselves. As it stands the article basically appears to be hiding any information from the public that followers think is bad publicity. Furthermore they have done such a complete clean-up job that even on the Wiki article on Rawat's father the version of events favoured by Prem Rawat is told and facts suggesting otherwise carefully minimised.PatW (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the article. And when you have please do us all a favour and delete this section.Momento (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually Momento, teh Prem Rawat articles have always seemed a bit clean for such a controversial figure. I would reccomend that this be looked into. Ronk01  talk,  14:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been too subtle. PatW starts his argument with "Will points out that Rawat's brother is not mentioned by name. What kind of absurd encyclopaedia is this that omits to mention the name of the subjects brother". In fact what Will said was "Why do we need to include her name in the intro? We don't include the names of his mother or brother (in the intro)". And sure enough, in the "1974-1983" section, just where it should be mentioned, is this "She retained control of the Indian DLM and appointed her eldest son, Satpal, as its leader". So anxious is PatW to criticise this article that he doesn't bother to read what people write and doesn't bother to check whether he is right. And, of course, finishing up this fictitious complaint with another attack on followers, who are - "hiding any information from the public that followers think is bad publicity". So here we have it. Once again PatW makes a complaint that is based 100% on PatW's carelessness. It is PatW's inability to see, not on "followers hiding information from the public". But rather than taking my gentle advice to read the article, PatW goes on to complain to Jimbo Wales about "the banned followers have now returned with doubled determination to finish their job (that would be hiding Satpal from PatW in the article)". Unfortunately Ronk01 didn't take the time to check the facts either and adds his support to PatW's fictitious complaint.Momento (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I recognise that Satpal is indeed mentioned in the article below but I am not entirely convinced that some referral to Satpal isn't warranted in the lead to balance what is rather a misleading statement "At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers." It's obviously 'true' but clearly soon thereafter opinions became divided in India and now effectively Satpal is the one who succeeded his father in the minds of millions of Indian followers. Please accept my apology for suggesting that Satpal wasn't mentioned - I did in fact see this but was annoyed (having had a look at the Divine Light Mission) article that this has been very minimally covered there. Re Jimbo Wales- I think it would be only a good thing to get some higher level interest in the article and would welcome others to enjoin me in providing him some material so as he can acquaint himself with Prem Rawat.PatW (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Briefly, for now: Does the following interest anyone? As far as I can see it is not on the list of references nor included in the Bibliography of Prem Rawat. I propose to add it to both.
 * Lise McKean, Divine Enterprise. Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement, University of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN 9780226560090
 * McKean mentions Guru Maharaj Ji briefly but spends much more time on his brother Satpal Rawat. See Chapter 2, pp 53-57 and Appendix 1, p. 321-325, which is based on McKean’s 1990s PhD fieldwork in Satpal’s northern Indian ashram - The Manav Utthan Seva Samiti.
 * In view of the fresh interest expressed on this page for other sources of the history of the DLM, I will shortly post a list of possible sources which might help to flesh out the early biography of P.R. / Guru Maharaj Ji. Ombudswiki (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have corrected a regrettable page ref. error in my suggestion above, from 221-225, to 321-325. Ombudswiki (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no need to ask permission to add a book to the Bibliography article. As for this article, I suggest that you post any proposed text here first.   Will Beback    talk    03:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Misleading statement? The statement you refer to is completely accurate in every sense. Certainly more accurate than "soon thereafter opinions became divided in India and now effectively Satpal is the one who succeeded his father in the minds of millions of Indian followers". It wasn't "soon" Pat, it was after nine years of total support from his family until Rawat started becoming increasing independent. And the division is also accurately summarised with "In 1974, at age sixteen, he married a Westerner, which divided his family and the movement" I'll be interested to see your recommended reading selection.Momento (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, I did not side with anyone here, I merely stated that I believe that the article looks a little too clean to me. Ronk01  talk,  22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you sided with PatW. I said you added your "support to PatW's fictitious complaint" which is that "the article basically appears to be hiding any information from the public that followers think is bad publicity" to which you responded with "the article seemed a bit clean for such a controversial figure" without noticing that PatW was completely wrong about Sat Pal.Momento (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

While I do not subscrube to such coverup theories, there is a bit of a squeaky clean feel to this article, probably an artifact from Jossi's reign of terror :) Ronk01   talk,  00:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Reign of terror"? May I suggest you be more cautious? This article is a result of dozens of editors working under intense scrutiny for years. Up until April this year Rumiton, Jossi and I have not made a single edit to it for 12 months! It was generally conceded that this article wasn't perfect but is one "we can all live with" and has been stable for months. Since I have started editing it again I have made it clear that I wanted to remove the obvious errors in the lead and as a result I have suggested or made several improvements to it that have been accepted by all concerned.Momento (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I should state that reign of terror was meant in jest (note the :) at the end) Momento, the reason none of you made edits is because Jossi got himself an indefinite commnity ban for inappropriate behavior and socking, and you two got topic banned! Ronk01   talk,  00:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk.Momento (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Momento and I got topic banned. So did PatW, an anti-Rawat editor. Pat also got a "warning" for personal attacks and WillBeback got "admonished." It isn't helpful to keep raising these issues, especially when you do it so exclusively one-sidedly. Please drop this self-righteous, "WE are the true defenders of Wikipedia, THEY are the vandals" pose as quickly as you can. Rumiton (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rumiton, I have never been banned on Wikipedia. Please remove this baseless allegation. --John Brauns (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

John, I recall that in around '08 an editor replaced the entire article with his own writing, and got a month's topic ban. I thought it was you, but it may have been an editor who has retired and whose record is hard to track. Anyway, if this was not you, I sincerely apologise for any embarassment. I have removed the statement. Rumiton (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the purpose of this thread, but John Brauns and PatW were not banned or even admonished. The only editors who were topic banned were Rumiton and Momento, and Jossi was separately site banned due to abusing sock puppets.Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2   Will Beback    talk    08:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not just referring to the arbcom outcome, but to editing history. PatW was topic blocked for 24 hours on 5 April 08, then warned again for personal attacks on 22 April by ...err...Will Beback. Rumiton (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both technically and practically, being site-blocked for one day is quite different from being topic banned for one year. As for your above description of another editor as "an anti-Rawat editor": Be that as it may, do you think that such descriptions are helpful on article talk pages? Would you like us to characterize your own approach in similar terms? I imagine not. Let's treat each other the way we'd like to be treated. OK?   Will Beback    talk    13:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Would you like us to..." you must be joking. For a very long time I've been seeing personal attacks against me or Momento, including "characterising" us as blinded cult members, every time I looked at this page, and new editors got told the same thing on their talk pages. Amazing that you didn't notice that happening. But I do agree with you, and I will go further. Any editor who does not have a somewhat stormy history on Wikipedia while the rules have been in development, probably doesn't care enough. Now let's quit the insults and look at whether these articles can be further improved. Rumiton (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The gradual reinstatement of the 'removed' criticism section
Quite a lot of people have complained about the lack of criticism here. Before putting work into this I would like consent from others that this, in principle, is something those interested could start working on (myself included).
 * No offense PatW but I don't think you have the skills to edit this article.Momento (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I have the skills but not as much time as you unfortunatelyPatW (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pat, I think that the other editors would like to see the critical material dispersed appropriately throughout the article, since Criticisim sections are POV and troll magnets. Ronk01  talk,  14:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine Ronk. Maybe a start then would be to examine the earlier Criticism section (from the history) and revisit the things covered there to see if anything has been removed that should remain. Although 'ex-premies' are now mentioned (they are a current critical group) their criticisms are not described. Is there any scope for that do you think?PatW (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we have to be careful here, all of our claims need to be well sourced (for example the gift of a Masarati from his followers is in over ten newspapers, that is not contestable) and uncontestable. Looking at the old section would help. In regards to ex-followers, those claims would need to be vetted on claim-by-claim basis. Ronk01  talk,  23:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many articles and sources that support your impression that the article is too 'clean'. A simple Google search proves that. Might I suggest that you explore some of these links where you will see a lot of what is 'missing' ? There are many links to reliable sources such as books, newspaper articles etc.

PatW (talk)
 * http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/
 * http://www.ex-premie.org/gallery/index.html
 * http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org
 * http://prem-rawat-maharaji.info/

Thank you, I will review what you have provided. Ronk01  talk,  01:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think listing these links violates WP:EL's "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP" because "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, images, and categories".Momento (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, this is a review of the quality of these potential sources, and is thus exempt. Ronk01  talk,  01:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing exempts editors from following BLP. All these sites are self-published and BLP says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" - "External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere (that includes here), are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy". I am assuming that providing these links in the talk pages of a BLP, even for a good reason, "contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline".Momento (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, in this caes, I must invoke Ignore All Rules (Which does apply to BLP, but is used very rarely) It is unlikely that these sources will end up in the article. I am currently reiewing them for potential reliable sources used to write them. Beyond this, Momento, you have become rather obstructionist in this thread, and until I dertermine otherwise, IAR applies, and the links stay up. (I will dlete them after I review them) Ronk01   talk,  02:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Those links include many pages copied from reliable sources. The only policy issue is linking to copyvios, which is a minor violation. If Ronk01 deletes the links as soon as he's done reading I don't think there will be a problem.   Will Beback    talk    03:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the old "criticism" material, note that the standalone criticism article was merged into this article. The text of that article is at talk:Prem_Rawat/criticism. We should be sure that all significant points of view are included, with weight according to their prominence.   Will Beback    talk    03:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree Will, there is valid basis for review of the old criticisim article. Ronk01  talk,  04:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I'm going to start collecting articles here which people can download if they're interested. I'll add to it as and when. Would that be more useful? It seems to me that it would help here enormously if editors actually had all the various articles that exist to hand so that this whole process wasn't quite so random. PatW (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is a Disgrace to Wikipedia
A new label seems necessary: (ECS) Emperor's Clothes Syndrome.

My only further comments are:

1. Why do Wikipedia apparatchiks allow the never-ending filibustering in this unbalanced article - YEAR AFTER YEAR?

2. My sympathies and congratulations to those few true Wikipedians who have tried to effect improvements in the face of never-ending partisan obstructionism. Ombudswiki (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. At times it hasn't been easy. Rumiton (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you be more explicit?Momento (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why was the following very relevant and apposite comment to the remarks by Rumiton and Momento removed? And by whom? Ombudswiki (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was removed as per this. Please do not make personal attacks as you can be banned for doing it.Momento (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed PatW as per above.00:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's also a disgrace that Momento is removing all these comments. Momento now says he is this year committed to tirelessly 'improving' an article that many judge to be fundamentally flawed because of the lack of criticism. Why don't we move on to the bigger issues? I agree with Ombudswiki in questioning why Wikipedia itself allows someone to bog everyone down superficially patching up minutae when there are much bigger improvements that could be made.PatW (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact I think it's just about time to bring the problems with this article to the attention of Mr Wales again.PatW (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IF (I repeat: 'IF - there are, after all, no visible signatures to the deletions of critical comments by PatW and myself) it is true that the critical comments were removed by a major and interested "protagonist", Momento, why does Wikipedia not investigate the anomaly? So far, I had refrained from further comment thinking (deferentially) that the deletion had been by a Wikipedia hierarch. Please enlighten me, someone.
 * The derogatory comments were removed by Momento, but it could have been anyone. Please read the article History before going all conspiratorial. Also my comments that follow. Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * When this basic issue is resolved I would like to offer one or two further comments on the topic of the article's egregious shortcomings. Ombudswiki (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means discuss the article's "egregious shortcoming," just don't personally attack the editors who have worked on it. If you do that your comments will probably get removed again. Please read WP:NPA carefully. There is wisdom in it, along with the warning that "derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by ANY (my caps) editor." Rumiton (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack.
 * I suggest that if any editor is concerned about personal attacks that they do not delete the material themselves, but instead ask a neutral 3rd-party to review the situation. If deletion is necessary then it should be limited to the offensive language, and the rest of the message should be left intact. Note that none of this helps the article, so I encourage you all to stick to the topic of this page - improvements to Prem Rawat.   Will Beback    talk    20:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I leave it to you Will to remove any personal attacks against me.Momento (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When I wrote "neutral 3rd party" I meant someone who is largely uninvolved in the disputes related to this topic. There's a central noticeboard for dealing with civility issues: Wikiquette alerts. That would be the appropriate place to discuss incivility, and to find an uninvolved editor to make any necessary deletions.   Will Beback    talk    21:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't be bothered asking a 3rd party. If I think the post is a "clear-cut case where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack" I'll take it out and ask for the offender to be banned. There is enough evidence already on this page to make that a certainty.Momento (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can't be bothered to follow Wikipedia practices, then please don't bother to unilaterally delete comments by other editors. If you wish to seek enforcement then feel free. However none of that is the concern of this talk page.   Will Beback    talk    22:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia practices"?!? Since when have your opinions become "Wikipedia practices"? WP:RPA, which is an English Wikipedia policy, clearly says "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack" which is exactly what I said I would do. So what I wrote follows English Wikipedia policy but you have written that I "can't be bothered to follow Wikipedia practices". So once again you have distorted my position. I have clearly demonstrated my patience with you. I have asked you stop. Most recently, less the 24 hours ago. You can't say you weren't warned about this.Momento (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss my editing please use my talk page or another venue. The only topic for this page is improvements to the article.   Will Beback    talk    00:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But Will I was only replying to your comment about my editing. If you don't want comments don't make them.Momento (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would politely ask that this line of discussion cease, as it has nothing to do with improving the article Prem Rawat. Ronk01 talk, 02:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And Ronk01, how come you didn't you say that when Ombudswiki and PatW started attacking me? You've had two days to "politely ask" that the attacks stop, as it has "nothing to do with improving the article Prem Rawat" but you didn't. Let's see you step up next time someone attacks me or Rumiton.Momento (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Greeley Tribune
Does anyone happen to have a copy of the Greenley Tribune article? If so it would be great if you could scan and upload it. I am a little concerned about the reliability of this source taking into account the new BLP policies, and I am going to slowly vet all of the contested sources. If you would like to contest a source, please post it below, and I will get to it eventually. Ronk01  talk,  14:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 *  "Guru, 16, marries secretary" AP Tues. May 21, 1974 Greeley Tribune
 * For copyright reasons,, it's inappropriate to upload an entire article. But I can email you the full PDF, and post excerpts at Talk:Prem_Rawat/journalists. Note further that it is an AP article, and there are several slightly different versions published by other papers.   Will Beback    talk    21:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If you could email me the article that would be great (do you still have my email?) Thank you Ronk01   talk,  22:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sent. I also added an excerpt to the source page.   Will Beback    talk    22:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ronk01   talk,  23:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Time to bow out
This article now has excellent governance, so the time has come for me to bow out of regular participation. Please see my user page for my comments. Savlonn (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was nice and stable for a long time, but that period seems to have ended. Thanks for participating and come back anytime.   Will Beback    talk    21:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is nice the same as stable? A number of glaring errors have been noticed and slowly and rather reluctantly, fixed. This is surely "nice". Rumiton (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The only "glaring error" I've seen addressed in the past 3 months and 69,000 words of talk page discussion was that the subject's marriage was listed as occurring in 1973 instead of 1974. By comparison, during the period of July 2009 to April 2010, we only wrote about 25000 words here.   Will Beback    talk    06:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it's ridiculous that it took 69,000 words to agree to a few simple changes. It looks like a bad case of WP:OWN where "editors dispute minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim the right, whether openly or implicitly, to review any changes before they can be added to the article".Momento (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite a yearlong absence, you've managed to accumulate 1075 edits to this article, and Rumiton an additional 676. OTOH, I've made just 311 and PatW has made 20. If you'd like to make an official complaint, please do so elsewhere. This isn't the place for it.   Will Beback    talk    22:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your comment about "69,000 words" in the last 3 months. Don't forget "emancipation" strangely in and "charismatic leadership" strangely left out. One thing is does prove though is how patient I have been.Momento (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Does Anyone have this source?
"MOTHER OUSTS 'PLAYBOY' GURU" in Los Angeles Times. Wednesday April 2, 1975, PART II, p. 6A  Ronk01   talk,  23:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sent.   Will Beback    talk    23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tahnk you again. Ronk01  talk,  00:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

McKean, Lise. Divine Enterprise. Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement
Will, I see you reinstated that ref which was inserted without discussion. I deleted it because I could see no connection between the Hindu Nationalist Movement and Prem Rawat. The source obviously refers to his brother. Do you know otherwise? Rumiton (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rumiton: Did you read the pages before rejecting them, or were you judging by the book title? BTW, I inserted the suggestion in a section specifically discussing Prem's brother, Satpal. Ombudswiki (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where can I easily read those pages? You said, "McKean mentions Guru Maharaj Ji briefly..." and that did not seem enough to warrant inclusion here. Are you going to post some excerpts? Rumiton (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Go here and search for "Guru Maharaj Ji" .Momento (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I did that, and NOW I have a problem. "Guru Maharaj Ji" is a generic term of respect in India, not an individual name. The references to Guru Maharaj Ji that I just found are all about Satpal. Thank you for looking for interesting new sources, but this one is guaranteed to create confusion. Rumiton (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Now that you are aware of the Organization, see what INFORM has to report. Ombudswiki (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know otherwise. It contains information in the subject and his family. And it was discussed above.   Will Beback    talk    06:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed the "discussion" which took place almost simultaneously with its insertion. The text apparently "...mentions Guru Maharaj Ji briefly." Does this make it a useful addition? Rumiton (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your objection to it. Could you please explain?   Will Beback    talk    08:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am just asking, "Does this source add enough to the reader's understanding of the subject to make it worthy of listing?" It seems peripheral, at best. Rumiton (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Shortening the list of references would certainly save on printing costs. If we were printing this. ;) As it is, it's harmless. Let's see what Omni is going to propose from it. If it's not being used in a while we can delete it. It doesn't cause any problems in the meantime.   Will Beback    talk    12:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with waiting, but if it turns out to add nothing useful it should go. Rumiton (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to edit the lead

 * Can we continue with this? The current lead says -

"In 1974, at age sixteen, he married a Westerner, which divided his family and the movement.[5][6] Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance".[7]

It is wrong in several respects. It doesn't include the important info that he "took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission". It suggests the marriage split the movement but the movement wasn't split until over a year later when a court case took place in India. It doesn't include the info that his "growing independence" was one of the causes. It doesn't include the info that his "Mother disowned him". It doesn't include the fact that his mother appointed his brother as head of DLM India. And it contains the phrase "took a more active role in its guidance" which isn't supported by the sources given (and is out of chronology according to Downton and the article). The proposal so far is to replace it with this -

"In May 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission. His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him. She appointed his eldest brother as head of DLM in India but Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM".Momento (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be patient. We haven't stopped discussing this.   Will Beback    talk    06:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that explains why I wrote "so far" in my post.Momento (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to include "May" in the lead, it's a summary. If they want to know more detail, it's in the article, but that's a minor point. I'm pretty sure I've seen sources (more than one) for Rawat taking a more active role, so if there's really some question about whether or not he did (which seems obvious to me), I'd like a little time to go through all my materials again and locate those sources. I'm not crazy about this sentence "His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him", perhaps that could be changed to "His marriage, seen as another sign of his growing independence, prompted his mother to disown him", and are we really happy with "disowned"? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I added May to tie it to the wedding date and also to make the sentence a little less staccato. Rawat definitely started taking "a more active role in its guidance" but according to the article that occurred before his marriage, as per "When Rawat reached sixteen years of age he wanted to take a more active part in guiding the movement. According to the sociologist James V. Downton, this meant he "had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable".[21][61] In December 1973, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's US branch, and his mother and Satpal returned to India". As I posted above, the common words used to describe the split were - 2 x "removed" him, 5 x "renounced" him and 3 x "disowned" him. One of the "renounced" is coupled with "responsibility for". I suggest we go with "disowned" because it is easier to understand than "renounced" which I think is mentioned several times as a result of sloppy copying by newspapers". Other phrases were "dismissed him as leader", "replaced him". The split did not occur until late 1975, more than a year after the marriage, so it was one of the causes but not THE cause.Momento (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

One interesting thing that I noticed while reviewing news coverage of the wedding was that every source that I could find but one (Price, which was written well after the split) indicated that the reason that he did not have parental consent was because his mother was not reachable (Associated Press.) Comments? Ronk01  talk,  01:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's correct, she was in India. Rawat had already given his brother permission to marry a westerner and he knew his mother would never allow him to marry a westerner. It wasn't until a year after his wedding that the split became public and comments were made about the marriage by his mother and spokespeople.Momento (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rawat had given his (elder) brother permission to marry? Did you mean to write that? Rumiton (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's correct. He gave Raja Ji permission to marry Claudia. Raja Ji was over 18 and didn't need his permission legally but considered Rawat the head of the family.Momento (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Source?   Will Beback    talk    11:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We've spent years discussing this already. Can't we ever settle it? Nothing has changed about this period; there's no new scholarship. We've spent long enough discussing this without finding text that has a fresh consensus or is an obvious improvement. Is this really the most pressing issue in all of Wikipedia? Let's leave well enough alone.   Will Beback    talk    11:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to do other things Will. But as is clear from my proposal above, there are a problems with the current version that are solved with my proposal. I'm happy to work with Ronk01, Maelefique and Rumiton to make it better.Momento (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's try to make the fewest changes to this already heavily discussed article. Most text here is the result of hard-won consensus, and it is disrespectful to the efforts that have gone into this article to make sweeping changes. To address your concerns, I've proposed:
 * In 1974, at age sixteen, he married his 24-year-old American secretary without his mother's permission, which divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance.
 * this is the intro - we don't need to and shouldn't try to cover every detail. There are sufficient sources to show that Rawat took a greater role in the guidance of the DLM as he grew older.   Will Beback    talk    11:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Will here, the sources back up his proposal. Ronk01  talk,  14:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary the sources directly contradict Will's proposal that after the marriage - "Prem Rawat ... took a more active role in its guidance". Melton, the source cited, clearly states that "In December 1973, when Maharaj Ji turned 16, he took administrative control of the Mission’s separate American corporation.." that's six months before he married. Likewise the article itself cites Downton, Geaves and Melton for the following "Because of Prem Rawat's youth, his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal, managed the affairs of the worldwide DLM. When Rawat reached sixteen years of age he wanted to take a more active part in guiding the movement. According to the sociologist James V. Downton, this meant he "had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable".[21][61] In December 1973, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's US branch, and his mother and Satpal returned to India.[7]". So six months before Will claims the "marriage" divided the family and lead Rawat to take "a more active role in its guidance" Rawat had already "encroached on his mother's territory", "taken control of DLM US", taken a more active part in guiding the movement and his mother and brother had "returned to India". As for "it is disrespectful to the efforts that have gone into this article to make sweeping changes", these aren't "sweeping changes" and how about a bit of respect for the subject of this BLP who has the right to have his story told accurately and according to the sources. And let's not forget that Will's proposal leaves out the important fact that "Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission" and "Mata ji appointed her eldest son, Satpal, as its leader"!! Let's get serious, Will's proposal is contradicted by the sources he cites and leaves out crucial info that is well sourced, described in detail in the article and major incidents in Rawat's story.Momento (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposed text doesn't set an exact chronology or causation. The need for legal permission to marry seems fairly minor - the whole intro is now only about 260 words long, and it doens't seem like one of the most important issues in his life. What happened in India after the split is less important, but if we're going to give reasons for the split then we need to give all POVs of it. According to Mata Ji, she disowned him for acting like a playboy, not for marrying without permission.   Will Beback    talk    23:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's hear what others think. Please read the above arguments and decide which proposal is the most accurate, closest to the sources cited, chronologically correct and provides the most important info about the happenings of 1974-75 -

Proposal A - "In May 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission. His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him. She appointed his eldest brother as head of DLM in India but Rawat retained the support of the Western DLM".

Proposal B - "In 1974, at age sixteen, he married his 24-year-old American secretary without his mother's permission, which divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance".Momento (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal C - "In 1974, at age sixteen, he married his 24-year-old American secretary. The marriage, and his growing independence, divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat took control of the DLM outside of India, while his mother and eldest brother ran the Indian movement." That avoids having to go into too much detail of the complicated reasons for the split.  Will Beback   talk   
 * Regrettably this new proposal doesn't work because it doesn't refer to "his mother disowning him" and "appointing his eldest brother as head of DLM India". It makes it seems as if Rawat took control of DLM in the west whilst his mother and brother ran the same movement in India. In addition where are the sources for "Rawat taking control of the DLM outside India" after his marriage? And it still doesn't refer to his legal action to get married which is far more important factually and historically than his wife was"his 24-year-old American secretary".Momento (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't include that his mother called him a playboy and accused him of using alcohol. It doesn't include the 1970 "peace bomb" speech. It doesn't include the Millennium '73 festival. It doesn't include the beating of the reporter. It doesn't include his speech to the Almond Festival in a little town in Italy. It doesn't include lots of things. We can't include everything in the intro.   Will Beback    talk    05:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All proposals hide the fact that Prem has a significant following in India, too. Shouldn't that be mentioned in this context?--Rainer P. (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we mention that in the article. Source?   Will Beback    talk    08:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, it's obviously not mentioned yet, so I understand it can't be in the lede, and it is a shortcoming of the article. I think it is important though, because it indicates there has not simply been a split, but rather a reform, like Christianity out of Judaism. As for sources, there must be primary sources that say things like 500.000 people coming to a single event in India and such. Would that do? I suppose Geaves might mention the Raj Vidya Kender somewhere, perhaps some editor remembers.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please let's deal with one thing at a time. And that is which proposal A B or C.Momento (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like A best, as it refers to disowning Prem.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with A as it seems to equate the body of his students with the organisation (DLM.) How about a synthesis? "In May 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission. His marriage and his growing independence divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance. His mother and eldest brother ran the Indian movement." Rumiton 114.77.242.145 (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with Rumiton, his sentence makes more sense. Ronk01  talk,  16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * O.k., but I think the disownment should be mentioned somewhere. It is important, because it is an information on the origin of his prosperity.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If everyone wants " took a more active role in its guidance", it has to go before his marriage because that's what the sources say - ""When Rawat reached sixteen years of age he wanted to take a more active part in guiding the movement". And I agree with Rainer "disowning" is important and so is "She appointed his eldest brother as head of DLM in India", they didn't just run it. And Rumiton is right, "movement" is more accurate than "DLM" for what "Rawat retained". Which brings us to the sentence that follows about Rawat becoming an "Amercian citizen". This is unimportant to his notability and his movement. Dropping it will allow us to go straight to "abandoned the Indian aspects" which follows on nicely. So how about "When Rawat turned sixteen he became more active in guiding the movement and in May 1974 he took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission. His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and began removing the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable." Which brings us smothly to "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).[9]" and is eleven words shorter than the current lead. Momento (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that the pro-Rawat editors seem to want to take 1974-1975 as the jumping off point to claim that Rawat "removed Indian aspects of his teachings," when in fact that is inaccurate and incorrect. It wasn't until at least 1983 in the U.S. when the ashrams were closed that Indian aspects could be said to be removed. Therefore, I strongly object to using this slant. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, characterising the editors trying to improve this article as "pro-Rawat editors" "using a slant" that is "inaccurate and incorrect" isn't helpful. Particularly since you are wrong. The proposal does not "take 1974-1975 as the jumping off point to claim that Rawat "removed Indian aspects of his teachings". The sentence concerned sits between "the disowning" which was in 1975 and "the early 1980s" and clearly says "began removing". And here is material in the article that supports that claim - in 1975 "Most of the mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed". "In January 1976 Rawat encouraged them to leave the ashrams and discard Indian customs and terminology". "In 1980, Rawat removed all the "religious" aspects of the movement and declared he now wanted "no movement whatsoever". "The Hindu references and religious parables that had been prominent in his teachings gave way to a focus on the meditation techniques. Once called "Perfect Master", Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru" but affirmed his status as a master". Having only one sentence to cover the period between 1975 and 1980s is probably not enough and something should be said about Rawat continuing to teach and travel but clearly in this period Rawat went from "Indian" to "non-Indian" in  his teachings.Momento (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the lede is fine the way it is and no changes are necessary or required. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Momento's proposal from July 16th, "When Rawat turned sixteen..."? If there are no substantial objections, it could be adopted.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Not sure, we could look at it again. Ronk01  talk,  17:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal is ""When Rawat turned sixteen he became more active in guiding the movement and in May 1974 he took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission. His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and began removing the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable." I think the sentence about Rawat becoming an "Amercian citizen" is unimportant to his notability and his movement and dropping it entirely or putting it after this info will make a better lead.Momento (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Please vote yes or no to the above, adding comments as needed.

Yes but it should be the Indian DLM. I think this covers the main points quite OK. Rumiton. (I hope to be back tomorrow on a workable computer.) 114.77.242.51 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reconsidering Ronk01   talk,  02:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No - it assumes one version of events (that the split was due to the marriage) and does not include other views (that he split was due to the subject's non-spiritual behavior). Either both views should be included or neither.   Will Beback    talk    02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't assume "the split was due to the marriage" which would be incorrect. It says "His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him". The split had already occurred according to the article which is one of the reasons to remove that claim from the lead, which my proposal does. The claims of being a "playboy" etc didn't surface until April 1975 which, according to Downton, happened when Mata Ji and BBJ "learned of Maharaj Ji's plan to return there (India) for a visit, they mounted a campaign to defame him and interfere with his expected arrival".Momento (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are we excluding that view?   Will Beback    talk   


 * Now that I think about it, why aren't we including the playboy material? Is it a concision issue? Ronk01   talk,  04:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The main reason it isn't in the lead is that we can't put everything in the lead and the name calling isn't a major issue. If we did include it we would also have to include why she said it. Momento (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but the reasons should already be outlined in the article. Ronk01   talk,  04:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If there's not enough room for both POVs then let's leave both out. I don't buy the argument that there's only enough room for one POV.   Will Beback    talk    04:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's certainly room in the article to include Downton's "When Mata Ji and Sat Pal learned of Maharaj Ji's plan to return to India, they mounted a campaign to defame him and interfere with his expected arrival". But the lead should only represent the major points of the article and that is "His marriage and his growing independence prompted his mother to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of Indian DLM" which is supported by numerous sources. Let's just make the lead an accurate summary of the major points of the existing article. Once we do that we can, if anybody is interested, see about the article. Although, since we've all agreed, the emancipation material is contradicted by RS, I have removed it.Momento (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The intro should include all POVs, just like the article should. If we can't include both differing views of the feud, then we should avoid getting into the reasons in the intro and leave that issue for the body of the article where we can spend as much room as necessary. Downton isn't the only source. We're not discussing emancipation here, so let's leave that to another thread.   Will Beback    talk    05:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There aren't differing view points. The article says that Rawat started showing his independence before the marriage, the marriage exacerbated the split and a year after the marriage MataJI made her claims. That's what the article say and that's what my proposal says.Let's hear what others say.Momento (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think, the fairly NPOV "growing independence" covers somehow the rather POV "playboy"-bit well enough for the lede. The article body can be more explicit.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That'd be fine with me. Something like
 * After he turned sixteen in 1973 Rawat became more independent and active in guiding the movement. The following May he married an American without his mother's permission. She disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India. He later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. 
 * That covers the points Momento wants without the unnecessary speculation.   Will Beback    talk    07:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "That covers the points Momento wants"? Have you being looking at your own secret Wikipedia? Where's "he took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission"? How about "After he turned sixteen in 1973 Rawat became more independent and active in guiding the movement. The following May he took legal action in order to marry an American without his mother's permission. She later disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. ''Momento (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The legal action involved in getting married took 15 minutes. The multiple suits between the Rawat brothers took months and resulted in Prem Rawat jumping bail. I don't understand why you think one is so much more important than the other.   Will Beback    talk    09:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because one is mentioned in the article and the other isn't.Momento (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we should fix that rather than further distorting the article.   Will Beback    talk    22:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Constantly bringing up irrelevant issues is a waste of everyone's time. The fact that Rawat "took legal action in order to marry without his mother's permission" is in the article, well sourced and not a distortion. Unless there are any objections based on Wiki policies, guidelines and practices I will insert the last proposal - "After he turned sixteen in 1973 Rawat became more independent and active in guiding the movement. The following May he took legal action in order to marry an American without his mother's permission. She later disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable."Momento (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the one pushing this. If you're not willing to discuss it then let's drop the proposed change. There is no need to place this minor detail in the intro, while excluding more important legal cases involving the subject. Another example would be the jewelry smuggling issue. That is in the article and is well-covered in the sources. Let's add them both. We also don't include the Detroit beating and the Millennium '73 festival. As for your proposed text, there isn't a consensus for it so I don't think you should insert it unilaterally. If you leave out the "legal action" part then I wouldn't object, but it's undue weight on a minor detail considering all of the more important events which we omit.    Will Beback    talk    23:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Will here, it's either all or nothing. Ronk01  talk,  23:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If we leave out the "legal action", it ceases to be "without his mother's permission" and becomes "against his mother's wishes". So we're going to have to re-jig the proposal so that it reads right. So "When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes. His mother disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable."Momento (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We have many sources that say it was without her permission. I don't think we have as many good sources that say it was against her wishes. Why are you making this new proposal?   Will Beback    talk    00:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you make a new proposal? The whole point of the legal case was to marry "without his mother's permission". If the legal is out, then what is the most accurate description? Derks & Lands "Guru Maharaj Ji's mother did not approve of his marriage"; Galanter - "This he did against his mother's wishes", Downton "she became upset because she had not been asked to approve"; Rudin & Rudin - "Guru's mother was so upset over the marriage"; Partridge "his mother's inability to accept Maharaji's marriage to an American follower rather than the planned traditional arranged marriage". Melton "against his mother’s wishes"; Stoner & Parke "Maharaj Ji's mother back in India didn't approve of the marriage"; Collier "(the marriage) but for Mata and BB, Maharaj Ji had committed an act of war. Sitting in India, they planned a full-scale campaign against their youngest kin". I think there are enough to support he married "against his mother's wishes".Momento (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So Derks & Lands, Downton, Stoner & Parker all talk about the lack of permission. Rudin & Rudin don't make it clear if her disapproval came before or after the marriage. Collier is a source that we've traditionally avoided for use on 3rd parties. So that leaves just Galanter and Melton, fewer sources than simply say it was without her permission or approval.   Will Beback    talk    01:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong three times. Derks and Lans is clear, Mata Ji "did not approve of his marriage". They did not say "approve his marriage". Downton also, he says Mata Ji was upset because she "was not asked to approve", which means her permission was not sought, so giving or not giving is irrelevant. And likewise with Stone & Parker "didn't approve of the marriage. So this proposal is objection free "When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes. His mother disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable." Of course, my previous proposal was more accurate, includes the important "took legal action" and focuses on the subject of this BLP rather than his mother.Momento (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you say "objection free". I object to it. "Without permission" or "without approval" is closer to the sources.   Will Beback    talk   
 * Since the article and sources clearly say "against her wishes" and "lack of respect for her wishes", you're argument makes no sense. I'm putting it in.Momento (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for review of critical content
There has been a lot of talk about reinstating criticism in to the article, before we do this however, we need to determine how much valid criticism is already in the article, and review sources for more material. Comments? Ronk01  talk,  02:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In this connection, please consider my latest note and reference in the "Additional Sources" section above. Ombudswiki (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "how much" is in approximately the same proportions as is covered in reliable sources. Active Banana (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you read the available sources, that is simply not true. Ronk01  talk,  05:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to.   Will Beback    talk    21:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

They were saying that there wasn't enough information on criticisms of Rawat to include any more in the article, clearly not true. Ronk01  talk,  01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional Sources for Prem Rawat Biography
Perhaps editors would like to contribute to this list of unconsulted or under-consulted reputable sources. To begin with, some editors may be interested in the treatment given in the 5-page article on "Maharaji //Elan Vital // The Prem Rawat Foundation" by the academically-sponsored site INFORM, www.inform.ac (based at the London School of Economics).

Their reports must be requested by email or snail mail. In the item mentioned above, there is a basically fair presentation of Rawat's life, with emphasis on the latter half. Also included is a section of Controversies dealing mainly with the early DLM period. If editors would like a quote I can offer it, but the whole document should also be consulted. More suggestions later. Over to you. Ombudswiki (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning that. Something we've found helpful to all editors is to post excerpts of significant sources on one of the subpages of this talk page. (See the list at the top of the page, just below the banners). If you have it in hand, perhaps you could add a few relevant quotations. BTW, we now have an article on INFORM, if anyone's curious about it.    Will Beback    talk    10:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I never heard of this organisation before, but it sounds useful. Rumiton (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Better late than never. Ombudswiki (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an English organisation. I am not English. Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope other editors have taken note of this revealing comment. Ombudswiki (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ombudswiki, please realize that this page has a very long and tiresome history of personal attacks and hostility, and everybody enjoys periods of relative peace, like the one right now. Efforts to agitate one side against the other may be felt as disruptive and not helpful.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ombudswiki, could I ask you to you mail me a copy of the report? (If so, I'll drop you a mail you can reply to.) -- JN 466  19:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To Will and Jayen and others:
 * Since INFORM prefers to deal with individual inquiries, I have written to them to ask for permission before posting a brief selection of items from the article they sent to me by email. It is not offered on their site, to my knowledge. Meanwhile, I suggest you contact them directly by email. I will post the selection if they give permission. Ombudswiki (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Still no reply from INFORM. Have any of you written to them for a copy? Ombudswiki (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I dropped them a mail, nada so far. -- JN 466  22:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I've had a reply now. -- JN  466  21:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Following the recent suggestion of Will Beback, I have posted a selection of points from the INFORM Report on Prem Rawat as a new section at the end of the following review. Other bibliographical suggestions could be added here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/GA_Review_March_07 Ombudswiki (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've started a thread at RSN on whether we can use the report as a source; while INFORM is reputable, the report is not really published, but only available upon request. It is also unsigned, and I note some parts are copied from Wikipedia, which would raise a WP:CIRCULAR concern. Discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. -- JN 466  19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

11 days later: this link is broken because the discussion has been relegated to Archive 70. Can we not therefore assume that the INFORM Report may now be used by editors? Ombudswiki (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I'm concerned. It was full of errors.Momento (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A beginning could be made by considering this statement by INFORM:
 * Controversies

"There have been many criticisms levelled at Prem Rawat particularly during the time of the Divine Light Mission, but it must be noted that the majority of these criticisms date from the 1970s and early 1980s. Former members are critical that in the early days of the movement, the Maharaji was presented as an incarnation of God and made statements to his followers to this effect. They allege that the young Maharaji encouraged complete surrender to him ..." Ombudswiki (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A beginning might better be made by looking at the errors in the piece. They claimed he was also known as the "Maharishi" and made other mistakes that no one with even the most cursory knowledge of the subject would make. This is a disappointingly worthless source. (They also appear to ignore requests for copies...they have ignored two of mine.) Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Next sentence

 * The second lead para ends Rawat's activities in the 70's with "more widely acceptable" and then goes on to talk about the organisations. The whole section "1983–2000s" is unrepresented. I suggest we summarise the section as - "....more widely acceptable. He continues to tour extensively and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation his message of peace is now available in 97 countries and 70 languages". And leave out the sentence that refers to the older organisations.Momento (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Before we move on to the 1980s, we haven't finished with the 1970s yet. There is no mention of the smuggling incident, the Detroit beating, or Millennium '73.   Will Beback    talk    01:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do have to ask why the failed Millennium '73 is not mentioned. Ronk01  talk,  01:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it wasn't organised by Rawat.Momento (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But it did heavily involve him, did it not? Ronk01   talk,  02:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not a usable criteria. Rawat didn't tell his mother to go to India, yet we include her departure. In other biographies, Richie Havens did not organize the Woodstock Festival, yet we include it in his bio. In this case, the Millennium '73 festival was the subject's most notable event and an important turning point in his life.   Will Beback    talk    02:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets deal with one issue at a time. And then you guys make a proposal and I'll comment on it.Momento (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's deal with one issue at a time. Last time I looked we were dealing with the 1970s. Let's finish with that era before moving on to the next.   Will Beback    talk    02:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the last time you looked, there were no proposals about the 70s and I had made a proposal to summarise the "1983-2000s" section.Momento (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You made the last several proposals. Is anyone else allowed to make one?   Will Beback    talk    02:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you can make a proposal but let's have one at a time.Momento (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, then let's have the next proposal be our summary of the 1970s.   Will Beback    talk    04:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuing with the lead

 * The second lead para ends Rawat's activities in the 70's with "more widely acceptable" and then goes on to talk about the organisations. The whole section "1983–2000s" is unrepresented. I suggest we summarise the section as - "....more widely acceptable. He continues to tour extensively and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation his message of peace is now available in 97 countries and 70 languages". And leave out the sentence that refers to the older organisations.Momento (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? You would lose an accurate chronology, and historical accuracy, and what would you gain that would be more important? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Momento had earlier asked to work on one proposal at a time. Before we start on this - are we done with the previous proposal?   Will Beback    talk    07:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your "70-73" proposal is dead. In answer to Maelefique, I'm happy to keep the "organisation" sentence in the lead if everyone insists but we need more material from the "83-2000" section and the majority of that section is concerned with Rawat travelling and his message, hence - "He continues to tour extensively and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation his message of peace is now available in 97 countries and 70 languages".Momento (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I should respond to this now, or wait for the other proposal to be completed. If we're not doing this proposals one by one then I have a bunch I can think of making. Should I make them all at once? What's the best way to proceed here?   Will Beback    talk    13:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I object to the way all things like 'The Holy family', 'Lord of the Universe' - in short all the things Rawat now wants to disassociate with - are being made out to be things that others projected onto him - kind of against his will. In fact he did nothing to deny any of these things at the time and encouraged these perceptions except in public interviews etc. I mean, when he was sitting under a huge banner saying 'Lord of the Universe' he could have easily asked for it to be removed - same having highly devotional songs sung to him etc. etc. His teachings included the ashram lifestyle where he wanted people to sing Arti (devotional song saying Your are the Lord etc) to his picture on an altar..it goes on and on. I believe Collier goes as far as to say that he was very ambiguous in the way he presented himself. It seems people like Momento, Rainer etc. are all the time arguing with a very particular agenda which depends on focussing on very selective sources to reinforce the insinuation that it was others and ONLY others who misrepresented him as LOTU etc. This is simply untrue. I can't see how this article is not going to simply become a very one-sided misrepresentation of the past of Prem Rawat as long as a few zealous followers persist in this nonsensical basic idea that Rawat was not in any way responsible for the 'Divine' image he encouraged at the time. I really don't have the time to oppose such a concerted 'clean-up' as these people are doing but I do protest, and I really wonder why Wikipedia allows partisans to edit in this way. By the Momento I don't 'hate followers' as you've suggested. I do however think you are misguided in the extent you think you should clean up Rawat's image. It's encourages resentment from people who were there and makes Wikipedia look ridiculous when people dig for the facts themselves. PatW (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PatW you seem to have no idea of your behaviour. If I was a Jew and editing an article on some Jewish Rabbi and you started criticising me and Rainer as "a few zealous Jews", you'd be thrown off Wikipedia. And no one denies that Rawat arrived in the West will a fully formed Hindu style religion with all that entails, Arti, darshan, saffron robed monks, bharjans, pranams, Jai Satchitanand, Bhole Shri and stories of Ram and Krishna. For you to suggest that the early days of Rawat in the West was some how hidden from people then or now is absurd. And for anyone to suggest that Rawat's and his followers behaviour in those days was illogical and unacceptable is religious bigotry about a religious style that predates by hundred of years the extraordinary Christian fable of virgin birth and rising from the dead.Momento (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a fine one coming from you who consider anyone who criticises you or Prem Rawat as having a 'hate' agenda or being a member of a 'hate group'. FYI  I am sensitive to how inappropriate it is for someone with a partisan POV to edit here and have mostly refrained from doing so on that principle.  A principle that you clearly don't have. My partisan POV is mild compared with yours - I am not passionately anti-Rawat I just happen to have a few little personal criticisms.  You are the opposite. You are passionately pro Prem Rawat (as is born out by your single-purpose dedication to this article), I bet you couldn't produce a single personal criticism of Prem Rawat let alone approve of one that has been levelled at him, and yet you claim/pretend you can exercise amazing impartiality and that you are only concerned with exercising Wikipedia 'correctness'. I think there is plenty of evidence to the contrary and that you are continuing the trend of removing criticism. It's like you're on a mission or something. Anyway I want no part of it - I see it as a fault of the system that partisans can be so pushy and get away with it. Good luck. PatW (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add that I totally agree that Rawat's Hindu past and his and his followers beliefs etc should be fully accepted and described without bigotry. I agree! That's why I object that the tone of the article always seems to end up playing down Rawat's beliefs and portraying all the Hindu stuff as if it were baggage imposed upon him by his followers. Why not be truthful about it and make it clear (using sources) that Rawat himself was, as the leader, responsible for promoting all this stuff? Why play that down as if it was shameful?  There is your 'bigotry' if any. This and a lot of the recent rhetoric put out by Rawat's organisations strongly suggests to me that there is a real denial going on here that somehow is reflected in this article.PatW (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As history clearly demonstrates Rawat took over an existing following of millions of Indians with existing beliefs which he inherited as an 8 year old. He played no part whatever in creating these inherited beliefs which in India are mainstream. When he came to the west he brought it all along. And from the time he stepped off the plane as a 13 year old he started to become more westernised until his westernisation split the family in 1974. For the next six years he began systematically removing the Indian aspects from his teachings until nothing remained. By contrast the Dalai Lama, the Maharishi, Muktananda, Shri Chinmoy and Osho were still wearing robes decades later or dead. You want Rawat to take personal responsibility for centuries of Indian stuff? The thing Rawat is personally responsible for is getting rid of it and that he did before he hit 25 years old, 30 years ago.Momento (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fact his he held on to it and still believes in it largely, as is demonstrated by recent video linking his line of succession back to Totapuri. He got rid of the outward form for sure in the west eventually but not before instigating 2 separate generations of Ashram which involved much ritual and dogma. He maintained that these were the mainstay of his work up until 1982. More but got to go.PatW (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Making a link with Totapuri doesn't signify holding on to anything anymore than saying my family line goes back to Ireland. And yes, he even got rid of the ashrams.Momento (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What kind of bad reasoning is that for goodness sake? Making a link to Totapuri (a well-known and revered historic Indian saint) signifies FAR MORE than saying 'my family line goes back to Ireland'! You know that don't you..so you must be just mocking the intelligence of people.
 * Re the ashrams: How about all the YEARS he DIDN'T get rid of the ashrams but heavily promoted them? Isn't it about time you stopped asserting/stressing one side of the story. PatW (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The other reason this whole 'getting rid of Indian trappings' thing seems to me to be incredibly odd is that Prem Rawat actually still holds true and teaches essentially exactly the same thing as he always has. This sentence: "For the next six years he began systematically removing the Indian aspects from his teachings until nothing remained." is just misleading. He still teaches the exact same meditation, satsang and service, darshan, Satguru etc He's just changed the words to 'practice Knowledge', 'Attend a program', 'Participation' etc. 'The Master' etc.PatW (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Prem Rawat's own version of his Master Lineage
In support of my argument above this is a current video release (made by WOPG) of Prem Rawat talking about his father, the family split and his traceable lineage 'thus far'. I suspect that he has been fed the rather vague 'guru family tree' by Ron Geaves - but this is just an educated guess since this lineage appeared on Prem Rawat's official personal website shortly after Ron Geaves' paper on the subject. I believe that it is well worth all those involved here watching this as it informs well of the perception Rawat has that he is descended from a very particular lineage. I should add that a friend of mine who knows Ron Geaves and is also a doctor of Indian Religion commented that, in his view, the linking back to Totapuri in the C18 is wishful thinking since records in India are notoriously vague and successions constantly disputed. Anyway at 8 mins 44 it says this - "Even though references to the techniques of Knowledge are made earlier than 1700, this is the traceable history thus far - Sri Totapuri Ji Maharaj (1780-1866), Sri Anandpuri Ji Maharaj (1782-1872), Sri Adwetanand Ji (1840-1919), Sri Swarupanand Ji Maharaji (18844-1936), HRH Yogiraj Paramhans Sadgurudev Sri Hans Ji Maharaj (1900-1966), Maharaji (Prem Rawat). PatW (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the link to the video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfWfSZ5cr5Q   PatW (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see that link as supporting your agument at all. Obviously he considers himself the heir to his father's mastership, and his father's guru and the one before that are well documented. Earlier than that no doubt it does get vague and disputed (like everything else in Indian spirituality), but who finds that important? "Stephen Hunt writes that Western followers do not see themselves as members of a religion [or of a spiritual succession], but rather as adherents of a system of teachings focused on the goal of enjoying life to the full." I don't think adding primary sources like this one in an obvious attempt to sway editors to your point of view is in accord with Wikipedia policies. Rumiton (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This information is not just from this primary source, it is also in Ron Geaves' paper called "From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage". Here he says: "Maharaji has referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows...etc". Since you accuse me of "attempting to sway editors to your point of view" please would you explain what inappropriate POV you are talking about? As far I can see, this paper (plus the primary sources) provides good evidence that Prem Rawat currently not only believes in, but also is quite proud of his Indian spiritual heritage and that Momento's suggestion that all this is no more than an everyday, uninteresting, un-notable genealogical exercise is absurd. http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/academic/geaves_lineage.html PatW (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In answer to your presumably wanting to exclude this information because of your disinterest and Hunts idea that "Western followers do not see themselves as members of a religion [or of a spiritual succession], but rather as adherents of a system of teachings focused on the goal of enjoying life to the full". When Prem Rawat publishes HIS spiritual succession on his website etc. don't you think that suggests that he wants people to be aware of his roots and that might just be something he is proud of and that enhances his credibility as a Master promoting the same essential teachings as those before him?  Because THAT is what he is saying.  Saying "I come from a long tradition of revered Masters" is clearly not an isolated, irrelevant statement. It has an effect and intent and says something important and distinct about his teachings that saying 'he was related to someone in Ireland in 1843' (which is the gist of Momento's argument) would not achieve. In short it is relevant and important and interesting. It is also of some interest that Geaves' publication of this lineage is apparently motivated partly to refute statements from what he calls (in the paper)  "vociferous dissatisfied opposition of ex-members". PatW (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rumiton. There is nothing remarkable about a Guru having a Guru having a Guru etc. It is the norm. It would be far more remarkable if Rawat said he didn't have one. And, of course, Rawat "not only believes in, but also is quite proud of his Indian spiritual heritage". Why wouldn't he be? PatW's suggestion that we want to "exclude this information" is contradicted in the second sentence of the lead when we clearly state that "Rawat succeeded his father as Guru".Momento (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone interested in finding out about Prem Rawat should rightly expect to find in this article some reference to the roots of the teachings of this person who claims to be a Master. Especially since it is currently proclaimed elsewhere and in scholarly papers (albeit by Geaves). It's as simple as that. I think that the article is confused - followers cannot reconcile their desire to present Rawat now at every turn as someone who 'reluctantly inherited the baggage of Indian tradition' (blaming followers) and yet have to reconcile this with the fact that he is still teaching the same Indian derived teachings. There is no mention of the 'lineage' this man is so proud of in the article beyond the very confused 'Teachings' section where AGAIN the rhetoric is again clumsily over-keen to stress that "in In the 80s Rawat eliminated the Indian traditions" and there is no mention of the lineage. The fact that Prem Rawat claims a direct line of mastership from a very revered 18 century Indian Saint is fundamentally important to include. Even Geaves says in his paper: "Maharaji has successfully brought these ancient teachings from India to the world arena and given them such a unique new form in which they are able to be uprooted from their origins in the subcontinent whilst maintaining the essential message of the previous master."PatW (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This sentence in the article appears to be unbalanced and incorrect
'''In 1980, Rawat removed all the "religious" aspects of the movement and declared he now wanted "no movement whatsoever".[92] The Hindu references and religious parables that had been prominent in his teachings gave way to a focus on the meditation techniques. Once called "Perfect Master", Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru" [8][10] but affirmed his status as a master. Scholars such as Kranenborg and Chryssides describe the departure from divine connotations.[93][94]'''

I know Momento will argue that sources support this sentence but I suspect that there are sources around that could be found to balance the obvious wrong impression this section gives. Prem Rawat should not be misrepresented as as someone who just 'got rid of ashrams' and 'Hindu dogmas' and  his belief of the Perfect Master as being a God etc. but actively promoted these things himself in 1980 and beyond. Below are videos of a meeting in Rome in 1980 where he he says -


 * "Someday, with Guru Maharaj Ji's grace, there'll be ashram everywhere .."
 * "Look when there is going to be Guru Maharaj Ji in this world, whenever Guru Maharaj Ji is going to come in this world, and has, and will, and you know by his grace will keep coming again and again and again. Cause it's not guaranteed either. He can skip a term and that'll be the devastation of this entire planet."
 * "When Guru Maharaji Himself, like I said, that power Himself, accepts and will and does, take a human form, so that you can relate, for every individual human being, then what do you think is left that you can't understand? Do you think He'll come in this world, do you think Guru Maharaj Ji comes in this world to make the most incredible thing the simplest thing and then take the simplest things and make them so incredible that nobody can understand them. It doesn't even make sense."
 * "We have to understand that what we have to do is what Guru Maharaji wants us to do not what our stupid mind tells us to do."

He was very strong about these things as you can see. There are plenty of transcripts of similar 'Satsangs' in DLM magazines from the time that exist in libraries etc. PatW (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that de-Indianising the teaching of Knowledge did not happen in any one year and the article should not say so, but we are at the mercy of sources who apparently say it did. See my comment above re primary sources. Reliable secondary sources are people with an established reputation among their peers which can be damaged if they don't do their research thoroughly and professionally. Opinionated Wikipedia editors are often people who will be congratulated by their peer group if they succeed in promoting a one-sided interpretation of events. That's why they don't get to write the articles. Nothing personal; that's how it is. Rumiton (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Rumiton, this is whitewash. Do you not acknowledge that 'opinionated editors' HAVE 'got to edit the article' and are continuing to do so? The devil is in the detail. a) there has been a lot of paraphrasing of certain articles which appears to be unbalanced & selective. b) The strict adherence to these sources is a grey area and apparently not so black & white as opinionated editors have argued and 'wiki-lawyered'. I am not arguing to include primary sources, but they need to be taken into consideration in this case so that uninformed editors can see when unscrupulous editors are using sources in a one-sided manner. PatW (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As the sources clearly prove and the article says Rawat began removing the Indian aspects in "the 70s" and they were completely removed in the "early 80s".Momento (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So exactly where does it say "they were completely removed in the "early 80s"? Anyone?PatW (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the article PaTW. "In 1980, Rawat removed all the "religious" aspects of the movement and declared he now wanted "no movement whatsoever"."The Hindu references and religious parables that had been prominent in his teachings gave way to a focus on the meditation techniques. Once called "Perfect Master", Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru" [8][10] but affirmed his status as a master. Scholars such as Kranenborg and Chryssides describe the departure from divine connotations.[93][94][edit] In 1983 the Divine Light Mission was renamed Elan Vital and Rawat closed the last western ashrams, marking the end of his use of Indian methods for international objectives.[9]Momento (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So nowhere is the wording 'completely removed' used in a source or 'In 1980'. I wonder who put that in. Anyway I suggest that it would be a more accurate to use a less absolute adjective than 'completely' for the time-being as this is highly debatable.  Also 'In the early 80's would also be more accurate than 'In 1980' . Can you stop referring me to the article paraphrases and tell me what the sources actually say on these 2 points?PatW (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you do your own research PatW, all will be revealedMomento (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How 'uncollegial" can you get? If you had an ounce of decency you'd share the original quote from Björkqvist to prove your point. Instead you are evasive and mocking. Thanks a lot.PatW (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with PatW (a little celestial music, please, Maestro. Something exultant by Handel would be fine!) but I don't see any ill intent here. I don't know Finnish, from whence the "In 1980..." quote originally comes, but if the language resembles German then it may lack the array of tenses we are used to in English. "He removed..." in Finnish might well be meant to convey the idea of removal without necessarily implying that the removal was completed in that year. Problems like that arise in German-English translation often. Since we have a good English language source (Miller) telling us that closing the ashrams in 1983 marked the end of the process, I see no problem in amending the problematic first sentence accordingly. Rumiton (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be more than happy with the 'Hallelujah Chorus'. Thanks. PatW (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop the music! The whole point of asking PatW to do some research is so that he would learn to stop treating others as his personal research assistants and discover for himself what Björkqvist actually said (and not go off into this tangent of what a Finnish Björkqvist might have said). So PatW, and Rumiton, it's very simple, all you do is Google the source "World-rejection, world-affirmation, and goal displacement: some aspects of change in three new religions movements of Hindu origin" and read it. And what Björkqvist actually said was "In 1980, Maharaj Ji took a new initiative: he declared that he wanted to get rid of all the "religious" aspects of the movement, in fact, he wanted no movement whatsoever. All ashrams were abolished, and people who had been living in them in some cases for 10 years or more suddenly found themselves back to normal life. He abolished all satsang meetings. Divine Light Mission as an organization was also abolished. Most followers stopped being vegetarians, although to a greater extent they continued the practice of meditation". So a more accurate sentence would be, drum roll, "In 1980, Rawat declared he wanted to remove all the "religious" aspects of the movement and now wanted "no movement whatsoever". Momento (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Momento. I'm glad that you now don't deny that the article's current text was distorting the words of Björkqvist. Clearly he did not say that in 1980 Rawat removed anything. He merely says he declared his intentions in that year. The changes gradually took effect over the ensuing years which is more correct. Actually Björkqvist goes on to say 'The changes during the 80's were gradual.' For the time-being I suggest that we say something like this- "In 1980, Rawat declared he wanted to remove all the "religious" aspects of the movement and now wanted "no movement whatsoever".  The changes during the 80's were gradual. [92]The Hindu references and religious parables that had been prominent in his teachings gave way..etc"  This removes the confusion and leads better into the next section: "In 1983 the Divine Light Mission was renamed Elan Vital and Rawat closed the last western ashrams"  PatW (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As a side note might I say that Momento's suggestion that people should withhold information about sources to teach me a lesson about "treating others as his personal research assistants" is a very combative attitude. I am starting to see that the whole process of editing would run much smoother if people actually shared information and didn't treat sources as personal hidden resources. Some of these sources are not so easy to find... believe me I am trying. So if everyone here pooled resources it would be good. It only suits people with a malicious agenda to be secretive.PatW (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where "a malicious agenda to be secretive" occurs? But my version of Wikipedia provides reliable sources for all the material in the article, usually at the end of the sentence in question. In this case Björkqvist's "World-rejection, world-affirmation, and goal displacement: some aspects of change in three new religions movements of Hindu origin". So if anyone wants to check the material they simply look it up. I Googled Björkqvist's essay and found it in (0.61 seconds), scrolled down the page and five seconds later cut and pasted Björkqvist's original quote. Now, if that seems like I, and Wikipedia and the world, are "treating sources as personal hidden resources" as part of "a malicious agenda to be secretive" I'm afraid I'm not qualified to solve your issue.Momento (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cross purposes are being argued to. I think (hope) PatW was speaking generally. To paraphrase him: Being secretive would only suit those with a malicious agenda. Right, Pat? Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. A general comment. Secretiveness isn't far from 'ignoring' people. It's all in the same ballpark. It's all a little malicious when we are supposed to aspire to a bar of 'collegiality'. I'm reading rather enlightening stuff over at Wales' page and wonder if we maybe nearing a time when the NPOV policy is reviewed. Here's the sort of stuff they're saying

'' Misinterpreting NPOV, misinterpreting UNDUE, misinterpreting FRINGE—and rewriting pages to suit the agenda, then edit-warring when anyone tries to fix them....Editors are belittled, told that they don't a good enough understanding... hit with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE if they try and post a minority view, and are consistently combative. And if you ask them to explain their position, they just ignore the question....The problem is that the NPOV policy is so badly written—and in particular the much-misused UNDUE section—that it allows editors to make it say whatever they want it to say. Attempts to explain on talk pages that it's being wrongly applied are ignored by editors who use it to exclude significant-minority POVs, rather than seeing it as something that's there to protect those POVs. The letter of the policy is being used as a weapon against the spirit of the policy. The result of this—apart from our having a lot of rotten articles —is that we're going to fail to attract a new generation of Wikipedians, because without strong institutional support for neutrality, the project is a significantly less attractive place to work.'' PatW (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Millennium, and other '70s material
We now have about 60 words in the intro for material that takes up about 210 words in the text. If we followed that ratio for the entire article, the intro would need to be about 1000 words instead of its current 280. That would be quite long, but it's not impossible.

The material in the "1970-1973" section is now almost unmentioned in the intro. It has about 1350 words. If we follow the ratio set by the last revision, we should devote about 385 words to that period. Any complaints or comments so far?  Will Beback   talk    02:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that the 70-73 is underrepresented in the lead. It's that the 70-73 is bloated at 1265. It could easily lose 400 words. For example this section could well do without the material in bold without compromising the truth - "On arrival, Indian customs impounded a suitcase containing cash, jewelry and wristwatches worth between US$27,000 and $80,000 which they said had not been properly declared.[41][42] Rawat said, "It has nothing to do with me, it is an attempt to harm the Divine Light Mission. When someone grows, others get jealous of him, and the Divine Light Mission has just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world.” [43] A DLM spokesman said that the money had been pooled by 3,000 followers to cover expenses, and that the valuables were gifts.[44] The finances of Rawat and the DLM in India and overseas were investigated by the Indian government.[45] In June, 1973 the investigation was still under way, and Rawat had to post a $13,300 bond in order to leave the country.[46] Charges were never filed, and the Indian government later issued an apology.Momento (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That material has been discussed extensively in the past. We're discussing the intro now. Since I don't see any objection to following the same ration, I'll draft a 385-word proposal to cover the existing material in the "1970-1973" section.   Will Beback    talk    04:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have discussed everything many times. So I'll start paring down the "70-73" section. I imagine I can get it down to about 800 words as per the above example. So if you want to follow a ratio, I'd aim for about 70 words.Momento (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't delete anything without seeking consensus first. The proposal here is to alter the introduction.   Will Beback    talk    04:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there's not point in you working to a ratio if the section is full of puff. I mean the smuggling material is a joke. The only connection to Rawat was that he may have been on the same plane.Momento (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, this could easily be the most blatant example of attempted whitewashing I have ever seen, please do not remove relevant sourced, discussed material without consensus. Ronk01  talk,  05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ronk01, you need to be extremely careful. Your suggestion that "this could easily be the most blatant example of attempted whitewashing you have ever seen" is so baseless as to constitute a personal attack. I am completely within my rights to show how the section can be improved by getting rid of fluff, as I demonstrated above. I do not need consensus or your approval to do so.Momento (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of smuggling are hardly fluff, and with your editing history, my comment is anything but baseless. And yes, a follower of the subject to remove a large amount of critical material would require consensus, to alleviate any COI concerns. Ronk01  talk,  05:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when has presenting a proposal required consensus?Momento (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A proposal needs no consensus, but making a major change, like you said you were about to does. Ronk01   talk,  15:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And where do I say I was about to edit the article. I wrote my suggestion on the talk page as per usual. I may it abundantly clear it was an "example". I said I would "pare down the 70-73 section as per the above example" which clearly means in the same manner as the example by putting in bold what could be removed. And then I reiterate with "as I demonstrated above" again confirming that I will "demonstrate" my suggestion. Followed by "since when has presenting a proposal required consensus". At no point did I suggest I was going to edit the article.Momento (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the proposed text. It's about 100 words. This would go right before the material on the subject turning 16 and getting married.  Will Beback   talk    08:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the West, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on six chartered jumbo jets. He was accused by the Indian government of smuggling cash and jewelry and forced to remain there for months, but no charges were filed. The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome prominently featured Rawat. It was promoted heavily and predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt.
 * I don't know what the Indian festival and Jumbo jets have to do with Rawat. The article doesn't say Rawat was "accused" but it says the Indian government apologised to him. Millennium did feature Rawat but the shortsighted planning and a poor turnout is all about the "movement" not Rawat. The "new millennium of peace" was specifically for "people who want peace".Momento (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for that feedback. I've added the "for people who want peace" caveat. I've added "with him" to make it clear that he was also there.   Will Beback    talk    09:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You could also perhaps add "Charges were never filed, and the Indian government later issued an apology," and then perhaps come to the conclusion that the whole affair was nothing but a beat-up, for which too much space has already been allocated in this article. Rumiton (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just a short summary - the details are in the text. It already says that charges were never filed.   Will Beback    talk    12:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a short summary but not an entirely fair one. I don't think the article says he was "accused" and the article shows that the whole affair came to be seen as nonsense. Your suggested summary does not leave the reader with that impression. Rumiton (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any sources that say the whole affair was nonsense. It may be like an incorrect DUI arrest for a celebrity - nothing to it, but it receives immense attention. Be that as it may, it impacted the subject directly, and was among the notable events of his life. This is only a brief mention and it makes clear that there were no charges.   Will Beback    talk    12:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree Rumiton. Will Beback's suggestion distorts the article. To add that Rawat was "accused" and then to omit that the Indian government "apologised" to Rawat is inexcusable. And his argument to justify it is laughable. If a newspaper, let alone an encyclopedia, wrote that a passenger in a car was "accused" of being DUI when they weren't and omitted that the police later "apologised", they'd be sued. And the Millennium bit is almost unreadable.Momento (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And folks wonder why the text gets so long...
 * The source for the apology is Downton:
 * First, there was the claim by the Indian government that Guru Maharaj Ji and his family had smuggled jewels and large sums of money into the country, a charge which was eventually dropped with apologies from the government.
 * Note that many sources cover the incident, but only one source reports an apology. To accomodate the concerns, here's a fresh edition:
 * In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the West, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on six chartered jumbo jets. He and his family were accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and forced to remain there for months. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was promoted heavily and predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt.
 * Any other feedback?   Will Beback    talk    22:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't summarise the article. The Millennium business is about DLM not Rawat. The smuggling bit is hopeless. If people want 100 words on Rawat, I'll have to do it myself.Momento (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Following on from - He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message. (new section 110 words) "He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. But he was met with some ridicule by the press who claimed Rawat lived "more like a king than a Messiah". Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. The DLM's Millennium event of 1973 was called the "youth culture event of the year" but poor management by his family created a large debt.  When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement".Momento (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We cover the "lived like a king" material in the opulent living material already in the intro, which is why I didn't add it again here. We can add some of that material to the draft - we'll still be well under the 385-word target. The Charismatic leadership is already mentioned in the prior sentence - I'll add it here for clarity, along with the start of the rest of the material.
 * In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on six chartered jumbo jets. He and his family were accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and forced to remain there for months. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was promoted heavily and predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Though called "youth culture event of the year", a hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 ....
 * Is there anything important we're omitting? There's a whole paragraph about the divinity issue that maybe we should summarize too. Momento, would you like to propose some text for that?   Will Beback    talk    23:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with my proposal of 110 words for the 70-73 section. It gives it the same ratio of about 1:12 as the 73-83 section. Besides your latest proposal has chronology errors and doesn't say anything about what Rawat teaches which is the basis for his notability.Momento (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you point out the chronology errors? If you don't suggest some text for the divinity issue I will.   Will Beback    talk    00:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How can "The Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" before he arrives? The "divinity" issue is already covered by the name "Divine Light Mission", "his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God" and "new religious movement".Momento (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A topic sentence can cover material from various parts of the paragraph, but we can move it to address that issue. I'll write a "divinity" sentence to cover that issue.   Will Beback    talk    00:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is glaringly obvious from the above that either you or I can't read or write clear, logical prose. The suggestion that "Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" before "Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries (in 1971)" is bad enough. But when I point out the chronology error, you still don't pick it up. And even go so far as to ask me to point it out again! And then when the obvious is pointed out for the second time, you reply with "A topic sentence can cover material from various parts of the paragraph"?!? Firstly, it isn't a "topic sentence" and even if it was it's still wrong! It seems that your only purpose here is to question and criticise those people who can write clearly and logically according to Wiki policies and guidelines whilst making proposal the fail even the most basic of literary standards. Let's hear from others.Momento (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Momento, you've complained about incivility from other users, so I expect you to observe high standards yourself. Please remove your negative personal remarks so we can continue this discussion in a civil and collegial manner.   Will Beback    talk    01:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did make negative remarks about your conduct here. But they are all true and not personal.Momento (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that standard bodes well for civil editing. I'd like to ask you again to limit yourself to discussing the text and not the editor.   Will Beback    talk    08:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that civil editing is paramount, but I also see that Momento's doggedness and his reputation for stubborn persistence seems to be preventing other editors from looking neutrally at his suggestions, which seem valuable. Let's all keep trying to improve this talk page as well as the article. Rumiton (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So do you endorse Momento's claim that I can't read or write? Do you think that insults of that type are appropriate? I've been engaged in a civil discussion and out of the blue I'm described as illiterate. How am I supposed to respond to that remark?   Will Beback    talk    10:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take several deep breaths and ignoring any personal aspects, look carefully at the substance of his complaint. If you find none, then calmly and neutrally tell him why that is the case. Rumiton (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so you think the best response to personal attacks is to ignore them, and Momento defends his right to attack people if his allegations are true. This seems like a different approach than I saw here previously, but I'll extend good faith even though none seems to be extended to me.   Will Beback    talk    10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was an exceedingly poor atempt at paraphrasing my advice to you, even by the partisan standards that prevailed on this page some months ago. Please try harder to see my point. Rumiton (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Current proposal: Anything more to add?  Will Beback   talk    10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat followers adopted a fairly rigid view of his divinity and called him the "Lord of the Universe" despite his humble appearance. A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on six chartered jumbo jets. He and his family were accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and forced to remain there for months. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was promoted heavily and predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Though called the "youth culture event of the year", a hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 ....
 * The whole thing seems already a bit lengthy to me, for a summary, but no objection.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two proposals to cover the period 70-73 that starts a new paragraph after "He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message." and ends before "The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes." Will suggested keeping the same ratio as the article sections in which case this summary should be "about 100 words".

Proposal A - "In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat followers adopted a fairly rigid view of his divinity and called him the "Lord of the Universe" despite his humble appearance. A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on six chartered jumbo jets. He and his family were accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and forced to remain there for months. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was promoted heavily and predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Though called the "youth culture event of the year", a hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt.(181 words)

Proposal B - "He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. But he was met with some ridicule by the press who claimed Rawat lived "more like a king than a Messiah". Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. The DLM's Millennium event of 1973 was called the "youth culture event of the year" but poor management by his family created a large debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement"(110 words)

Momento (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Problems with Proposal A -

1) The article doesn't say "followers called him the "Lord of the Universe".(unsourced)

2) The article doesn't say Rawat had "a humble appearance".(unsourced)

3) The article sentence that includes the phrase "adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity" begins with "Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs".(selective quoting)

4) The article doesn't say "He and his family were accused by the Indian government of smuggling".(unsourced)

5) The article doesn't say his family was "forced to remain there for months".(unsourced)

6) The article doesn't say "charges were filed" or "charges were later dropped".(unsourced)

7) The article doesn't say Millennium was "promoted heavily".(unsourced)

8) The article doesn't say the poor turnout "damaged (the movement's) credibility".(unsourced)

9) The summary doesn't explain why Rawat "reated an extraordinary amount of interest". It was the "claimed ability to give a direct experience of God".(selective quoting)

10) The summary doesn't include the criticism "lived more like a king than a Messiah" in context and the time that it occurred. But leaves it for a separate sentence. (undue weight)

11) The summary doesn't disclose that the main organisers/disorganisers of Millennium was Rawat's family.(important point)

12) The summary doesn't include that when "Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement".(very important point)

13) The summary at 181 words is way out of proportion to the rest of the lead.

I think it's clear that Proposal A is completely flawed so unless there are any errors with Proposal B, I'll put it in.

Momento (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are my issues with option B:


 * 1) Option B takes a highly pro-Rawat stance (conveniently leaving out the smuggling, (which is sourced) and his involvement in Millennium '73 by deferring his blame to his family)


 * 1) Option B leaves out the lifestyle of excess that Rawat adopted in the 70's ("The Playboy Guru" wasn't a misnomer by any means)


 * 1) Option B leaves out much of the harsh criticism that Rawat began to face during the 70's

Ronk01  talk,  16:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposal B is an accurate summary of the "70-73" section.


 * Fact: As the article makes clear the Indian government apologised to Rawat for their actions because Rawat was innocent. Giving three sentences to a beat up is undue weight. And Rawat had nothing to do with Millennium other than speaking there. He had no management role until he turned 16.


 * Fact: It is Proposal A that leaves out any comment about Rawat's lifestyle. Proposal B says "lived more like a king than a Messiah".


 * Fact: As the article makes clear the criticism during the period was that he was "seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader" and ""lived more like a king than a Messiah".


 * Thanks for making your POV so clear. Momento (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's quite a list of issues for such a short bit of text.
 * 1. "LOTU" appears in almost every good source. On re-reading some it may be better to say that he called himself that, or was claimed to be it. We should also mention "Perfect Master" and the Holy Family.
 * 2. "A reporter who attended an event in Boston in August 1973 which drew 9,000 attendees wrote that Rawat appeared humble and human,..." We could say he appeared human, instead.
 * 3. Of course it's selective quoting - it's just the intro and we have to summarize points briefly.
 * 4. Downton says: First, there was the claim by the Indian government that Guru Maharaj Ji and his family had smuggled jewels and large sums of money into the country, a charge which was eventually dropped with apologies from the government. But we can drop the family, as that's an unnecessary detail.
 * 5. The festival was in November 1972. The article tells us "In June, 1973 the investigation was still under way, and Rawat had to post a $13,300 bond in order to leave the country." He was stuck from November to June, approximately six months.
 * 6. Downton says: First, there was the claim by the Indian government that Guru Maharaj Ji and his family had smuggled jewels and large sums of money into the country, a charge which was eventually dropped with apologies from the government. If he's accurate about the apology then I assume he's accurate about this too.
 * 7. "Rawat's publicity campaign was unparalleled. " We certainly have many sources that discuss the promotion of Millennium '73.
 * 8. "The failure of the event to meet expectations hurt the Divine Light Mission..."
 * 9. There are many sources that say Rawat generated interest. We're not just quoting one. For example, Downton says, The guru's first visit to Colorado in 1971 created great excitement, similar to a Christian revival meeting, as a sizable crowd of young people from the counterculture gathered in the mountains to see the 13-year-old guru whom people were calling the "Lord". ''
 * 10. This is true. We give too little weight to the opulent living material, which deserves an entire sentence of its own. I'll draft something.
 * 11. The organization of the festival is a good point to include in the article, but it's not necessary for the intro.
 * 12. The summary ends with the material we already agreed to, starting with " When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 ...."
 * 13. As we discussed above, the ratio of body text to intro text seems to be about 3.5 to 1, at least for the last bit of text we agreed to. We're still revising the rest of the intro (or so I gather), so I assume we'll expand it as we go. Much of the proposals' current length is a result of your suggestions.
 * I'll draft a fresh version based on this input. Thanks.   Will Beback    talk    19:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership and with unparalleled publicity, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat followers adopted a fairly rigid view of his divinity despite his human appearance. He was called the "Lord of the Universe" and the "Perfect Master", and his mother and brothers were called the "Holy Family". A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on chartered jumbo jets. He was accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and forced to remain there for months. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. Rawat's opulent lifestyle, including many homes and luxury automobiles, received media attention and he was often described as living "more like a king than a Messiah". The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Though called the "youth culture event of the year", a hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 ....
 * That addresses several of the issues raised above.   Will Beback    talk    20:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't corrected most of the errors I pointed out. Please stop wasting our time.Momento (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not every issue raised need to be fixed. See my responses above. Do you have any other input?    Will Beback    talk    22:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Every error needs to be fixed. Every comment needs to exist in the article. And the ratio between "74-83" article and summary is 13:1, so any summary of "70-73" should be about 100 words. But if you think your summary has no errors and follows Wiki policies, guidelines and practices, put it in.Momento (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any errors, I do believe it follows all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I do regard this as an improvement over the existing material.   Will Beback    talk    23:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

All information in the proposal is sourced (BLP and V), notable, and relevant, and since there is no specific guideline regarding ratios for leads of articles, I have to agree with the proposal that Will provided. Ronk01  talk,  01:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Ronk01, perhaps you or Will can show us where the article says Rawat was "forced to remain there for months".Momento (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, but I never said that it was in the article, I merely stated that it should be there somewhere, as it verifiable, non-libelous, and relevant. Ronk01  talk,  02:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it needs to be in the article as per WP:LEAD - "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article".Momento (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to Ronk01 - As you can see from Will's retraction below, you are wrong, "all the information in Will's proposal isn't verifiable". Momento (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I respnded to that point above:
 * 5. The festival was in November 1972. The article tells us "In June, 1973 the investigation was still under way, and Rawat had to post a $13,300 bond in order to leave the country." He was stuck from November to June, approximately six months.
 * Are you asserting that he was not forced to stay in India for months?   Will Beback    talk    03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly Will. Where is the source that supports your claim that "Rawat was forced to remain there for months"?Momento (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was clear in the article, but we can go back and improve that language if you don't think it makes the situation clear. Here are some sources:
 * ''Six members of the India Parliament, including some from the ruling Congress party, attacked the government for letting the guru leave India in June, after taking his passport earlier in the investigation. [..] Ganesh said the government had permitted the guru to leave India on the advice of the Law Ministry.
 * Boy Guru Suspected of Smuggling, AP Oakland Tribune, Aug. 25, 1973,
 * What the generous worshippers may not know is that the Indian Government is still determinedly investigating the mission's finances and allegations of smuggling £10,000 worth of jewels, currency and travellers' cheques from the U.S. last year. [..] Maharaj Ji has already dodged a grilling by India's revenue investigators on three occasions. But when he returns to Delhi this month he must face close questioning - or forfeit a £5,000 bond, the 'smuggled' goods and his passport
 * The 'boy god' with a taste for ice cream...and the good things of life, Richard Herd. Daily Mail, Thursday, July 12, 1973 - Page 21
 * Then Indian customs officials seized some $35,000 worth of jewelry, watches and foreign currency when the guru and some disciples, arriving in chartered jumbo jets, failed to properly declare the items. He was charged with smuggling, is currently under investigation and was forced to post a $13,300 bond before being allowed to leave lndia for an English-American tour to spread Perfect Knowledge.
 * Perfect Master on the Ropes?, Rolling Stone magazine, October 11, 1973
 * There has been a spot of trouble with Customs. On the guru's return from a world tour last November, accompanied by 400 foreign devotees, US currency and goods with a total value of $27,000 were seixed from the entourage. [..] "Will you be going abroad again?" The smile freezes; the look of suspicion comes back. I realize I've committed a faux pas; the police have impounded his passport.
 * Khushwant Singh, Gurus. Godmen and Good People, Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1975
 * If your passport has been impounded then you are forced to stay in the country.   Will Beback    talk    03:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's clear, there is no material in the article to support your claim that he was "forced to remain there for months". And there are no sources anywhere that say "he was forced to remain there for months". Ronk01 says "All information in the proposal is sourced" he must have something we dont.Momento (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If the police take your passport, that means you are not allowed to leave the country legally. I assume that you're saying he was still able to leave the country without a passport, though it's not clear which country he could get into without his passport. This objection seems tendentious, but if we really need to be literal then let's say his passport was impounded.
 * In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership and with unparalleled publicity, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat followers adopted a fairly rigid view of his divinity despite his human appearance. He was called the "Lord of the Universe" and the "Perfect Master", and his mother and brothers were called the "Holy Family". A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on chartered jumbo jets. He was accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and his passport was impounded. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. Rawat's opulent lifestyle, including many homes and luxury automobiles, received media attention and he was often described as living "more like a king than a Messiah". The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Though called the "youth culture event of the year", a hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 ....
 * There. Anything else?   Will Beback    talk    04:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are still many errors in your proposal but rather than me walking you through each of the errors, you should correct them and then we can see what it looks like.Momento (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't an error, but whatever. What other issues do you want addressed?   Will Beback    talk    04:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is Will. It is an error to claim something is sourced when it isn't. And I've already listed numerous errors that you haven't fixed. While you try to fix your proposal I'm going to keep on going with my earlier proposal.Momento (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are no further objections I'll post it.   Will Beback    talk    05:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No objections here. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect Master o.k., but where in the article does it say he was called "Lord of the Universe"?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's alluded to in the article. I can't believe this is a genuine objection. It would be in the lead, but Momento, Rumiton, and a Jossi-sock edit-warred over it. We are including events that have only a passing in a single source. I can provide three dozen references for it, making it a very prominent POV. We are violating NPOV by not including it explicitly.   Will Beback    talk    09:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a genuine objection alright. He was not called Lord of the Universe, except on anti-Rawat-pages ("LOTU"), and perhaps avidely colported by tabloid press, with the intention to ridicule him. That's why it has been removed from the text several times, as your quote-marks show. I see no need for a roll-back now. There was a song from devotees in the early 70s, first line: "The Lord of the Universe has come to us today". He never called himself that, nor was he adressed or characterized that way anywhere. OTOH "Perfect Master" was a denomination he used himself characterizing his function. So, to report: he was called LOTU is POV. Would be like writing: Will Beback was called "Best lover in the world" (or something really weird), when your wife said that to you. You would not like that in your BLP. If someone ever wrote that about you, I would also object.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am the best lover in the world and I have affidavits that prove it. ;)
 * As for this assertion, there are numerous scholarly sources that say he was called "LOTU". Far more sources than we have for some other assertion, such as the "apology" that only appears in one source but which editors demanded that we include. Even Downton, the source for the apology, acknowledges that the subject was regarded as LOTU. Now I wasn't there, and I have no direct experience of who said what to whom. But I can read. If we can't include things that have at least a dozen scholarly sources and several dozen reliable journalistic sources, then we might as well cut this article down to a stub because we won't be able to say much of anything. So, I have sources that say he was called that. Do you have any sources that say he wasn't?   Will Beback    talk    11:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right Rainer. And if you can read Will you will note that the claim "He was called the "Lord of the Universe", does not appear in the article and if it's not written in the article it doesn't get into the lead. But don't waste your time, you started this proposal on the basis that the summary in the lead of the "70-73" section of the article was under represented compared to its size in the article. And that's fair enough and I agreed to it. But if the "70-73" summary is to be anywhere near the same proportion as the summaries of the 60's section (9%), the "74-83" section (7.5%) and the "83-2000" section (6.5%), it needs to be about 100 words (8%) not the 263 words (20%) you're suggesting. If you need any help getting rid of the fluff, take a look at Proposal B, it's concise, accurately summarises the article, full of important info and weighs in at 110 words.Momento (talk)
 * The issue of it not being in the article can be fixed easily by adding it to the article more explicity. That's not a good issue by itself. Is there any object to adding the same sentence, more or less, to the body of the article?   Will Beback    talk    11:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. We've already been down this road, remember Aldridge? And the consensus was unanimous that it wasn't appropriate to add material to the article to justify a sentence in the lead and the offending sentence was removed from the lead. And I also object to Proposal A for all the reasons I've given.Momento (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that LOTU is important material to include in the article and in the lead because it is so widely reported. I've re-read the discussions in the past but I don't see any consensus to exclude it. After we finish dealing with the revisions to the intro I think we should take this up again. But, to avoid swamping this process with a contentious issue, I'll drop it for now.
 * I've addressed each of Momento's points, and made several revisions to the proposal in response. Just saying that they haven't been addressed isn't helping to resolving this.
 * The weight issues doesn't carry much, er, weight because we're not done revising the intro. While shorter text is often preferable, there are topics where we can't just tell a little of the story without adding certain facts. So some of the length is a result of that process. And this is perhaps the most noted period of the subject's life so far. There are simply more sources doing more reporting and analysis of this period. He had more news stories about him in some months back then than he's probably had in the last ten years, and scholars don't write about him much either. All periods aren't equal in importance.
 * In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership and with unparalleled publicity, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat followers adopted a fairly rigid view of his divinity despite his human appearance. He was called the "Lord of the Universe" and the "Perfect Master", and his mother and brothers were called the "Holy Family". A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on chartered jumbo jets. He was accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and his passport was impounded. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. Rawat's opulent lifestyle, including many homes and luxury automobiles, received media attention and he was often described as living "more like a king than a Messiah". The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Though called the "youth culture event of the year", a hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 ....
 * So there's the proposal with LOTU crossed out. Are there any objections to specific inclusions or omissions?   Will Beback    talk    12:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, in case it wasn't clear, the proposal includes text that would replace the last half of this sentence at the end of the intro:
 * Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses,[10][14] and for leading an opulent lifestyle
 * We'd have to re-word that slightly.   Will Beback    talk    12:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One more thing: In the text it says: Charges were never filed, while your proposal says Charges were dropped. I see a significant difference there. In my book Never filed means a lower level of substanciality.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's taken from Downton. He writes:
 * First, there was the claim by the Indian government that Guru Maharaj Ji and his family had smuggled jewels and large sums of money into the country, a charge which was eventually dropped with apologies from the government.
 * Is there any doubt that he is accurate? If we remove the "dropped" then we'd need to remove the "apologies" too, since they're from the same source. I'd be fine with going with a simple, "charges were never filed", which would shorten it.   Will Beback    talk    21:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't fixed the errors. It's still too long. So my objection still stands and will continue to do so until it's fixed.Momento (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Any specific errors? What do you think about the question raised by Rainer? Would you prefer a shorter "Charges were never filed", or the longer, Downton-based "The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government"?    Will Beback    talk    21:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this? If I can find one more error in your proposal, we'll drop it and insert Proposal B.Momento (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. If there are errors let's fix them. Any opinion on the "charges" question, above? If not we can leave as it is in the draft.   Will Beback    talk    21:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thinking it over, "The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government" contains more information and is the preferable alternative, if the issue were mentioned at all in the lede.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And since Will has steadfastly refused to fix the errors I've already pointed out above there is not point in discussing it any further.Momento (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never done anything of the kind. I keep asking you to point out errors and I address them when you do. If there are no other objections I'll post this.   Will Beback    talk    22:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But Will, the article doesn't say the poor turnout "damaged (the movement's) credibility". So it is unsourced and shouldn't be in the lead as I told you days ago. And as for "despite his human appearance", Ronk01 and Maelefique might think it OK but it is a bizarre and unacceptable inclusion!?! Just so we don't forget what an accurate, properly sourced summary of the "70-73" section looks like, here it is again -

Proposal B (amended) (He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.) "His claimed ability to give a direct experience of God created enormous interest among young adults but he was ridiculed by the press who claimed he lived "more like a king than a Messiah". Within a few years he had 50,000 followers in the US and under his charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. The DLM's Millennium festival in 1973 was called the "youth culture event of the year" but poor management created a large debt and when Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement"(112 words)  (The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes.) Any objections?Momento (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Millennium fest, the article says, "reporters found "a confused jumble of inarticulately expressed ideas"" and "The failure of the event to meet expectations hurt the Divine Light Mission". That seems like a fair summary. As for "human appearance", I don't mind dropping it. I was just trying to add another POV. Let's deal with one proposal at a time.
 * In 1971, Prem Rawat traveled to the the UK, US and other countries, where he created an extraordinary amount of interest. In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership and with unparalleled publicity, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat followers adopted a fairly rigid view of his divinity. despite his human appearance. He was called the "Perfect Master", and his mother and brothers were called the "Holy Family". A 1972 festival in India was attended by 500,000 people, including Westerners who arrived with him on chartered jumbo jets. He was accused by the Indian government of smuggling a large amount of cash and jewelry and his passport was impounded. The charges were later dropped with apologies from the government. Rawat's opulent lifestyle, including many homes and luxury automobiles, received media attention and he was often described as living "more like a king than a Messiah". The Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome featured Rawat prominently. It was predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". Though called the "youth culture event of the year", a hostile press, shortsighted planning, and a poor turnout left the movement with damaged credibility and serious debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 ....
 * Any more "errors" to fix?   Will Beback    talk    23:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I find Momento's version more conclusive and elegant, especially when you replace some of the ands with full stops. But I can live with Will's current version, too. Remember, it used to be a lot worse.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are still errors Will and it's still too long. I think you've had long enough, so if there are no Wiki based objections to Proposal B, I'd like to put in in.Momento (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are objection to your counter-proposal: it isn't as complete. Can you point to any remaining errors in the main proposal? Please be specific. I've addressed the length issue above, but you never responded.    Will Beback    talk    01:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did ask for "Wiki based objections". So no problem with sources, no SYNTH, OR or UNDUE WEIGHT. Good.Momento (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's deal with one proposal at a time. We've worked extensively on this proposal. You haven't raised any policy-based objections in days, so I guess that's it. If there's nothing else I'll post it.   Will Beback    talk    02:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me give you just two examples of how Prop A contravenes Wiki policies and guidelines - 1) the claim that Millennium "damaged (DLM's) credibility" is unsourced and doesn't even appear in the article (as I have already told you) and therefore contravenes WP:VER and WP:LEAD "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". And 2) the claim "DLM had "unparalleled publicity'" is likewise unsourced and doesn't appear in the article and therefore contravenes WP:VER and WP:LEAD as well. There are at least half a dozen more errors but if I edit Prop A to remove them there will be nothing left of value.Momento (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is only one proposal and that is to increase the length of the "70-73" lead summary from 63 words to about 100. There have been two versions put forward. Proposal A which is still full of Wiki errors and 100 words too long and Proposal B that has no Wiki errors and 112 words. We've waited days for you to fix the errors in Prop A but to no avail. So we have to go with Prop B.Momento (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't play games. You haven't said what errors haven't been fixed, despite many requests. "Prop B" is not an option that we've even looked at seriously because it is so far from complete and non-neutral. You pushed through your versions of the other revisions despite objections and I am reluctant to let you do it again. If you won't participate in a good faith effort to actually draft acceptable revision then please don't interfere with the rest of us.   Will Beback    talk    03:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you removed the material about DLM's "unparalleled publicity" and "damaged credibility"? No, you haven't. So why do you say I haven't "said what errors haven't been fixed"? I've given you two right there but Proposal A is beyond saving. It is not my job to write your proposal, I have gone much further than you in "drafting an acceptable revision". I have produced an accurate, properly sourced summary of the "70-73" period of the required length. And your claim that I have "pushed through your versions of the other revisions despite objections" is patently false since nothing has changed in the article without discussion and consensus with the exception of your incomprehensible objection that my suggestion  to insert "against his mother's wishes" into the lead was not true to sources when the article clearly says "lack of respect for her wishes"! That fact that you now say "you are reluctant to let you do it again" (add accurate sourced material to the lead) smacks of "I don't like it". I have bent over backwards to encourage you to write a summary that satisfies the criteria but you keep regurgitating the same terrible stuff.Momento (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Unparalleled publicity" is in the article. Why would we remove it?   Will Beback    talk    04:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the "unparalleled publicity" refers to Rawat not DLM.Momento (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, ... was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West."
 * That sentence is about the DLM. Is it an "error"? As for publicity, here's what the article says:
 * Rawat's publicity campaign was unparalleled. One journalist reported, "Thousands of people follow him wherever he goes; posters of his round, cheerful face adorn the walls of buildings in every major Western city; newspaper reporters and TV cameras cover his every public appearance – particularly his mass rallies, which attract hundreds of thousands of followers each."[55]
 * That doesn't even mention the DLM.   Will Beback    talk    22:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If Momento still doesn't agree to the version that we've developed together, then perhaps the time is ripe for mediation.   Will Beback    talk    06:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will certainly never agree to putting a summary riddled with problems such as no sources, SYNTH, OR and UNDUE WEIGHT in the article. And since no one has brought up any Wiki objections to Prop B I will give it another 12 hours before putting it in.Momento (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Momento, please stop making ultimatums. I disagree with your proposal but that's not what we're discussing here.   Will Beback    talk    22:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a synthesised proposal? Proposal C - He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God, and followers hailed him as the “Perfect Master.” But he was met with some ridicule by the press who claimed Rawat lived "more like a king than a Messiah". In the early 70’s, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. The DLM's “Millennium” event in November 1973 was predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace" and was described as the "youth culture event of the year," but poor management and a hostile press led to under-attendance and created a serious debt for the organisation. After December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement." The following May... In fairness, Will, the hiccup of the smuggling allegations seems to have no place in the lead, which needs to be concerned with weightier matters. Rumiton (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I like it.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rumiton, thanks for being more constructive than Momento, but that isn't a good proposal either. "poor management and a hostile press led to under-attendance"- I haven't seen that expressed anywhere. I'll go ahead and put in a request for mediation on this issue. Meantime, Momento, please don't make any unilateral edits.   Will Beback    talk    20:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-29/Prem Rawat   Will Beback    talk    20:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I quite like Rumiton's proposal. Not saying it's perfect, but it flows rather better. We could just drop the "poor management and hostile press" and simply say "the event was under-attended". Press ridicule is already mentioned earlier on, after all. -- JN 466  21:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jay - do you want to join the mediation too?   Will Beback    talk    21:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, Will. -- JN 466  11:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.   Will Beback    talk    12:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Convenience break
Rumiton has made another proposal, based on Momento's counter proposal: There are several problems with this proposal. For one thing, the subject called himself the "Perfect Master" - it wasn't just the followers who used that term. The article says " His arrival in the United States was met with some ridicule, as the teenaged Rawat was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader", not that he was ridiculed for his opulent living, which is a separate issue. It omits any reference to the divinity issue. Momento is concerned about discussing the DMLM too much, so mentioning the growth of the DLM would contradict that concern. As mentioned above, the description of the Millennium festival is incorrect. In his discussion, Rumiton objects to any mention of the smuggling incident. An alternative is that we can cover all of the minor issues (smuggling, ulcer, and Detroit beating) in one sentence.  Will Beback   talk    01:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God, and followers hailed him as the “Perfect Master.” But he was met with some ridicule by the press who claimed Rawat lived "more like a king than a Messiah". In the early 70’s, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. The DLM's “Millennium” event in November 1973 was predicted to be the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace" and was described as the "youth culture event of the year," but poor management and a hostile press led to under-attendance and created a serious debt for the organisation. After December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement." The following May... 
 * A sentence covering the minor issues could be something like:
 * Rawat received negative publicity over allegations of smuggling in Indian, the beating of a reporter by followers in Detroit, and a hospital stay due to an ulcer. 
 * That's more or less how they are covered in a couple of sources, including Downton.   Will Beback    talk    03:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's too much detail with too little context, Will. We should go for the wood rather than the trees in the lead. I'll have a go too:
 * He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a “Perfect Master”, he was presented by his family and senior followers as a divine incarnation. In the early 70s, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. It also became one of the most controversial, with Rawat being ridiculed for his youth and supposed divine status, and criticized for his wealth. The DLM's “Millennium” event in November 1973, organized by Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat and activist Rennie Davis, was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace", and described as the "youth culture event of the year." However, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation. After December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement." The following May...  -- JN  466  13:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's nice. It reads well and doesn't seem "squabbled over". It is mature and neutral and presents the most important points from the article for the reader. Good example of Wikipedia article lead writing, IMO. Rumiton (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't mention stuff in the lead that isn't mentioned in the article. If you want to mention "divine" it has to be in context, so - He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. But while Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs, they adopted a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and projected millennial preconceptions onto him. The DLM, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. It also became one of the most controversial, with Rawat being ridiculed for his youth and supposed divine status, and criticized for his "opulent lifestyle". The DLM's “Millennium” event in November 1973, organized by Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat and activist Rennie Davis,  was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace", and described as the "youth culture event of the year." However, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation. In December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement." The following May...  . I'm happy with thisMomento (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento is again trying to deny the facts about Rawat's self-proclaimed divinity. The use of Collier here is highly selective. She wrote: "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.' " '''She says he encouraged the views held of him as being divine. '''It's patently obvious that he did so why this constant sub-text that his divinie status was something projected onto him. He created that impression for goodness sake! I went to listen to him in 1974 and, forget about what other people were 'projecting onto him' - there was no doubt from Rawat himself that he believed to the hilt that he was a unique 'divine' incarnation of the Perfect Master as. It is utter rubbish to suggest otherwise. Nowhere in this article is it clarified enough that he was responsible for this perception and AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY it is suggested that others simply projected it onto him and he was reluctant to accept it. It's skilful persistent revisionism and nothing more.PatW (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually what I am doing is following Wiki policies, guidelines and practices and that means using what Reliable Sources say.Momento (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "... experience of God. Hailed as a “Perfect Master”, he was seen as an incarnation of the divine by many of those who became followers. The DLM, under ..." Would that work? -- JN 466  13:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems more in line with the article text. Rumiton (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * " Perfect Master" isn't mentioned in the "70-73" section so it can't appear in the lead. Using the sentence "But while Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs, they adopted a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and projected millennial preconceptions onto him." works well because a) it shows the conflict between Rawat's "experience based" teachings and "dogma based" teachings; b) doesn't attempt to describe the "ideas", c) doesn't pick a meaning for "divine" which is always a bad compromise between those who believe "divine" means "God" and those who believe it means "of God" and d) is faithful to the text. Momento (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The wording "But while Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs, they adopted a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and projected millennial preconceptions onto him." has two problems. First, the same that Will's proposal had -- trees, rather than the wood. Too much detail, not enough context. Second, it "blames" the followers alone for espousing these beliefs, and ignores that they were encouraged to have them, by Rawat's family, the mahatmas, and at least to some extent the young Rawat himself. As for Rawat's family and the Mahatmas encouraging these beliefs, this is acknowledged in Geaves' chapter in Gallagher/Ashcraft. There are also Rawat's own early statements like "I will bring peace", and many others like it, which were susceptible to being interpreted in the way that here was a messiah bringing peace to mankind. This does not need to be stated in the lead, but I am uncomfortable with a lead that suggests that followers "had only themselves to blame" if they espoused messianic beliefs. "Perfect Master" is mentioned before and after 70-73 section; it is an appellation that was certainly in use in the 70-73 time period. -- JN 466  21:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Rawat's family, the mahatmas" are followers. They had the most extreme views of them all. And I'm not making this sentence up, it's Downton whose book "Sacred Journeys" is certainly the best source for 1970s Rawat. Momento (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Downton also says, "During 1971, there were social forces encouraging the development of millenarian beliefs within the Mission. They were developed in part by the carryover of millennial thinking from the counterculture; by the psychological trappings of surrender and idealization; by the guru's mother, whose satsang was full of references to his divine nature; and partly by the guru, himself, for letting others cast him in the role of the Lord. Given the social pressures within the premie community which reinforced these beliefs, there was little hope premies would be able to relax the hold that their beliefs and concepts had over them." -- JN 466  14:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These are profound and nuanced words. Reproducing this intelligent tone and even-handed content in this lead may not be easy. Rumiton (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think "... experience of God. Hailed as a “Perfect Master”, he was seen as an incarnation of the divine by many of those who became followers. The DLM, under ..." is simply factual.  -- JN  466  00:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We must reflect to article. The only mention of "Perfect Master" is "In response, his mother, brother and the senior disciples accepted Prem as their "Perfect Master", bowed to his feet and received his blessing" in India in the "60s" section. Which doesn't cover "many of those who became followers" in the west. For "divinity" we are confined to "A reporter who attended an event in Boston in August 1973 which drew 9,000 attendees wrote that Rawat appeared humble and human, and seemed to intentionally undercut the claims of divinity made by followers.[49] Sociologist James Downton said that from his beginnings Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs that might impede them from fully experiencing the Knowledge (or life force), but this did not prevent them from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and to project millennial preconceptions onto him and the movement.[50]". Both sources and sentences clearly couple the followers ideas with Rawat's attitude. With Rawat "undercutting" and "appealing to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs" about his "divinity". You can't leave Rawat's response out of the discussion. Which is why "Rawat's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity" is a good addition since it covers both sides of the story.Momento (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the whole para the precedes the para above from Sacred Journeys page 199 - "From the beginning, Guru Maharaj Ji appealed to premies to give up their beliefs and concepts so that they might experience the Knowledge or life force more fully. This, I have said, is one of the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers perceptions of the world through deconditioning. Yet Guru Maharaj Ji's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age"Momento (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is absolute nonsense and a complete whitewash of the truth. The fact is that it was always Prem Rawat himself who claimed divinity and spoke about himself as the Perfect Master of this time. Anyone who was there and actually listened to Prem Rawat's own words cannot deny, then or now, that Guru Maharaj Ji promoted himself as the Perfect Master and the Supreme Being, like Jesus Christ (but infinitely more powerful).  Those are not the concepts and beliefs that he wanted premies to give up.  Those are the concepts that Rawat himself fed to people all of the time!  The concepts that he wanted premies to give up was that he was not the Perfect Master of this time, the only person in the entire universe who could give people perfect peace and liberation through devotion to his holy lotus feet.  Here's but one of hundreds of examples of Rawat telling premies what to think, feel, and believe about this very subject.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjP0teaGNbA  There are many more, which I will continue to post here until this crazy revisionism is dispensed with on this page!  Sylviecyn (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So, can we agree to insert the following wording in the lead?
 * He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a “Perfect Master”, he was seen as an incarnation of the divine by many of those who became followers. The DLM, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. It also became one of the most controversial, with Rawat being ridiculed for his youth and supposed divine status, and criticized for his wealth. The DLM's “Millennium” event in November 1973, organized by Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat and activist Rennie Davis,  was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace", and described as the "youth culture event of the year." However, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation. In December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May...  -- JN  466  19:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well constructed. I agree.Momento (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are the names of the organizers of Millennium '73 so important that we should include them in the lead?   Will Beback    talk    23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand why you're asking, but Rawat was 15 then, and was not in charge of organising the event. BBJ and Davis did have a high media profile at the time, so I think it is not undue. -- JN  466  23:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, they organized it. But why do we need to mention that in the lead? If we want to give a fuller explanation then I can think of several details that are more important than that. I also think that "youth culture event of the year" isn't the most typical evaluation of the festival, so it's probably undue weight to include that. I don't think we develop the idea in this article that the DLM was among the most controversial NRMs of the period. Rawat himself was controversial, and that's what we should say here.   Will Beback    talk    23:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Momento; I've dropped it in. Looking at the lead now, it seems to me it lacks material on the three most recent decades of Rawat's life to date. At a minimum, we should add that he travels the world to speak to people about peace, and a mention of the Keys DVDs and satellite broadcasts. -- JN  466  23:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I already made a little start and have made a new section below called "83-2000s lead".Momento (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't make edits without consensus, Jayen. We've got mediation pending on this issue.   Will Beback    talk    23:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal had been discussed here for several days, and there appeared to be progress and agreement; all objections raised were discussed and addressed. I find it rather disappointing that you only voice concerns now, after what seemed a satisfactory conclusion of the debate, given that you have made edits to this page during this period. I know there is a mediation request pending, but I see no sign of any action on that front, and if editors on this page actually can get it together occasionally to find something resembling consensus without inconveniencing a mediator, I think that is on the whole an agreeable development. -- JN 466  00:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But we don't have agreement. Your proposal has a number of problems that I've pointed out.   Will Beback    talk    01:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your ability to fairly assess proposals has been called into question after your last one that was riddled with unsourced, OR, SYN and UNDUE material.Momento (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Another concern is that the "Perfect Master" title is depicted as a title given by acclaim, while many sources I've seen say that Rawat called himself that. There are instances where he was asked what what it meant and he explained why he was the "Perfect Master".  Will Beback   talk    01:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's hear what other say. As for "Perfect Master" Jayen's proposal "Hailed as a “Perfect Master”, is faithful to the source and the article "In response, his mother, brother and the senior disciples accepted Prem as their "Perfect Master", bowed to his feet and received his blessing". He may have called himself that but only after he was accepted as "Perfect Master" by others.Momento (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could it not simply be stated what both sources/viewpoints say? Without going into it too much, for example, if one source says A and is valid and reliable, and another source says B and is also valid and reliable, could you simply not say that Source A says X and source B says Y?. If that makes any sense. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  02:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We are trying to write a lead, a broad overview. It's an incontrovertible fact that he was hailed as a "perfect master" by his followers. If you look at the newspaper coverage of this era, this is what they wrote about, time and time again: Here is this Indian kid whose followers call him "perfect master" and think he is a divine incarnation. It's what he was notable for, and it's how he was most often described when he first arrived in the West. -- JN 466  03:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So what's the issue? If sources say that followers called Rawat a "perfect master" then why can't that simply be stated. Can I see the source? Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  03:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples:, , , , , , , , , , etc. In my view, it's how he was typically described. -- JN 466  03:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point SZ. A few sentences before you are supporting the idea of saying "that Rawat called himself a Perfect Master". The lead must follow what the article says, the article says "In response, his mother, brother and the senior disciples accepted Prem as their "Perfect Master". It is fair to say Rawat was "hailed as a Perfect Master" but the article doesn't say "his mother, brother and the senior disciples called him a "Perfect Master". There is a difference and no one should want to set a precedent for putting stuff in the lead that isn't in the article. WP:LEAD says don't do it and it would set this article back months.Momento (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not reading what I'm saying. First of all, yes, the lead has to somewhat follow the article. However, if the article said that Rawat was 5000 years old and was from Mars, that wouldn't be included in the lead. My point is, if part of the article is wrong, it shouldn't be in the lead simply because it's in the article. This is a controversial article, let's all accept that. Simple solution - add only what the source undeniably says. If the source says followers hailed him Perfect master, then add it. What source/s are being referred to. I'd like to look them over if I could. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  03:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, if the article says "that Rawat was 5000 years old and was from Mars" and it was correctly sourced, it "would be included in the lead". What you and Will Beback are suggesting is that anything that can be sourced can be in the lead. In which case you could make the lead say the opposite to the article. The only source for the words "Perfect Master" in the article is Malgalwadi and he is quoted with "In response, his mother, brother and the senior disciples accepted Prem as their "Perfect Master", bowed to his feet and received his blessing". Hail means to "acclaim enthusiastically as being a specified thing : he has been hailed as the new James Dean". Or in this case "Perfect Master".Momento (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to group me into a party or side in this dispute. I'm merely trying to add my input to help how I can. I'm not really bothered if I input or not. I have plenty of other things I could be doing. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  04:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rawat never called himself a "Perfect Master" until after he was accepted as a Perfect Master. He also called himself a "teacher, master, guru, satguru, servant of god etc" but his use of the titles was far outweighed by other people using them to describe him. "Perfect Master" is mentioned in the article in the "60s" section and Jayen has done well to include it in a neutral, factual way.Momento (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hailed" by whom? Mangalwadi says
 * ''On August 1, 1966, when he was eight years old, he declared himself to be the "Perfect Master." To the thousands of devotees present at his father's funeral, he said, "Why are you weeping? Haven't you

learned the lesson that your master -taught you? The Perfect Master never dies. Maharaj Ji is here, amongst you now." Awed at this declaration, his mother, brothers and mahatmas (apostles) present, prostrated themselves at his feet and received his blessings.''
 * Rawat was quoted as saying, in a public talk:
 * "The guru is a Perfect Master born of a Perfect Master." he said. "Just as Christ and Buddha and Mohammed were masters, the guru is master. There is always one among us. But this is the first time there has been a perfect master born of a perfect master." March 8, 1974
 * Other sources say:
 * These informants said Mrs. Gandhi herself has taken a personal interest - in her capacity as head of all intelligence agencies — in the controversy swirling around Guru Maharaj Ji, known to his devotees as "lord of the universe," "prince of peace" and "the perfect master."
 * To them as to his other followers, he is the "Perfect Master" and "Lord of the Universe." [..] At the funeral, therefore, he confronted his father's mourning flock: "Why are you weeping? The Perfect Master never dies. Maharaj Ji is here, amongst you."
 * Maharaj Ji took over at the age of 8 as "Perfect Master" when his father died. He said a voice came to him saying, "You are He. You are to continue." Maharaj Ji said he did not want to become the head guru and would have preferred to be "a mischievous little hoy." But he could not deny his duty and at his father's funeral he told the mourners to stop weeping. "The Perfect Master never dies," he told the flock. "Maharaj Ji is here, amongst you."
 * Why do followers of this 15-year-old boy revere him as the "Lord of the Universe" and the "Perfect Master"?
 * The 15-year-old Perfect Master, who lives in India, has an estimated following of 50,000 in this country including a dedicated group in Fayetteville, which emulates his teachings of the knowledge of truth. A Perfect Master, says Maharaj Ji, is "a man who teaches you perfectness," which is attained through knowledge, a matter of experience.
 * Guru Maharaj Ji's purpose is to reveal the perfect and practical realization of God to those who take his knowledge. For this reason he is referred to as the "Perfect Master." This is the same knowledge that was revealed by Jesus, Buddha, Lao-tze, and other great spiritual masters of their time.
 * He is termed a "perfect Master — one who teaches perfect truth — a title inherited at the age of eight from his late father who had founded the movement in 1960 in India.
 * Reminded that many followers believe he is the incarnation of God, Maharaj Ji said, "They might say that, but I don't." "I just call myself a perfect master," the guru said, explaining that there was only one such human on earth at a time — his own late father and Jesus were perfect masters — and that the term referred to an ability to teach that which is perfect — knowledge of God, of the life force or primordial energy within everybody.
 * ''An official biography says that he was born in India 15 years ago, the youngest of four sons of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, "Perfect Master of his time and founder of the Divine Light Mission." His followers claim that Maharaj Ji, who first gave discourse at the age of two-and-a-half, (and his first English discourse at six), became a Perfect Master at eight, barely two weeks after his father's death. A Perfect Master is "one who can teach the Knowledge of God." [..] Maraj Ji is said to be the latest in a long line of Perfect Masters, which include Moses. Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna and Rama. There is said to be one Perfect Master present on earth at all times. As the world's only living Perfect Master, Maharaj Ji claims that his teachings reveal the basic aim of all the world's religions. "You can't run the country with a dead president," said one Mahatma in a warm-up satsang before Majaraj Ji's Saturday address. "To get peace, you must go to a living Perfect Master."
 * Blue Aquarius is the new rock band of Guru Maharaj Ji, the self-proclaimed perfect master, who is leading a pilgrimage of his followers from all over the world to the Astrodome in November. [..] The Guru claims to be one in a long line of perfect masters--which included Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna and Rama.
 * Called the Perfect Master by his disciples, 15-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji will appear ...
 * Disciples, such as these at Kennedy Airport welcome, consider 15-year-old guru their "Perfect Master."
 * Q. Why do you think you can succeed when other perfect masters failed? A. Listen, man, I'm not saying they have failed; I just say I can bring peace to this world. I'm not asking who passed and who failed. 
 * Guru Maharaj Ji, the 16-year-old self-styled "perfect master" who is spiritual leader of the Divine Light Mission, married his secretary Monday night, the Rocky Mountain News reported today in a copyrighted story.
 * The followers call him the "perfect master" and some worship him as God.
 * Guru Maharaj Ji, the cherubic-faced Indian boy called the "perfect master" by his estimated six million followers, celebrated his 17th birthday Tuesday. 
 * In a signed statement, his mother said she is removing her son as spiritual leader of the Divine Light Mission and no longer recognizes him as the "perfect master," as he is known to his followers.
 * The guru was named the "perfect master" by his mother upon his father's death. 
 * Once, Maharaj Ji was known as "Lord of the Universe" and "Perfect Master" to his devotees. 
 * To the general public it is the height of ridicule to believe that "a fat little rich kid" with a taste for luxurious living and expensive gadgets—and who, on top of everything, married his secretary, a woman eight years older than himself—could be the Perfect Master; yet here is Guru Maharaj Ji using the very ludicrousness of that proposition to support his claim that he is, in fact, the Perfect Master: I mean, it's like man is like a big surprise, you know, people talking about surprises, but I think Perfect Master is the biggest surprise. And people make a concept of a Perfect Master, he's going to be like this, 'n' he's going to be like this, 'n' he's going to be like this. And then he comes. He's completely different and as a matter of fact surprises the world so much, surprises everybody so much they don't think he is (from satsang concluding Guru Puja '74, Amherst, Mass.).
 * He denied that he himself was perfect, asserting only that e could show one perfection. "If you want to learn about mathematics, you go to a mathematics master. If you want to learn about perfection, you go to a Perfect Master."
 * Guru Maharaj Ji himself talks about a succession of perfect masters preceding and following him. Since there can be only one Perfect Master living at one particular time, it follows that Maharaj Ji is the satguru of our times. He fulfills the requirements of the perfect master and his devotees have no difficulty ascribing to him the attributes of the godhead. 
 * He admits bluntly he is the Perfect Master, that most supreme energy, which can refer to nothing else but to God.
 * And so on. We have sources that say his followers or disciples called him that, and that he claimed the name for itself. The proposed text doesn't reflect either view correctly. As Steve suggests, we should include both.   Will Beback    talk    03:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so what is universally agreed by all of you at the moment, and what is still under debate? Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  04:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope we all agree that according to many sources, Rawat's followers called him "Perfect Master". Will, it seems to me, is not happy to say so, without adding that Rawat called himself "Perfect Master" as well, or just wants to say that Rawat called himself "Perfect Master", without saying that his devotees called him that. -- JN 466  04:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that this is a typically bizarre Rawat discussion. Saying that his devotees called him "perfect master" in no way implies that Rawat didn't claim to be a perfect master ... in fact, it rather implies the opposite, doesn't it, especially since we have already said in the first paragraph of the lead that Rawat took over as satguru to millions of Indian followers at age 8, and then travelled to the west to "spread his message". -- JN 466  04:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How many sources state his devotees stated he is the perfect master, and how many clearly state he called himself the perfect master. And how reliable are each of the sources. Is it honestly crucial to have either/both in the article? If so, why? Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  04:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think all sources without exception state that his followers called, or revered, him as a, or the, perfect master. As for Rawat's own statements, they are considerably more varied, as you can see from the above examples Will posted. This is why I went for the phrasing that all sources agree upon: his followers regarded him as that. -- JN 466  04:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there really a major issue with something along the lines of, "[sources quoted] Rawat's followers revered or called him a, or the perfect master [sources here], while [other sources] state he referred to himself as the/a perfect master [sources here]. Tweak with the wording, but you get the idea. It's not our responsibility to make an opinion on what happened/was said, only to state that X source said A and Y source said B. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  04:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is not really a contradiction between the two; they go together. Saying that his followers revered him as a perfect master implies that that is the role he assumed for them. Some sources explicitly say both, e.g. . We could say "Hailed as a “Perfect Master”, and asserting himself as such, he was seen as an incarnation of the divine by many of those who became followers." It is a little clumsy, but if that is what it takes, I can live with it. Or perhaps you can think of something more fluent. -- JN 466  04:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with that summary is Rawat didn't "assert himself as such". He got up at 8 year's old and took the position once and for all, there was no asserting after that, it was a done deal. The use of the word "Hail" is an excellent choice because it means "to acclaim enthusiastically as being a specified thing, as in "he has been hailed as the new James Dean". And that's exactly what happened. What ever Rawat or the new James Dean called themselves in irrelevant by comparison.Momento (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. He was celebrated as that, people like Rennie Davis excitedly proclaimed it, and the word "hailed" expresses that. -- JN 466  04:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where Rawat often, and I believe consistently, contradicted his followers in press interviews was in the assertion that he "was God". Will posted an example above: 'Reminded that many followers believe he is the incarnation of God, Maharaj Ji said, "They might say that, but I don't. I just call myself a perfect master." Or, He denied that he himself was perfect, asserting only that he could show one perfection. "If you want to learn about mathematics, you go to a mathematics master. If you want to learn about perfection, you go to a Perfect Master." But this is far too much detail to get into in the lead. -- JN 466  04:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's go back to what you had. It was fluent, accurate and summed up the period. "He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a “Perfect Master”, he was seen as an incarnation of the divine by many of those who became followers. The DLM, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. It also became one of the most controversial, with Rawat being ridiculed for his youth and supposed divine status, and criticized for his wealth. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973, organized by Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat and activist Rennie Davis, was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace", and described as the "youth culture event of the year." However, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation". It's light years better than what we've got.Momento (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be very happy with that. It reads like English, and I don't believe there is anything factually wrong in it. -- JN 466  04:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the issue: "hailed" by whom? At a minimum, it should say something like "hailed by his disciples/followers".
 * It also doesn't address the undue weight on the "youth culture event of the year", or why we're naming Satpal and Davis in the in the lead. Maybe we should wait for mediation, as we don't seem to be making any progress.   Will Beback    talk    05:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We already know he's called "Prem Rawat and Maharaji and formerly Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar and the Satguru". "Perfect Master" is over kill. Let's leave it out and Sat pal and Rennie but for something to described as the "youth culture event of the year" shows how significant this event was. So how about - ""He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God and was seen by some as an incarnation of the divine. The DLM, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. It also became one of the most controversial, with Rawat being ridiculed for his youth and supposed divine status, and criticized for his wealth. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973, described as the "youth culture event of the year",  fell far short of expectations and created a serious debt for the organisation". Which, coincidently is 101 words we were aiming for.Momento (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll make comments tomorrow, gotta go to work. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  06:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The intro is the normal place to deal with names and titles. "Perfect Master" was not simply a nickname, it defined the subject's unique role, the one and only living Perfect Master.
 * We don't need a quote to say that the Millennium festival was an important event. Since it represents a minority view it is not a good choice for the lead anyway. Where do we get "supposed divine status" from? Why are we saying that the DLM was controversial, rather than the subject? Was he criticized for his wealth or for his use of luxury cars and homes? I don't think that version is a good summary of the article or of the sources.   Will Beback    talk    09:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would this help?
 * In a publicly available fragment of a recorded speech, Guru Maharaji speaks of Arjuna asking Krishna how one can find out about the essence of life and death. GM then comments: “Krishna says, ‘You have to go to the Perfect Master of your time.’ It’s so clear, so clear.”
 * Shortly afterwards in the same speech GM quotes Guru Parameshwara as allegedly saying, “Guru Maharaj Ji is that  supreme power, is, and always will be.” Ombudswiki (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are SO not getting it. This is a primary source, a fragment, as you say, posted in isolation on Youtube to promote a certain point of view. There are literally thousands of others similarly posted that promote other, opposite, points of view. Do you want to include them all, or in other words, are you trying to start a war? We must have reputable secondary sources that interpret the entirety of what is available in the light of their own historic and cultural knowledge. These secondary sources need to have established reputations that will be damaged if they get the interpretations wrong. That is what makes them "reliable." The best of them are religious scholars. Please try to understand this point; is is getting very tedious having to repeat it. If you don't believe me, have a good look at Wikipedia reliable sources. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rumiton is right that we can't use that as a source. FWIW, all of the excerpts I posted above are from reliable sources.   Will Beback    talk    12:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that people have found problems with "Perfect Master" perhaps "He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. But he was met with ridicule by the press for his youth, his supposed divine status and for living "more like a king than a Messiah". Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. The DLM's Millennium event of 1973 was called the "youth culture event of the year" but poor management by his family created a large debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement".Momento (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What problems? There are dozens of sources for "Perfect Master", but only a single source for "youth culture event of the year". I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.   Will Beback    talk    21:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Convenience break 2

 * OK, I'm awake now...heh. Anyway, what's the proposed text to be added or changed. Because I have either not seen it or missed it. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  21:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his disciples, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed for his youth and supposed divine status, and criticized for his wealth. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace". However, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation. In December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May... 
 * What do you think? -- JN 466  21:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's significantly better. A relatively small quibble is that few, if any, sources criticized Rawat for his wealth. Rather, it was the ostentatious use of luxurious goods like cars, automobiles, stereos, and homes.   Will Beback    talk    22:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "for his luxurious lifestyle"? -- JN 466  22:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Opulent is a better word. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  22:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Already used in the last sentence of the lead. Wouldn't want to use it twice. -- JN 466  22:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rawat didn't have disciples, it was a movement with followers. "Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine". If you want "opulent" the source says "what appears to be his opulent lifestyle". And the last para should be incorporated into the preceding ones.Momento (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about "luxurious" we should mention that they were gifts as is clearly set out in the article.Momento (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Back when I was making proposals, I was suggesting that we include a fuller treatment of the "opulent lifestyle" matter in this paragraph and leave off the too-short mention at the end. "Gifts" is not needed, but if we're going to devote several sentences to the opulent lifestyle then it'd be appropriate to include it.
 * As for "disciples", many sources would disagree.   Will Beback    talk    22:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe but the article says "followers".Momento (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Followers or disciples is the same to me, I don't mind saying followers if some editors prefer it. -- JN 466  22:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of preference, it is what the article says.Momento (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And we have "divine" in twice without mentioning Rawat's attitude to it as expressed in the article.Momento (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As for "luxuries" - "At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth, his supposed divine status and the luxurious gifts his followers gave him".Momento (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As for followers versus disciples, sources use them both (including those excerpted above). Either is fine with me, but the assertion that there were no disciples is just an editor's opinion.
 * I'll propose again the text I offered before:
 * Rawat's opulent lifestyle, including many homes and luxury automobiles, received media attention and he was often described as living "more like a king than a Messiah". 
 * That covers it succinctly and incorporates the text at the end of the lead.   Will Beback    talk    22:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But it mentions nothing about "gifts" and any of this sourced material from the article - "Supporters said there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches. That Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong. Rawat said, "I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things – I give peace". "Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman said.[67] Some premies said that he did not want the gifts, but that people gave them out of their love for him. They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West". Which makes your proposal horribly lop sided and look like a POV push.Momento (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. His opulent lifestyle, including luxury homes and automobiles made available to him by his followers, likewise received media attention." -- JN 466  23:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's OK. We could even say, "...automobiles given to him..." to make it more succinct and to accommodate Momento further.   Will Beback    talk    23:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Enough's enough ""opulent lifestyle, including luxury homes and automobiles". The article talks about gifts and Rawat's and followers explanation of them. You can't just single out the criticism. ""At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth, his supposed divine status and the luxurious gifts that were given to him".Momento (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He was not criticized for receiving gifts. He was criticized for using luxurious cars and homes, etc. that were given to him. There's a difference.   Will Beback    talk    23:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. So how about - "At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth, his supposed divine status and for using the luxurious gifts that were given to him".Momento (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with Jayen's version, as I modified it: ""At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. His opulent lifestyle, including luxury homes and automobiles given to him by his followers, likewise received media attention." That seems to cover most of the issue (though it omits several significant) controversies).   Will Beback    talk    23:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember that technically, the homes and cars weren't his, but were put at his disposal by the DLM. Do you happen to have a source to hand? I may be wrong. If I am, then "given to him" is fine. -- JN 466  23:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is all for the lead, isn't it? How large does the lead have to be, honestly? If less in the lead causes less arguments, isn't that a win-win? People can easily read more below if they want to. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  23:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve has a good point.
 * As for the ownership of the items, that is mostly unknown and doesn't figure prominently in the sources, so far as I can tell. In the case of the cars, they were for his exclusive use so it wasn't like they were simply made available to him. Smaller items, like expensive audio equipment, was probably either given outright or bought with donated money. But no one really knows. I think we should avoid trying to be over-precise.   Will Beback    talk    23:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence "made available", which is a little fuzzy. Some things he owned, others like the Malibu House and some of the cars were bought by the DLM and made available to him; sources actually do mention that. -- JN 466  00:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it makes sense to limit the size of the lead and not only because it creates more arguments. We had established that the 70-73 summary should be about 100 words to keep it in ratio with the article. That is why I have kept my proposals to about 100 words. As per this one - "He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. But was ridiculed by the press for his youth, his supposed divine status and for living "more like a king than a Messiah". Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. DLM's 'Millennium' event of 1973 was called the "youth culture event of the year" but poor management created a large debt. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement" (108 words). "living more like a king than a Messiah" is a good phrase because it appears in the article and covers both luxurious living and the divine connotation.Momento (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "We" didn't establish that this material should be about 100 words - you asserted that. Again, what's wrong with Jayen's last proposal?   Will Beback    talk    00:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You said that "the material in the "1970-1973" section is now almost unmentioned in the intro" and proposed that "we follow the ratio set by the last revision". As I calculated "110 words would give it the same ratio of about 1:12 as the 73-83 section". You then wrote a proposal saying "It's about 100 words". So I assumed you agreed with your own proposal to keep the same ratio.Momento

(talk) 00:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the ratio, or whether the section has 97 or 136 words really matter? It's about the quality and relevance of what's in there, and not how much stuff is in there. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  00:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Following the ratio is just a tool to put a limit on the summary. To try to ensure the summary is more quality than quantity and that only the important stuff is included.Momento (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the current section of the lead as it stands? Then I can figure out the changes and it can be worked on. Talking about it for days doesn't get anything done apart from fill archives. Let's actively work on it. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  00:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This would replace:
 * In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West.[4] When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement.
 * We're trying to summarize the section titled "1970–1973".   Will Beback    talk    00:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  00:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion is now continued below, at . -- JN 466  14:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)