Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:59, 17 April 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prem Rawat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53Auto-archiving period: 10 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Prem Rawat. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Prem Rawat at the Reference desk.

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

	Prem Rawat was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 25, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

• This talk page contains numerous non-archive subpages involving past disagreements, including: /Bio, /Bio proposal, /Bio proposal/talk, /Bio proposal nr2, /Bio proposal nr2/talk, /Comments, /GA Review March 07, /GA review 1, /Teachings, /Teachings (draft), /criticism, /lead, /temp1
• Sources: /scholars, /journalists, /WIGMJ, /First person accounts, /Lifestyle, /Bibliography, /mahatmas, /Leader of
• Reference quotations removed from inline cites: /References
• Related talk of a merged page: Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (and archives of that talk page: Archive 14 • Archive 13 • Archive 12 •Archive 11 • Archive 10 •Archive 9 • Archive 8 • Archive 7 • Archive 6 • Archive 5 • Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1)

Archives

Archive index June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007 December 2007 — February 2008 February 2008 February 2008 (2) February 2008 - March 2008 March 2008 (Archive 33) (Archive 34) (Archive 35) (Archive 36) (Archive 37) (Archive 38) (Archive 39) (Archive 40)

Summarizing quotations

The Media section includes a disparaging reference to the subject's weight and appearance. In my opinion the article is degraded by the inclusion of this material. ""In 1973, the 50-member public relations team of the Divine Light Mission concluded that he was seen as a "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce ... who was arrested for jewel smuggling""

The out of context statement "...arrested for jewel smuggling" could be especially problematic. We have no control over the way readers use Misplaced Pages articles. It is possible that the jewel smuggling statement could be copied and quoted elsewhere as fact. For that reason I think we should make it clear in the media section that Rawat was not arrested.

From the BLVP policy page, "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.] And, from the intro, "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." ]

I suggest that we paraphrase rather than quote the public relations team's 1973 conclusions. By doing so we can preserve their apparent meaning and intention, while producing a statement commensurate with Misplaced Pages's policies. Here's my suggested edit.
In 1973, the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team concluded that his credibility had been compromised by his youth, physical appearance and use of a Rolls Royce, as well as the Detroit 'pieing' incident and unfounded allegations of smuggling that had originated in India.
What do you think? Opinions please.--Zanthorp (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That reads pretty well to me, and is a further step away from the article's sometimes flippant past. Rumiton (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree--Rainer P. (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that this is disparaging or that it makes the article tabloid-like. It's a simple statement by the subject's own people about perceptions of him. Clearly, those were negative and we should be honest about that. However, I don't object to summarizing this quote - we should also summarize a couple of other quotes in this article too. I've made a few small adjustments to the proposed text. First, I simplified the car issue - there's no indication that the mere "use" was the issue. I droppped "unfounded" - just because no charges were brought doesn't mean the allegations were unfounded. Also, there's an error in the next sentence, unless anyone has a source for a press conference in 1976.

• In 1973, the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team concluded that his credibility had been compromised by his youth, his physical appearance and his Rolls Royce, as well as the Detroit 'pieing' incident and the allegations of smuggling that had originated in India. His last press conference was in 1973.

That's a more accurate draft, I believe.   Will Beback  talk  16:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

...just because no charges were brought doesn't mean the allegations were unfounded. I can't believe you wrote that. Your version neglects to restate that the smuggling allegations were dropped with an apology. And the fact that no charges were brought means exactly that the charges were unfounded. Don't you watch CI Channel? All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This once-suspect never even went to court, and the point being made by the PR team was that unfair press coverage of this issue affected his public image. We must not perpetuate that. If you don't like unfounded, we can look at unsubstantiated. Rumiton (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We should summarize what's in the source, not look for new terms. The smuggling incident is already covered above.   Will Beback  talk  14:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote in its original form is clearly and obviously disparaging because it is mocking and belittling in tone. The quote does not specify whether the Rolls was rented, borrowed owned or leased. "His use of a rolls royce" covers all possible scenarios and for that reason "use" should be retained until we can find a reliable source to clarify the situation. I'm not yet convinced that "unfounded" should be dropped. 'Wrongful' would be an good alternative. For the reasons explained above we should paraphrase the quote in a way that makes it clear in the Media section that Rawat was not arrested.--Zanthorp (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• In 1973, the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team concluded that his credibility had been compromised by his youth, his physical appearance and his use of a Rolls Royce, as well as the Detroit 'pieing' incident and wrongful (or unsubstantiated) allegations of smuggling that had originated in India. His last press conference was in 1973.

How about this?--Zanthorp (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the source? Where does it say "wrongful" or "unsubstantiated"? This section isn't about the smuggling charges, or the ownership of numerous luxury vehicles - it's about media perceptions of the subject. This specific part is a quotation from the subject's own PR team. We could include a parenthetical aside: ...and the allegation of smuggling that had originated in India (which was never prosecuted).

While we're at it, "that had originated in India" seems rather clumsy and unnecessary - can't we just leave that out since the allegation is already discussed in the article?   Will Beback  talk  16:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looking at that last bit again I agree with you. It is clumsy and unnecessary. Based on the info in Leaving India] I was trying to cram too much into the Media section. My primary concern is to ensure that out of context, incorrect info, i.e. "who was arrested for jewel smuggling" does not end up being used as a source for some other article. That's in keeping with BLVP policy and I don't think I'm being over cautious. The parenthetical aside seems to be a good solution. How about, ...and an allegation of smuggling (which was unsubstantiated and never prosecuted).
We don't always agree but thanks for the helpful input on this.--Zanthorp (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with "unsubstantiated" in the aside if we had a source for it. But I'm not aware of any. Many crimes and infractions aren't prosecuted even when there is evidence, so we can't assume that it was unsubstantiated just because it wasn't prosecuted. Doing so would be a violation of WP:NOR.   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Unsubstantiated" is clearly a POV comment supporting Rawat. The word "allegations" already makes it clear that the charges weren't proven legally. "Unsubstantiated" goes much further to say there was nothing behind them. Leaving it at allegations is clearly the neutral way to go. By the way, "innocent until proven guilty" only has meaning in U.S. criminal proceedings; it does not apply either to Misplaced Pages fact judging or Indian courts. Msalt (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that it's very unlikely that a press relations team would make such a statement. It is also unlikely that such a team was composed of so many people. Was that statement made via a press release? Pergamino (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It comes from a UPI article. A copy of it is posted here: .   Will Beback  talk  17:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be from an Associated Press wire, and doesn't mention the number of the press relation staff. Also, I'd think you need to mention the provenance of that statement because it seems to imply an official statement when it is actually a reportage. Pergamino (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, yes. AP not UPI. Here's a different version of the same article:

• Members of the public relations staff, which numbers more than 50, met recently to talk about the guru's image, concluding he was seen as a "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce who was arrested for jewel smuggling." The allusions were to his encounter with a pie-tossing youth in Detroit and the confiscation in India last November of $35,000 in undeclared jewelry and cash, which the mission has said was forgotten by a disciple. The case has not been settled, and the guru had to post $13,300 bond before leaving for his latest world tour. Richard Profumo, 27, who went to prison as a draft resister, told his colleagues at the public relations meeting of a necessity to bring disbelievers past the point where they looked at the guru's body and age as a measure of his credibility. "We're marketing a commodity which is visible only as a reflection," he said, referring to the knowledge and the peace it is supposed to bring.

The "provenance" is that it is the conclusion of the subject's own PR staff, as reported by a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Seems that both wires are based on the same report. Isn't the provenance, the AP reporter? Otherwise the sentence seems to be describing an official statement of the public relations staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pergamino (talk • contribs)

They are the same report - wire service reports are edited by the individual newspapers that carry them. The AP reporter is reporting what the team concluded, using their words (hence the quotation marks).   Will Beback  talk  02:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Will, I see your point about OR, and I'll read that NOR page carefully. Based on our discussions above, here's a proposed final draft with the next sentence added.

• In 1973, the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team concluded that his credibility had been compromised by his youth, physical appearance and use of a Rolls Royce, as well as the Detroit 'pieing' incident and an allegation of smuggling (which was never prosecuted). They also spoke of a need "to bring disbelievers past the point where they looked at the guru's body and age as a measure of his credibility."
  

If this is acceptable, I'll make the edit in the next day or two when I get some spare time.--Zanthorp (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the problem was with his "use" of the Rolls rather than the ownership is an unsupported detail.

• In 1973, the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team concluded that Rawat's credibility had been compromised by his youth, his physical appearance, and his Rolls Royce, as well as the Detroit 'pieing' incident and an allegation of smuggling (which was never prosecuted). The head of the team said that they needed to get the public to look past these factors to judge Rawat's credibility

That's shorter and simpler.   Will Beback  talk  04:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Good! That last sentence is more concise. I'll go ahead with the edit using this version as is for now, and if there is any reliable source that says R actually owned the Rolls let's leave it as his Rolls. I'd like to get this right. The source states, "with a Rolls." The source, does not state how he came to be with it. Do you see my point? I think it is speculation to refer to the Rolls as being his. Of course the source does not state that he actually used it, and being with something does not imply ownership either. His use of a Rolls is the best way I can think of at present to paraphrase the source. Maybe you can think of a better way that is not clumsy and does not imply more than the source actually says. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How about:

• ...had been compromised by his youth, his physical appearance, and the Rolls Royce...

"The" isn't exactly the same as "a", but it leaves the ambiguity over what aspect of the car the PR team was concerned with.   Will Beback  talk  05:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed :) --Zanthorp (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Boston speech

While we're at it, let's summarize this one too:

• Rawat returned to England and the United States in June, and in August spoke to an audience of 9,000 in Boston. A Boston reporter described Rawat as:
  • ...a real human being. He spoke humbly, conversationally, and without any apparent notion that he was God. In fact he seemed to consciously undercut the divine stage show and the passionate words said in his honor. Devotees and mahatmas speak of him as the guy who will out-Christ Christ, yet the guru himself claims not that he is divine, but that his Knowledge is".

First, there's no consensus about Cagan as a reliable source, so we should drop that part. Second, the whole quote is very long considering its relative importance to the article. Here's a simpler version:

• 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 divine claims claims of divinity made by followers.

How's that?   Will Beback  talk  16:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, except that claims of divinity would be better than divine claims. Rumiton (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine - I've changed the draft.   Will Beback  talk  14:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks clear and concise.--Zanthorp (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  17:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

CIA allegations

Wasn't the guru maharaj ji the one accused by the new left in the 1970s to be part of a CIA-led conspiracy to undermine the youth movement at the time? Pergamino (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Various folks accused the subject and the movement of being fronts for the CIA. Paul Krassner was among those who made the accusation on the American Left. It was also made by members of the Indian government. Even a senior member of the Divine Light Mission said that he suspected the CIA had led the guru astray. However there's never been any evidence of an actual connection. Unless someone is suggesting adding more to the article about the accusations there's no point in discussing the matter.   Will Beback  talk  05:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know which members of the indian government made these charges? Also, in a discussion about perceptions, aren't these perceptions important enough to be outlined? At a minimum, it will show how different strata of society react to the arrival of an unconventional guru. Pergamino (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the alleged CIA connection, the subject was also accused in the early 1970s of having lied about his age, and of being a fake/fraud/charlatan. The last is unprovable and the first two, though plausible, were never proven. While widely reported allegations may be worth reporting in some circumstances, I'm not sure that these qualify. They were not as widely reported as more verifiable issues, like the luxury cars or the pranks (which we don't even mention now). Any other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  17:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The British Daily Mail article you refer to, speaks of the "Indian Special Branch" having made the allegations of a CIA connection. If you take that statement as being plausible, and if a similar statement was made in the US by the leftists, why not report it? I'd think is speaks loudly of the reaction to the guru at the time. Pergamino (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that they actually allege a connection. Rather, they speculate on the possibility of a connection. I suppose we could add more to the "reception" section. Now that I look at it I don't see anything about the views of the New Left, which were significant because of their commentaries on the subject and because of the overlap between protesters and followers. Stephen Kent's From Slogan to Mantras is devoted to the transition from protest to devotion. However if we were to add such material the CIA allegation would still be a small part, if it's even worth mentioning at all. Further, there's nothing about the reception of the subject in India.   Will Beback  talk  18:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"The US-based New left made allegations the the guru was part of a CIA-led conspiracy to undermine the youth movement at the time; others making similar allegations were the Indian Special Branch, who said that it feared spies or CIA agents might use the security of the mission as a cover. The Indian Home Office also challenged the guru's age, stating that he was 18 or 19 years of age rather than 15." Pergamino (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this draft is comprehensive. The CIA allegation isn't that important in the scheme of things. Is there some special reason why it's of special interest? If we want to talk about the perceptions of the movement and the subject by the New Left, then there are better ways of doing so and other issues to discuss. Likewise, there are various reports from India, including a variety who questioned the subject's age and others who questioned his sincerity. (If we want to discuss his age, then we should probably also add that the Colorado judge who gave him permission to marry at the purported age of 16 also said that he seemed older.)   Will Beback  talk  02:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• On which basis do you say that it is not comprehensive? And what do you mean when you say the "scheme of things"? I'd say that it can be certainly included in the "America 1973" subheading, and you could always add more if needed later on. Pergamino (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not comprehensve because it doesn't cover the views of the New Left, or the reported views of people in India. When I say, "the scheme of things", I mean the relative weight we give to various elements of the subject's life. Lastly, the material you added isn't sourced. I suggest we bring it back to the talk page while we discuss it further.   Will Beback  talk  04:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see. The provenance of these transcripts is not authoritative, right? Surely a scan or microfiche of the Winnipeg newspaper could be found online. Pergamino (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the Winnipeg paper has to do with this, or how "provenance" fits in. There are several problems with this text. If we're goingto get into what members of the "New Left" said about the subject, then we should prioritize them, giving the greatest weight to the most prominent views rather than just picking one at random. Likewise with the views of other commentators. Another problem is that we shouldn't add anything to the article without proper citations, which is why your contribution was reverted.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm trying to learn the markup for citations, thanks for the info. Is the new left quote "random"? The provenance cannot be a non-authoritative Web site (ask my TA...), so I am looking for a book or a scan of the original that could be used as a citation, and when I do I'll re-add the sentence. Pergamino (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refer back to my earlier question about the CIA allegation - Is there some reason why it's of special interest? Why is it more important to add than other allegations? Without answers to those the choice of the issue does seem random. How can I contact your TA to ask him what he means? Better yet, tell me yourself. As for adding it back, please don't rush into it. This article is under ArbCom probation.   Will Beback  talk  16:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is there some reason why it is not of special interest? I will not rush, as I am still looking for an authoritative source. Pergamino (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be going in circles. Members of the New Left made a variety of allegations about the subject and the movement. Rather than reviewing all of those, and summarizing them according to their prominence, you are seeking to deal with just one. Why?   Will Beback  talk  16:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-quote from Aldridge

Original quotation from Alridge, Alan — Religion in the Contemporary World (2007) — p.59:

• Prem Rawat claims to offer practical methods by which anyone can achieve spiritual tranquillity. Originally he aspired to bring about world peace but now, he focuses on the needs of the individual, which he says take priority over the demands of society

Wikitext:

• He is said to offer practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility by anyone; originally he aspired to bring about world peace, but now his focus is on the needs of individuals, which according to him take priority over societal demands.

Why are we adding this to the intro? We have a whole section, indeed a whole article, on the subject's teachings. The intro should merely summarize the material found elsewhere. Aldridge's assertions are already covered in the article. I don't see any discussion of this. Furthermore, the text is too close to the original and is on the brink of plagiarism. If we want this material then we should either quote it verbatim or, even better, rewrite it entirely. In addition, the text changes "claims to" to "is said to", a key difference.   Will Beback  talk  20:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You have screwed up the markup, now giving an error, and I don't know how to fix it. http://en.wikipedia.org/Prem_Rawat#Teachings Pergamino (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please undo your edit so that we can discuss this and achieve consensus.   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do I need to undo it? Can it be discussed without you undoing it again and again? Basically, the sentence summarizes the fact that the guru started with a mission to bring about world peace, and now his mission is to bring spiritual tranquility to individuals. No big deal if it can be rewritten (if you think it's needed). Pergamino (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize my editing. I moved and rewrote your addition once. It isn't necessary for the intro, which is a brief overview of the subject's life. Furthermore, it's poorly written.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• You deleted it first saying it was plagiarism. I obliged and paraphrased it. You then rewrote it again and moved it elsewhere with an error. So I added it back without the error, using your re-write. So, if it is poorly written, why do you blame me? Pergamino (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not the version I re-wrote, which is this:

• He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquillity by anyone. Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals rather than society.

I don't understand why you restored your faulty draft to the intro, and I don't see any explanation from you. Active editors on this article have spent countless hours drafting the intro and finding consensus. This bit doesn't add anything important and I don't see any other editors agreeing to it.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I put what you wrote back: "He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquillity by anyone. Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals rather than society". But that is not what Aldrgide says. Pergamino (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Now it does. Pergamino (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That means that we have the same text in the article twice - once in the teachings section, where it might belong, and once in the introduction, where it's not necessary. Unless there's a consensus to include it in the intro too I'll remove it.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Will's right on this one. Please remove it. Msalt (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will. --Zanthorp (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• OK: Deleted the duplicate. Pergamino (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to move it back to the teachings section because there's been no explanation for why it's in the intro, which should be kept short.   Will Beback  talk  17:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I explained why: Basically, the sentence summarizes the fact that the guru started with a mission to bring about world peace, and now his mission is to bring spiritual tranquility to individuals. It is important information and a summary. Pergamino (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say that then, and leave the details for the body of the article.   Will Beback  talk  17:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding Rumiton's point below (I've split the thread): I'd guess that Aldridge is using "spiritual tranquillity" as a synonym for "inner peace".   Will Beback  talk  17:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No doubt Aldridge is doing just that, but the wording right now asserts that, "He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility by anyone." It is saying that Prem Rawat uses this phrase, which no other source attributes to him. I believe it has no place here. Rumiton (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro change

The change made to the intro does not make sense: "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar). The teachings of Prem Rawat include a meditation technique referred to as Knowledge. "

Pergamino (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Teachings of Prem Rawat tell us that there are 4 techniques. The current lead (a technique) is therefore incorrect, as well as clumsily written. Do other sources agree he used the phrase "spiritual tranquillity"? I have never come across it before. , and it sounds like OR. Rumiton (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The recent change makes sense, though it is a little clumsy grammatically. I think the point was to make for a better link. But it leaves the the first sentence as a fragment. Maybe we should just undo it.   Will Beback  talk  17:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence is just a line giving the man's name and titles. It should be a sentence in the form X is Y (Prem Rawat is...). PiCo (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence should be a complete sentence with a verb and it should give the main claim to notability. See WP:MOSBIO.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tried to turn it into a proper lead sentence but not entirely happy - how do you describe his line of work? (Wonder what he puts on his passport?) PiCo (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that passports list professions. In any case, I don't think the qualifier you used is correct. A more correct description would be "Prem Rawat (blah, blah, bah), is a public speaker and a teacher of meditation techniques referred to as Knowledge". The "formerly guru maharaj ji" already establishes that he was a guru. Pergamino (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph

• 1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (names and titles));
• 2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);
• 3. Nationality –
  • 1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the essay "Misplaced Pages:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom" and the talk page archives.)
  • 2. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
• 4. What the person did;
• 5. Why the person is significant.

That looks pretty good to me. But I'd cut it a bit shorter, like: "Prem Rawat (blah, blah, bah), is a teacher of meditation techniques." Leave out the "public speaker" (that's how he does what what he does - more important is what he speaks about), and the bit about "referred to as Knowledge" (a little more detail than is needed in a first sentence - it can come later). Incidentally, what does he speak publicaly about? PiCo (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, that may work. The official site has some Zen-like quotes but nothing else, and in following the links from the official site I find http://tprf.org/: "Prem Rawat has traveled the world for forty years, bringing a message of peace"; and this http://mspeaks.com/ which seems to be just on what he speaks about. Pergamino (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Prem Pal Singh Rawat ... is a religious figure and entrepreneur of Indian origin. The teachings of Prem Rawat include a meditation technique referred to as Knowledge.

Rumiton pointed out that the techniques are plural, so it might better to make that change. Also, "spiritual" might be better than "religious" because the movement asserts that it isn't a religion.   Will Beback  talk  03:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be more accurate to call him a "spiritual teacher"? Could also mention the meditation technique if it's really central, but from listening to to the talk on the link I didn't get the idea that meditation was what he himself felt was central. PiCo (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The meditation is central. It's just that there are public presentations and private presentations. The actual techniques are "secret", so public presentations don't go into details, if I understand correctly.   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe the place to start would be some references ? What evidence is there that Rawat ‘is’ an entrepreneur ? or that he is ‘religious’ or ‘spiritual’ ? The abundant sources are for what Rawat ‘was’ not what he is, this problem with ‘tense’ has undermined the accuracy of this article from the very beginning. The MOSBIO format only reinforces this problem and editors need to think creatively if a false picture is not to be given to the reader.

Rawat ‘is’ (was) notable for being a ‘god child’ leader of an Indian originated religious movement that was translated into ‘Western’ contexts, much of this notability arising from the various controversies affecting this process of translation. The vast bulk of Reliable Sources available to Misplaced Pages editors on this subject date from between 1971 and 1981 – this being the period in which Rawat was notable. Of those sources which have been published since 1981, a majority reference only the period prior to 1985 with the last 20 plus years being mentioned only in contrast to the earlier period.

The meditation itself hardly stands as a point of notability (other than being ‘secret’ it’s not exceptional), though it was certainly the locus of the presentation of the belief system developed by Hans Rawat. I would suggest that the words “is a religious figure and entrepreneur of Indian origin” be replaced by “succeded in 1966 to the leadership of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad), following the death of his father Hans Rawat.” This would be the end of the first paragrah

I then suggest altering the second paragraph to read:

Having become at aged eight Satguru to the several million adherents of the Divine Light Mission, Rawat gained further prominence five years later when he travelled to the UK and US. In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. In 1973, at age sixteen, Rawat was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman, 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. He became a United States citizen in 1977. Rawat later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more universally acceptable.

The third paragraph would be unchanged except for the addition of “Several organizations have assisted Rawat in his mission, including Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001)”

The issue of entrepreneurship is dubious - although there claims on pro Rawat websites that he is an entrepreneur, there are no public documents detailing Directorships, CEO posts or anything else that would confirm the claims. The issue of spirituality is best avoided in the lead because it is tied to the changes which need detailed descriptions. What the lead needs to do is set up the article as a primarily historical account of what Rawat was, not what he is - because the former involves notability, and the latter doesn't. The use of the term "Satguru" as opposed to "guru" is important in respect of the article references to the origins of the Hans (Prem) Rawat belief system. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As the person who put this word "entrepreneur" into the lead sentence can I just say that I now regard it as a complete red herring and would like to see it removed. I'd like the see the lead sentence say Prem "is" rather than "was" something - it makes it sound as if he's dead. How about: "PR (insert interminable titles) gained prominence in the early 1970s as the titular (is that right?) teen-aged leader of the Divine Light Mission, described at the time as fastest-growing religious movement in the West. As an adult he split with the original DLM (if that's right - correct me if I've got it wrong) and is now a spiritual teacher emphasising meditation practices" (again, if that's right). What I'm trying to do here is establish the grounds of his notability in the first sentence - this sentence should be able to stand alone as a summary of the entire article, even before going on to the lead itself. PiCo (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If not exactly a red herring, it certainly does not help to define the subject's notability. Whatever happened to discussing edits on the talk page first? Rumiton (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

PiCo, what you are seeking is laudable, but you are mashing history in your attempt to achieve it. If you are not happy with the wording I've suggested, then you need to set out your preffered wording strictly against the chronology - the key points are.

• 1966 Hans Rawat dies, Prem (aged 8) becomes leader (Satguru) of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) in India.
• 1971 Prem (aged 13)travels to the UK and US - there's lots of media attention.
• 1974/1975 The wider DLM movement splits along family lines, after which the belief system in the non Indian base diverges from the Hans Rawat doctrine.
• 1981(ish) The non Indian DLM movement shows no further sign of expansion, and actually retrenches progressively thereafter.

Please be aware that if you restructure the lead, you may need to seek different references than those currently used, which may be highly specific to the text as it is. The issues to note are that Prem didn't 'gain prominence' in 1966, he was already known to his father's followers, but rather he was 'elevated' on his father's death; adoption of the DLM by elements of the 'counter culture' in Europe, Australasia and the US in the early 1970s, brought Prem as head (titular is correct but you need a source for it) of DLM, to media atention in those geographic areas. Western academics started to take an interest in Rawat largely through the youth/counter culture aspect, while the media were exercised firstly by ice cream and cars, then by girls, booze and cars. By the end of the 1970s no one outside Prem's existing loyal followers was interested and it's been downhill in the 'prominence' stakes thereafter. Contemporary Indian 'spiritual' imports such as TM have continued to have large memberships and affect societies into which they were introduced and media and academic sources reflect this, additionally other Indian 'spiritual' leaders/speakers/teachers have impacted on Western countries - Amma, SS Ravi Shankar becoming far better known than Prem Rawat. Prominence is necessarilly a relative term - Prem Rawat was indeed once prominent, but compared to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi or Amma, he is no longer.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've restored the old lead, the one we had before a random user came through.
• Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar) teaches a meditation practice called Knowledge.

There's nothing significantly wrong with this version, though the wikilinking is a little clumsy. Let's not keep rewriting the intro unless there's a good reason.   Will Beback  talk  17:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• • The "random user", PiCo, is making good points despite the initial unintended blunder. Hey, PiCo, don't be discourage by Will Beback! Ascribing the adjective "random" isn't very welcoming, but I guess some people in[REDACTED] are less collegial than others as I have personally learned. Pergamino (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The user I was referring to is Billyoffland. PiCo has been engaging in useful discussion.   Will Beback  talk  19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Pico and NikWright2 have both made good suggestions for the lede. Here are things I think need to change:
1) change "a meditation practice called Knowledge" to "a meditation practice he calls Knowledge." This matches the lede of Teachings of Prem Rawat, which policy requires.
2) Make more clear that he succeeded his father as head of DLM. The current phrasing makes it sounded like he up and started preaching out of the blue and quickly acquired 3 million followers, which is inaccurate and misleading.
3) reword the organizations line, which makes him sound like the passive recipient of help from these organizations, again misleading and serving the POV of his organizations. Better yet, drop it altogether from the first paragraph.
4) Cut the third paragraph drastically. It has way too much information for the lead, and much of it reads like a brochure from his organization. The simplest way would be to end it after the second sentence (with 'body of dogma.') To wit:

"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar) teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. At the age of eight, he succeeded his father as leader of the Divine Light Mission and its 3 million followers in India. He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message. "

2nd paragraph the same, 3rd ends after second sentence. Msalt (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd agree to the first sentence as you propose, but don't agree with your other ideas and comparisons with brochures and as having too much information. It is a good summary of the article and quite accurate. Pergamino (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Is everyone else on board with the first sentence? Let's put aside the third paragraph for now and look at the second sentence of the lede. I think it's important to state in the lede that he succeeded his father as head of DLM at a young age, because that was (and remains) his main claim to notability. It also "sets the scene" for the information that follows in the clearest, most concise way.

In contrast, the current wording -- "At age 8 he became guru to 8 million ... 3 organizations have assisted him" -- is both longer winded and less accurate a picture of what happened (in my humble opinion). Thoughts? Msalt (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine by me, but can you add (Divya Sandesh Parishad) to run on from "Divine Light Mission", because although there will be a link to the DLM article, we should not assume the reader will immediately grasp the chronological sequence of the development of separate organisations using the Divine Light Mission name. Providing the Divya Sandesh Parishad name makes a useful reference point to distinguish between the organisation of Hans Ji Maharaj and the later "western" DLM's. Also I think Hans Ji Maharaj should appear in that first sentence. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hans Ji addition makes sense, but I don't quite see how DSP would fit in. (Can you suggest wording?) My gut feeling is that that would be too much detail for the lede but might make sense in the article body. How's this:

"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar) teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (and its 3 million followers) in India. He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message. "

That looks fine to me. It's an improvement over the existing lead.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, looks fine to me too (just remember to link to the teachings: " a meditation practice he calls Knowledge"). But keep the names of the organizations there, unless you want to move that to somewhere else in the intro. Pergamino (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good points, Pergamino. I agree, the other organizations should be in the intro, probably at the end of the third paragraph. How about this, after "acceptable" (I know the exact wording is important): "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)." Msalt (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• ok Pergamino (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we're tinkering - "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as guru to 3 million followers in India and gained international prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Momento 01:40, 16 April 2009.

Momento! You've got to be kidding, right? There are 8 Arbcom votes to topic ban you for a year, in large part over your edit warring about Balyogeshwar. And now you're going to try to sneak it in, with no description other than "since we're tinkering" in an unsigned comment? Um... some might consider that bad faith editing. Msalt (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Still fighting over "Balyogeshwar"? Let's leave that dispute to mediation, as we agreed.   Will Beback  talk  02:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• suggested amendment to accommodate (Divya Sandesh Parishad) but also remove reference to follower numbers.

"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar) teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission(Divya Sandesh Parishad) in India. He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.".

The adherence numbers are given by several sources as being as high as 8 million, but there is no source which distinguishes between followers of Hans Rawat, (and latterly Prem) and the following of DLM/DSP. The problem we have to address is the chronology of change from adherence to Hans Rawat (which predated DLM/DSP), the inheritance of that adherence by Prem - and subsequently the split of that adherence between Prem and Satpal. By according the adherence numbers to the DLM/DSP, rather than to Hans Rawat, it makes the explanation of how the adherence was later split somewhat problematic as Satpal took over DSP, but did not attract all those who had previosly accepted Prem as the Satguru. As there is ambiguity that needs explation I suggest the adherence numbers not appear in the lede. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really up to speed on the numbers issue, but I think we need something to indicate the approximate scale. Dropping the numbers altogether would, I think, allow some readers to think the number of adherents was much smaller than it was. How about "succeeded his father as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and its milliions of followers in India." ?? If we had evidence of a sharp drop off in membership, you could say "and millions of its followers in India", but unless there is such evidence I think the first wording is more neutral. Msalt (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• That's a sensible approach. Pergamino (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Downton lists the Indian membership at 1.2 million by the early 1970s.   Will Beback  talk  17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest "succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad)and becoming the new Satguruto his father's several million Indian followers". Divya Sandesh Parishad had only been in existence for six year when Hans Rawat died - yet he had been 'teaching' since at least 1930; I realise that the sources we have, frequently use DLM as the reference point for adherence numbers, but we don't actually have a reference for the 1966 figures which makes sense. We do have a clear statement of the membership of the DSP (as distinct from adherence to the Satguru (Hans or Prem) in 1970 that is "one lac" or 100,000.

• Shri Maharaj Ji realised the necessity of following a modern technique for propagation, and wished to provide for his followers an organisation in which they could work for the betterment of mankind. Therefore, in 1960 the mission was named the Divine Light Mission and registered at Patna. For the first time membership in the Mission was recorded. This allowed Maharaj Ji to see the definite growth of membership, enabling him to make practical plans in accordance with the wishes of the members. At Present the Mission has its branches all over India as well as in England and South Africa. Its membership runs approximately into one lac. .

This was written by the incumbent Secretary of the DSP who might be considered an authorative source. Note also the mention of 'branches' in England and S.A, as distinct from the later nationally independent DLMs. The Divine Light Mission article uses this source for a figure of 6 million in 1966 but this is clearly a confusion between adherence to the teaching and actual membership of the DSP association; the DSP Secretary would hardly be talking of one lac, if the actual membership was in the millions. I think the construction I've suggested may be a bit 'weaselish' but if we have to quote numbers in the lede I can't see an alternative that isn't going to be confusing, if not outright misleading. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, and I don't think it's weaselish at all, just precise. I like this wording a bit better but same meaning I think: "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."

• You need to add that he was 8 years-old when he became guru, which is one of the things that made him notable. Pergamino (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's in there. See below. Msalt (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

New Lede (Draft including above suggestions)

Reset here for clarity, and because I think we're close to done if not completely done here:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar) teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. 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. He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.

Rawat has established his teachings in over eighty countries, and in the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. In 1973, at age sixteen, he was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman, 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. He became a United States citizen in 1977. He later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more universally acceptable. 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).

Msalt (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. The description of DLM disbanding is an issue, but it should be resolved on the DLM and Elan Vital pages first and changes made here as a consequence of that. I've made some observations at --Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. Everyone seems to be on board, so I'm going to put this in. Msalt (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I also made a slight change to the alternate names -- removing the parens, so "also known as Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar)" became "also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Mahjaraj Ji and Balyogeshwar,". I don't think this would be controversial, and I think it definitely reads better, but since we didn't discuss it I put it in a separate edit in case anyone wants to revert. Msalt (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rawat's marriage and the family schism

(I inserted this new section head to reflect the new subject) Msalt (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

" married a Western woman which divided his family and the movement" reads as if the woman or the marriage was the cause of the schism/split, but that that was not really the case and it is unfair to the woman to put it that way. Pergamino (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several sources that do indeed identify the marriage as the cause of the family split, from which the full blown religious 'schism' developed. I haven't checked the footnotes as they are currently given and an additional source may be needed if the text re: the marriage is kept. If other causes of the family split are to be quoted as well as, or instead of the marriage then we need to be clear what sources support that. Whatever the case, the family split was an important development and should be recorded in the lede. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• The way it reads is strange and inaccurate, as if the woman was the cause of the schism. It can be solved by saying "...In 1973, at age sixteen, he was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman, which divided his family. After a subsequent split in the movement Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active ..." Pergamino (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want precision then the solution you suggest will not achieve it. Somewhere in the discussion archives there'a a long discussion about the awarding of emancipated minor status. My recollection is that there was a clear argument that California does not have any legal provision to grant emancipated minor status directly, rather Rawat became emancipated by dint of being married and it was permission to marry that was granted by a Judge, not emancipated status. I haven't got the text of the and references available - someone should check what they actually say, but my preference would be to lose the mention of emancipated minor (is this from Cagan ?) and simply say "In 1973, and in the absence of his mother who was still in India, Prem Rawat was allowed to get married at age 16 with permission from a California Judge." There are other problems with this paragraph, and without resolving the disambiguation of the conflation of Divine Light Mission as a single 'religion', as a single organisation (DSP) and as multiple national organisations, describing the schism is pretty problematic. My feeling was that it's easier to sort the disambiguation out on the DLM page than here - however the issues are the same, though editors need to be geared up for dealing with what references actually say, not what they might be assumed to say based on the existing text. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Three points: First, the marriage and emanicpation occurred in Colorado. Second, the judge granted permission to marry, and the marriage automatically led to the emancipation. (That is, he needed either the judge's permission or his parent's because he was not yet an adult. Either way, he would have become emanicipated upon marriage.) We discussed this in detail last year and got an opinion from a Colorado lawyer. See Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_37#Emancipated_minor. Third, the marriage is described as a one of the main causes of the split by a number of sources. I don't think there's any that posit an unrelated cause.   Will Beback  talk  17:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on with the sourcing - but neither Miller nor Hunt seem to mention the split at all. A contemporary news account says:

• The guru's mother renounced him Tuesday as head of the mission, which his father founded 14 years ago. She objects to his life in the U.S. where he is married to his 26-year-old secretary and is a father.

Another says: The mother renounced Maharaj Ji in April, charging he had become a playboy after moving to the United States in 1973. She was incensed by his marriage to his American secretary eight years older than he is. The couple has a three month-old daughter.

And another: The guru's reputation has suffered, in recent months. His mother rebuked him for becoming a "playboy," accusing the Most Perfect Master of living a life of luxury', of eating meat and consuming alcohol — habits that are eschewed by most Indian holy men. His mother also disapproved of Maharaj Ji's marriage to his American secretary, and she ultimately declared the guru's older brother as head of the mission in India. That dispute hasn't been resolved.

Another: The Divine Light Mission has taken a lower profile and worked out its internal problems - particularly the controversy surrounding Maharaj Ji's marriage to the former Maralyn Johnson in 1974, which divided his family and split the organization in India. ... Officials said that the reason for the division were cultural - Indian custom frowns on marriages to westerners - and that the marriage has had no negative impact on followers in the United States.

TIME magazine wrote in 1978: In 1975 his mother, Mataji, disapproving of his playboy ways and his marriage to an airline stewardess, deposed him in favor of his brother.

Rudin & Rudin write:

• Further bad publicity ensued when Maharaj Ji married his secretary, former airline stewardess Marolyn Lois Johnson, in 1974. The guru's mother was so upset over the marriage and her son's opulent life-style that she disowned him and designated one of his older brothers to take over the Mission. Maharaj Ji fought his brother in courts in India and they finally agreed that he would retain control of the United States Mission while his mother and brother headed the operation in India.

Among scholars we have Saliba, who says:

• His marriage to his American secretary, almost 10 years his senior, has also been frowned upon in the popular press and by the Guru's own family. The devotees counteract this by depicting him, his wife and children as a kind of holy family, an example of what lies in store for many premies. And again, the rift with his mother and brothers in 1975, a rift which remains unhealed, has caused no crisis of faith in his devotees outside India. The conflict is explained by stating that the Guru's mother and brothers never really quite understood the satguru.

Derks and vanderLans write:

• 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.

Geaves

• By 1974, the movement had experienced a number of crises resulting from the marriage of Prem Rawat to Marolyn Johnson, a Californian follower; the financial crisis created by the failure to fill the Houston astrodome and the disillusionment of American followers, whose millennialism had always been stronger than in Europe or Britain, when their expectations of a messianic event were not fulfilled. The marriage was to prove more significant, as it caused a deep rift in Prem Rawat's family, angered that he had not followed Indian custom, and the loss of many trusted followers inherited from the time of Prem Rawat's father.

But for the "emancipation" I don't see sources that indicate it was important. He never took legal control over the DLM and there's no evidence that he held title to any of the properties he used so the effect of being emancipated isn't clear. We can probably leave it out of the intro.   Will Beback  talk  17:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Cagan (2007) page 187
2. EastWest Journal "An Expressway over Bliss Mountain"by Phil Levy P 29
3. EastWest Journal "An Expressway over Bliss Mountain" by Phil Levy P 29
4. Ron Geaves in Christopher Partridge (Eds.), New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities pp.201-202, Oxford University Press, USA (2004) ISBN 978-0195220421
5. Ron Geaves in Christopher Partridge (Eds.), New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities pp.201-202, Oxford University Press, USA (2004) ISBN 978-0195220421
6. Downton (1979), p. 3
7. Lewis (1998a), p. 83
8. Geaves (2006)
9. Melton (1992), p. 217
10. ^ Hunt (2003)
11. Miller (1995), p. 474
12. Melton (1986), pp. 141-145
13. "Guru Maharaj Ji becomes a citizen of the US." Rocky Mountain News, Wednesday, October 19, 1977, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
14. "The Prem Rawat Foundation website". Retrieved 2008-06-09.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Articles on probation
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles