Talk:Divine Light Mission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Divine Light Mission article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
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.
This article is currently the subject of informal mediation.

You are encouraged to read current and past discussion on this talk page.
The informal mediation case and its related discussion is here.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4


Contents

[edit] Perfect Master

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

  • That's a "disambiguation plus" page. One of the definitions there appears relevant:
    • In Surat Shabd Yoga, Sant Mat and Advait Mat the living Perfect Master is considered the path to God-realization.
  • Other than that, the closest link appears to be "satguru". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, they both seem pretty close to the mark to me. Also, Meher Baba's definition from his book seems (at least to me) conceptually very similar. As DLM is descendant from Sant Mat traditions, go with that one? Mael-Num (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see...the difference between a disambiguation page and a plussed one now. So, assuming someone clicks the link to find out what the deuce a "perfect master" is, then it would probably be a better idea to link to satguru, as the sant mat page doesn't even have the words "perfect master" in the article (go figure). Mael-Num (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It does now: [1] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure which wikilink would be best Sant Mat or Sadguru, so I would prefer to keep it wikilinked to the perfect master page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The only problem I can see with that is, if someone's clicking on a term, it's probably because they don't understand what it is, or they simply want to know more. If you drop them into a disambiguation page, it kind of leaves them stranded exactly where they are: looking for more info and having to sort out where to go next. They could do that with Google. I think it's more encyclopedic (or at least nicer) to give `em a nudge in the right direction. If you think linking up to your addition is a better fit, that would be fine by me. Mael-Num (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Go ahead, and do the honors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raj Vidya Bhavan

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

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

[edit] Unilateral edits

I understand that there is an agreement, per mediation, not to make edits unilaterally. These recent changes seem arbitrary, and undiscussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Perhaps inviting them to the mediation would be a good idea? Steve Crossin (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I placed the probation notice and a link to the MedCab page in that user's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think every casual editor needs to join mediation, but if he wants to then that's fine too. Regarding some of Jossi's points: D) "actively" appears redundant - it's not possible to "passively" write lecture and tour. C) It seems worthwhile to specify who Geaves is a follower of. "Rawat follower" is adequate, though "follower of Rawat" may be slightly better. B) The cited text doesn't include "more universal" - can you quote the original? A) "standard anti-cult " doesn't have a clear source.
Regarding Steve's point about edit summaries, they seem accurate. Jossi's diff includes intermediate edits but only the last edit summary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it was my misread, I amended my comment. Steve Crossin (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding A) - Momento "unilaterally" added that material here: [2]. Oddly, he adjusted a source several sentences later to include the reference. (Better citation practices would probably avoid mix-ups like this). We can restore the material (which is copied verbatim so should be attributed). However when I checked the source I came across another assertion a few lines earlier concerning Rawat's acting like a teenager in public. Not long ago Momento deleted a reference to that behavior as an exceptional claim. If Melton is good enough for one assertion then he's good enough for the other (which was made by a number of people). I'll look it up and restore it, and fix the "standard anti-cult" material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "engaging in appropriate behavior"

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

* surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
* reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
* claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons, and especially when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require exceptionally high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

WP:REDFLAG is the applicable policy here, and that is undeniable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not "undeniable". I deny it. The assertion we're making is that the two ex-employees said these things. No one is disputing that they said these things. As a secondary matter, I don't think anyone is disputing the stories of pushing people into the pool or closing a carwindow on their neck either. Davis mentions Rawat having his senior followers climb onto a sled to be dragged aroun by Rawat on a motorcycle. So we all agree he played potentially dangerous pranks on people, which is a typical teenaged behavior.
Also- you don't need to cut-and-paste entire policy sections in here. Just quoting it over and over again doesn't make it any more applicable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
A prank does not amount to the type of allegations these two individuals made, and Wikipedia should npot be used to further such claims. I am cutting and pasting that section of policy, to see if at least once you would address my question: Why do we have such a formulation in one of the key content policies of Wikipedia? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Other

Nice Will. This edit looks nice and neutral to me, attributing the opinion : [[3]].
Hi Jossi. I agree I did not discuss these changes first. I will sit with whether I want to join in the mediation.
a) Will fixed that up in a way that I am satisfied with. There are of course no such thing as "standard cult charges" however it is a whole different ball game if it is a direct quote of someone.
b) Does the source use the exact words "more universal?" If so I would like to see it in quotes. Otherwise, it sounds promotional to me, and without those exact words borders on OR.
c) I don't like your tone with "poor grammar use." I have observed that you use little jabs like that to people who disagree with your POV. For something so small, is it really necessary to make an issue? Theoretically This is a collaborative venture, why not just tweak it for "un-poor grammar?"
d) Actively sounds like a judgment to me, and promotional at best. Without a source it is OR.
Per the phrase "unilateral edits".... I have a deep wish to be treated fairly. I don't know the history of this page and mediation well enough, to say what has or has not occurred, however if Momento made changes unilaterally and was not "called" on it, I would ask you to not "call" me on it. Hohohahaha (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
If you have questions about a source, then you can simply ask. Changing an edit first and asking question later may not be the best way to do this, don't you think? The poor grammar use, is just that, don't take it too personally. As for your comment about Momento's editing behavior, what this has to do with this debate? Nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

<<< Propose this wording for that short sentence: [4] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cagan is a dubious source. Can't we do better? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Geaves himself would be a better source.[5] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Cagan is not a "dubious" source, and the fact that he was one the earlier students is not disputed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Cagan is on the list of items to be mediated, should we ever get back to it. In the meantime there's no consensus to use her further. The "rongeaves.com" source is more than adequate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand, Will. I made a proposal above, and you just made an edit withuot discussing it ? Why is that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You said there's no dispute that he was a student. All I did was add a source for it. Is adding a source a problem? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
(sigh) I made a proposal, which contains relevant data that is undisputed. Check it out, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Also note that Geaves web page, does not speak of himself as a "follower". He states that I have always been open about my allegiances, and that's it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
He speaks of being "associated with the teachings of Prem Rawat for the last thirty years". Are you now disputing that he's a follower? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No. I am disputing the use of the term "follower", which is not in that source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
So you're editing over a disputed issue? How does this comport with mediation and your commitment not to edit articles in this topic? Don't you think it's more appropriate to get consensus before making unilateral edits? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 ??? I made a proposal you ignored, and you made an unilateral change without discussion. Then you added a source, misquoted the source, and you are calling me on my editing behavior? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hohohahaha made an edit, which you reverted. We discussed it, and I made an edit that appeared from your own comment, to be undisputed. Now you've made another unilateral edit. I suggest you slow down and keep your cool. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am cool, Will. The issue boils down to this: Was my edit correct, or not? Does have merit or not? And the other question is this: Was your edit accurate, or not? . I'll touch base again tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Was Hohohahaha's edit, that you reverted, inaccurate? If not, why did you revert it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


re questions about source:I didn't have any questions about a sources.
re grammer- It is an unnecessary comment. Really. Don't like something minor... maybe fixing it would be the way to go? Pointing out relatively minor errors with someone you disagree with is not a good way to foster collaboration... especially right at the beginning of a discussion!
re momento comment. I didn't comment on Momento's behavior... I made a request about yours. Will pointed out Momento made some unilateral changes to which you did not object. I asked you to treat me as you treat him.Hohohahaha (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Without sounding condescending, I would argue that someone that cannot spell "grammar" correctly, should be more cautious with attempting to fix how a sentence s constructed. This article is now in probation, and under mediation. As such, I would caution anyone, regardless of who that person is to be mindful of unilateral edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


You are being condescending... and my errors are stacking up! "poor grammar use," I cannot spell grammar correctly (like it is a terminal condition as opposed to a single mistake!) and my mental/writing abilities are such that "I should be more cautious" with sentence structure. (i.e. if you can't do simple things, you certainly can't handle complicated stuff!)
It is condescending and it is a convent way to focus on contributor and not content, while not appearing to do so.
And given that you appear to be human like myself, [[6]], and this GEM!!!!! "someone that cannot spell "grammar" correctly, should be more cautious with attempting to fix how a sentence s constructed." my invitation to you is to focus on the content of arguments and edits.
I have warned you for lack of civility and a PA. Hohohahaha (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have extended an apology, that I hope you would accept. Let's move on, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Studies of members

A summary of studies of members is proposed at User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal5. Please review and comment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's late, I'm tired, it's all in Latin, I must be hallucinating. Rumiton (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Heh, not hallucinating. The proposals that haven't been altered have {{lorem}} in them, which is the example text, yes, in latin. Hope that explains it. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Chronology"

This edit, which moved material from one section to another, appears unneccessary.[7] Could the editor please explain why he made it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The text I moved relates to DLM before Rawat turned 16 and precedes the "Marriage and rift".Momento (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should rename the section "Rift and marriage" since some of the conflicts predated him turning 16 or marrying. Putting them into the Millennium '73 section doesn't appear to improve the flow of the article. It's better to keep that section focused on the topic of the festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the article is about DLM and the key point is Rawat taking control of Western DLM when he turned 16, perhaps the heading should "Rawat takes control of Western DLM". Momento (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
We've already tried that heading and it wasn't helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Since there was no consensus for that change I'm going to revert it. Please use the discussion page before making controversial edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What's controversial about correcting chronology? And where is the duplication? Am I missing somethingMomento (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not "correcting" the chronology, thae chronology hasn't changed. The problem was moving content into the "Millennium" section that didn't concern that festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The material I relocated preceded the section in which it was included. The heading "Festival" is used to cover DLM after June 73 until the section "Marriage and Rift" which occurred in May 74. The material I relocated occurred before Rawat married and therefore it was chronologically incorrect. It also relates directly to Pilarzyk's claim that Rawats mother was partially responsible for the financial loss. Where else can it go? And what is the duplication?Momento (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The section on the Millennium festival concerns the Millennium festival, a three-day event. We include a little on the debt from that festival, which took years to pay off, and a little about the later attempts to start the Divine City, both of which are directly related to the festival. The place where the other material is now is fine. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"...attempts to start the Divine City?" When did those attempts occur? Rumiton (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC) OK, I see "there was a failed attempt in 1975 to build the community near San Antonio, Texas." I never heard of it. How serious an "attempt" was it? Do other sources talk about this? Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea how "serious" it was. Yes, it's reported in multiple sources, but the one we're using is adequate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And Will, perhaps you can explain to me why you reverted my edit with "rm duplicated material, no consensus, see talk" but didn't revert your edit that was made without discussion or consensus?Momento (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
"Duplicate material" was a mis-statement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I knew that but why haven't you reverted your "no consensus" edit like you reverted mine?Momento (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If you mean the edits to the "festival" section, you made an edit[8] and then I made a further edit to the same material.[9] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I corrected a very bad summary. And then you added new material without discussion or consensus.Momento (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Then we both made corrections. If you like we can revert both edits. Maybe that would be best. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be best if you reverted your "no consensus" edit.Momento (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
What about your edit? Did you seek a consensus for it? Do you have an actual problem with the edit or is this just arguing for the sake of arguing? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I was wanting to establish if you had any reasonable explanation for reverting my edit. You haven't provided one so I 'm going to ask one more time, why did you revert my edit claiming it was "duplicated material" when it wasn't and that it had "no consensus" when five editors, including you, have allowed the same edit in the Prem Rawat article [10]? And why you allow yourself to add material with "no consensus" but revert me?Momento (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
We've discussed the "chronology" issue, and I explained why I undid the move. As I said above, describing your edit as "duplicate material" was a misstatement. I apologize for confusing you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You didn't confuse me, I knew it wasn't duplicate material. And yes, you reverted me because you said "there no consensus for that change", well, there was "no consensus" for your addition, so please revert it.Momento (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
What about it do you disagree with? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That you apply one rule for yourself and a different one for me.Momento (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that won't work Steve. WillBeBack calls this [11] a controversial edit. Perhaps you can give an opinion?Momento (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't exactly give my opinion, but examining this diff, the changes that I see are
  1. Content has been moved upwards, and the text has been slightly altered. If I've missed a change, please point it out. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 09:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record, my objection to that edit is that it moved material from the "rift" section into the "Millennium '73" section inappropriately. While all of this flows together to some extent, we need to use sections to split the article into reasonable pieces. The Millennium festival is a reasonably discrete event, which lasted only 3 days (though the after-effects lingered on). I believe that the material in question is more related to the "rift" than to the festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mahatmas

I was reading through the article, and have bumped across the word "mahatma...." I think it would be helpful to include what it means in the context of the DLM movement? Hohohahaha (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Marriage and Rift

The final sentence in this section is problematic. In the United Kingdom Mata Ji, Prem Rawat's mother, maintained her control of the DLM but the organizing center was shifted to the Divine United Organization by Rawat's followers.[92] Price appears the only source for the assertion ^ Price, Maeve (1979): "The Divine Light Mission as a social organization". Sociological Review, 27, Page 279-296. "In Britain a long wrangle ensued over the legal control of DLM as Maharaj Ji was not yet of age, but Mata Ji was out-manoevred by Maharaj Ji's supporters who by-passed the officially registered Divine Light Mission and used Divine United Organization (DUO) (which had already been established in 1973 to co-ordinate the mission's activities) and this became the mission's operational headquarters." There could never have been a "legal wrangle" over the UK DLM as it was governed by UK Charity Law which would have empowered the Trustees in all circumstances except gross violation of fiduciary responsibilities; should there have been any impropriety the public regulator - the Charity Commission would have had involvement, and there is no evidence that this ever happened, the UK DLM continued to promote Prem Rawat up to its closure in 1995 [12]Further there is no evidence that DUO existed as a legal entity in the UK - certainly the Register of Charities shows no such non profit being registered in the UK. Price appears to have taken a first hand report from a DLM insider at face value, unfortunately she does not accord the information to a source to which it could be ascribed. I suggest therefore that the offending sentence simply be deleted.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though it seems unlikely she was misinformed. This version of events is just weird and wrong, though not, it seems, self-serving. It's an exceptional claim. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't object to deleting that sentence. The nature of the relationships between various DUO and DLM branches are murky, and this material doesn't clarify them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes and References

Please keep this thread at the bottom of the page. Start new sections above it. Thanks.

[edit] Page protected

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