Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 44

This is an archive of past discussions about Prem Rawat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

→

Emancipated minor

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

I think becoming an emancipated minor is a very unusual thing, that it happened in someone who leads a very unusual life is noteworthy, and I don't think it should be taken out. Having said that, I also think we should deal with the charisma issue above before we go off on another tangent like this one. It's difficult enough to get one thing done at a time around here, it's almost impossible to do two things at once, I have no problem with discussing this next if we need to. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a great many things about Prem Rawat that are unusual, and I suppose we need to decide which of them are significant enough to belong in the lead. I agree that this is pretty important, as it underlines his lifelong determination to do things his own way. But the status of American "emancipated minor" needs to be got right. As I understand it, the fact of his marriage was among the evidence when he was considered for this status. Is that correct? Maybe there could be a simple and quick resolution for this apparently simple issue. (First time for everything.) Rumiton (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton I am surprised to think that you believe "we need to decide which of them are significant enough to belong in the lead". What "belongs" in the lead are the major points mentioned in the article. Rawat's marrying at 16 years old to a westerner and the splitting of the family were the major events 1974. Being an "emancipated minor" was never mentioned by anyone. Rawat automatically became "emancipated" by getting married. Momento (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The key word is "major." And we DO have to decide which of the the many topics mentioned in the article are the "major" lead-worthy ones. Rumiton (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We have given only two sentences in the lead to describe his "teachings" which has its own article. People are objecting to having two words (charismatic leader) added to describe a whole section. Yet the only mention of "emancipated minor" is "As a result of his marriage he became an emancipated minor". It is a small mater in the article that doesn't warrant highlighting and whether or not you think becoming an "emancipated minor" "underlines his lifelong determination to do things his own way" that is not the way it is treated in the article.Momento (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate - "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". It is not up to editors to decide that a topic that is only briefly mentioned in the article should be given more prominence than a topic that is covered at length.Momento (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions for correcting the chronology of this sentence - (I've changed the date from the obviously incorrect 1973) "In 1974, at age sixteen, he was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman, which divided his family and the movement".Momento (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

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

It spreads across close to a dozen archives but here is the link I was remembering. I don't know where "1973" came from in the lead, but yes, it does seem, that somewhere along the way, we bumped the date, and 1973 is wrong, I'll re-add Momento's date-change based on my re-reading of all the archives, and finding no support for 1973 and lots of support for 1974. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly amazing that obvious errors like that have survived the almost (almost?) fanatical scrutiny these articles have undergone. I still can't work out if anyone decided whether emancipation or marriage came first. Was it resolved? (And does anyone still think it matters?) Rumiton (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the date error was first made by Sylviecyn at 14:00 on [26 Jan 09], and never discovered by anyone. Goes to show that a good hard further look could do no harm. Rumiton (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything that talks about "emancipated minor" in the cites given in the lead, Hunt and Miller and when "emancipated minor" appears in the article it is not sourced. There was a debate about it and some editors researched it and came to the conclusion that the 'emancipation" came as a result of being married.However there is a lot about Rawat disobeying his mother to marry - Galanter - "This he did against his mother's wishes and the event precipitated a schism in the family, ultimately leading to the estrangement of the American branch of the religious sect from its main body in India, where his mother and brothers remained". Geaves in Partridge "This conflict resulted in a split between Maharaji and his family, ostensibly caused by his mother's inability to accept Maharaji's marriage to an American follower rather than the planned traditional arranged marriage". Melton "In December 1973, when Maharaj Ji turned 16, he took administrative control of the Mission’s separate American corporation. Then in May 1974, he married his 24 year old secretary, Marolyn Johnson, and declared her to be the incarnation of the goddess Dulga usually pictured with ten arms and astride a tiger... Mataji, Maharaj Ji’s mother, disapproved of the marriage and the life style of the now successful guru. Relations within the Holy Family were strained considerably". Stoner and Parke "He married his tall, blonde, and older secretary, Marolyn Lois Johnson, a former United Airlines stewardess from California. Maharaj Ji's mother back in India didn't approve of the marriage, or the young man's gaudy lifestyle. At sixteen he was not old enough to marry without parental permission in Colorado, so he petitioned the court. The judge agreed that the boy guru was old enough to marry, saying that he had an income and appeared mature beyond his years".Momento (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is no source at all (hard to believe), it should probably go. Could it be that someone just assumed he had become "emancipated"? Rumiton (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't the court documentation (which is openly avalible here in the US) be good enough? Ronk01 (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Ronk01, How does one obtain a copy of the court docs? In their absense, the statement should probably be removed. I don't see it as controversial or potentially a BLP issue, but one source only isn't enough. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Rumiton, I think the point might be moot. The big issue (Which I linked above) was whether or not he became emancipated to get married, or if by being married he became emancipated, either way, the outcome was/is the same, he was emancipated, there's no question of that, and therefore the statement should not be removed, although if the difference of how he became emancipated concerns you, I'm not automatically oppposed to a re-write of that particular sentence if we must. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If we would like to follow Wiki "policies. guidelines and practices", "emancipated minor" would be removed from the lead immediately and probably removed from the article. One source is not good enough for the lead and a disputed fact for the article. By far the dominant fact around this issue is that Rawat got a judges permission to marry against his mother's wishes which factured the family and the movement.Momento (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento, Wikipedia does not require sources to source sources! To demand such is absolutely ridiculous. Ronk01 talk, 14:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Where did I demand "sources to source sources"?Momento (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose that we replace "In 1974, at age sixteen, he was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman, which divided his family and the movement".^[1]^[2] with "In 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat married a Western woman against his mother's wishes which divided his family and the movement".^[1]^[2]

By saying "One source is not good enough for the lead and a disputed fact for the article" you are implying that a source in needed to back up another source. Ronk01 talk, 00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Maelefique, your understanding above was ...becoming an emancipated minor is a very unusual thing, and I thought so then, too. But if emancipation automatically follows marriage, then the unusual thing is the 16 year-old's marriage, no? Rumiton (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Rumiton, but perhaps we should indicate in some manner that emancipation was either required for, or granted by marriage? Ronk01 talk, 15:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, some one hacked my account. I have removed it.Momento (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly Rumiton, my understanding is that he was emancipated first, which allowed him to be married. If you read the archive, that may not be your conclusion though. Ergo, we can't take out the emancipation. Ronk01's suggestion might be workable, although I don't have a specific phrasing in mind. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Emancipation then marriage is the previous understanding, but someone raised the question that he may have got permission from a judge to get married, after which his emancipation was automatic, not applied for. In support, apparently only one source uses that expression. If we don't know for sure if he DID get granted emancipation status, we can't find out which county it was awarded in. It's a bit of a bind. Anyway, I don't care much. Rumiton (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC) But Maelefique, I think the suggestion you attribute to Ronk was actually made by Momento. There could be implications. Rumiton (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem Momento Ronk01 talk, 19:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

We discussed this at some length a couple of years ago, with input from a lawyer. Old discussion is here. --JN 466 13:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Which ever came first isn't really important. What is important is that - ""In 1974, at age sixteen, Rawat married a Western woman against his mother's wishes which divided his family and the movement".^[1]^[2]

The archive seemed to go on forever, without reaching a conclusion. I think you have captured the essence. Rumiton (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I do however still feel that we should indicate somehow that he was emancipated for, or became emancipated by his marriage. Emancipation of a minor is a major action, and if it did happen (which if he was married without parental consent, it must have) it needs to be on his Wikipedia page. Ronk01 talk, 14:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is on his Wikipedia page, it just doesn't belong in the lead.Momento (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, you have said many times that the lead must accurately summarize the highlights and main points of the article, emancipated minor status is a pretty big highlight in my opinion. Ronk01 talk, 04:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

OK. I removed most of what I wrote as it was an unnecessary afterthought to my response to Momento. PatW (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Pat, I get what you're saying, but let's just stay focused on the edits, not the editors. I think most of the motivations around here are completely understood, and personally, I'm less interested in the motivations than I am in the result. From my view, there's been far less controversial edits here in the last couple of months despite the large amount of talking, and that's a good thing. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Rumiton for having the integrity to challenge PatW about his personal attacks.Momento (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, I will say this again, emancipated minor status is a huge part of Rawat's history, and it must be represented in the lead. Ronk01 talk, 19:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be a "huge" thing to you but it is clearly a very minor part in the article and that's what counts.Momento (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I agree it should be left in the lead, many people get married, few get emancipated. It's a clear example of something that makes Prem Rawat different than an "average" person (for lack of a better word). Besides which "he was emancipated." How much more detail is needed to explain it fully (it gets 4 sentences now)? And before you answer that, keep in mind, the "biggest event in human history" (Millenium'73), gets about 5 sentences, and the Peace Bomb gets 1. If you think it's not a big deal, that's fine, but if you think it is, then surely the answer is to fix the flawed article, not to corrupt the lead. Although, as I said, how much more explaining does it need? It paints a complete picture of itself already I think, and I don't see a disconnect between the lead and the article on this. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There are five good reasons why Rawat's getting married at 16 is far more important than becoming emancipated - 1) every person who gets married at 16 becomes an "emancipated minor" but not every person who becomes an "emancipated minor" at 16 gets married at 16. Therefore getting married at 16 must be less usual than becoming emancipated at 16. 2) it wasn't getting emancipated that split the family, it was getting married against his mother's wishes. 3) Rawat either became emancipated so he could marry at 16 or became emancipated as a result of getting married, either way becoming emancipated is a by product of wanting to get married against his mother's wishes. 4) there are few reports of Rawat becoming emancipated but his marriage was news around the world. And 5) the article devotes far more space and sources to his marriage and the consequences than to emancipation and that is what we should follow. The reason I am pushing that we follow Wiki protocol for the lead is because I want to avoid exactly this situation. That an editor or editors can decide to feature in the lead something that is not prominent in the article. Whether Rawat got emancipated or not is not a POV issue, I couldn't care less but I do care that if we allow the lead to reflect editor's opinions rather than the article, we're on the road to hell.Momento (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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

OK Momento lets get to grips with your reasoning and logic.

1) Surely you meant 'Therefore getting married at 16 must be MORE usual than becoming emancipated' If not where is the logic?
2) It was both his marriage AND the emancipation that split the family. Emancipation inherently implies a financial independence and therefore a real split.
3)I suspect that Rawat became emancipated in order to facilitate his marriage in fact I believe I've heard as much. This can be ascertained. Your statement "becoming emancipated is a by product of wanting to get married" is 1) possibly untrue in Rawat's case. How do you know how much he wanted financial independence? 2) Generally untrue since not every person who becomes an "emancipated minor" does it for marriage reasons.
4)Yes there are reports of him both becoming emancipated and of him being married. So what? We all think that both being an emancipated minor AND married at 16 complete with the legal implications is interesting and unusual. Why separate the two interesting facts that are both reliably sourced? Especially as you will see they belong together.
5)All this about the article saying more about the marriage than the emancipation is irrelevant BECAUSE they are both equally interesting despite the fact that one warrants more verbage. The amount of verbage is not a measure of importance. How could it ever be? In an article about the Queen is it more important to state say the date of her marriage in the lead or should that be omitted because the article goes on more about other things in depth? Really Momento this is a nonsensical tack.

I understand that Emancipation is sought by minors and that being in the military or married are conditions that are generally necessary for a court to make a favourable judgement. If that was the case then it is of considerable interest and should be mentioned in the same breath as his marriage as they are both plainly connected. It's also interesting and unusual that Rawat at 16 was able to prove to a court his financial independence from his family which is also implicit in the emancipated minor status.PatW (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In answer to PatW -

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

Sure. Firstly, in the USA under 18's apparently do not automatically become 'emancipated minors' by virtue of marriage. Legal emancipation is an entirely separate legal agreement that is always sought and, if deemed appropriate, granted by a judge. It would seem to be correct however that not every emancipated minor' gets married at 16. Ergo your argument is not valid. Secondly- In order to conclude that there must be 'more emancipated minors than people getting married at 16' one must know at least 3 things:

1) how many people become emancipated minors for reasons other than marriage
2) How many people become emancipated minors in order to get married
3) how many people are married at 16 without being emancipated but with parental permission.

So again, consider this:- "Emancipations are rarely granted, because of the narrowness of the definition of "best interest". On one end of the spectrum are minors who have been victims of abuse; in most cases, the state's department of child services is notified and the child is placed in foster care. On the other end of the spectrum are minors who are seeking emancipation for superficial reasons, such as not being pleased with their parent's/guardian's rules. In those cases, the emancipation will most likely be denied." AND the fact that in the USA minors need legal emancipation to become married in the absence of parental permission AND in some states minors apparently only need parental permission to become married. So, in the abscence of statistics, it seems quite clear that to conclude that there are are more emancipated minors than people getting married at 16 is just wishful thinking on your part. So no, I don't admit I'm wrong but feel free to carry on explaining why you think I am.PatW (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

PatW, I am pleased to be corrected by you. The info that marriage doesn't automatically create emancipation in all states was news to me although it is true of Colorado.Momento (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Momento, your argument that the number of sentences determining placement in the lead is patent nonsense. Some articles on musicians give only five or six sentences regarding how an individual died, but over a paragraph regarding their CD releases. Clearly deaths are more deserving of the lead than CDs, Or would you rather that we left out the part about them dying because there weren't enough sentences regarding it? Ronk01 talk, 03:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is known as a Strawman [1] since I have not suggested that "the number of sentences determines placement in the lead". What I have suggested is that we are obliged by WP:LEAD to determine what material goes in the lead based on "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources". If you allow the opinion of one source, Cagan, to be displayed in the lead then what is your argument going to be if I would like to insert this opinion (in bold) from one source to be inserted into the lead - "The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma.^[1]^[3]^[4]which changed his students in a positive way, "more peaceful, loving, confident and appreciative of life".[2]Momento (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I like that one Momento. Yes, please, let's put that in. Rumiton (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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

(outdent) Hello to all. I've been reading this page with interest. The laws governing emancipated minor status vary from state to state here in the U.S. Prem Rawat would not have been able to get married at age 16 in Colorado without first obtaining his mother's legal consent, therefore, he had to file a petition with the family court in Colorado for emancipation. However, when someone is granted such status, it's not for the sole purpose of marriage. In Colorado, a minor may file a petition for emancipation at age 15, and if granted, the minor then becomes a legal adult and the emancipation severs the child's relationship with the parent as their legal guardian. That's the purpose of an emancipation. Petitions for the emancipation of minors are not rare in the U.S., but the main consideration a court takes into account is the financial independence of a minor, i.e., their ability to support themselves without their parents. Whether or not the court granted Rawat's emancipation for the sole purpose of his desire to marry Marolyn, is moot, given that soon after that he did get married. But it was, in fact, his legal emancipation that gave Prem Rawat the ability to enter into a marriage contract without his mother's consent, not the opposite. With emancipation, Rawat also gained the ability to enter into other legally binding contracts besides marriage, such as real estate and other financial transactions. So, the two issues, Rawat's emancipated status and his marriage, are intrinsically connected and both must be mentioned in the lead, regardless of the weight given the subject in the article. Moreover, it was young Guru Maharaj Ji's status as a public person (he came to the western countries specifically to publicly promote himself as the Perfect Master, purveyor of world peace, Lord of the Universe, etc.) that made his story so unique, the result of which was that the story of his emancipation, marriage, and family split received wide news coverage. That's an important part of Rawat's biography. After all, he's not well-known in the present day, but was well-known at the time of his emancipation and marriage. The subject of all three things: emancipation, marriage, and family split was huge news in 70s. There are plenty of articles that could be cited and expanded upon in the article about this subject if there's not enough about it in the article to suit Momento's sensibilities. Btw, an interesting fact that I discovered researching this matter is that, even when someone becomes a legally emancipated minor, and even if they get married, their new majority status does not give them the legal right to drink alcohol until they reach the legal drinking age in their state of residence. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You make a number of assertions there, but they seem to be contradicted by some Colorado legal aid sites I have been looking at, in which 14 and 16 year-olds frequently enquire about the possibility of independent living. The answer they all get is that there is no "statute" for emancipation in Colorado: emancipation is recognised as a fact under certain circumstance. Under title 19-2-511 of the CHILDREN’S CODE, a juvenile over fifteen years of age and under eighteen years of age who has, with the real or apparent assent of the juvenile's parents, demonstrated independence from the juvenile's parents in matters of care, custody, and earnings may be recognised as an emancipated minor. The term may include, but shall not be limited to, any such juvenile who has the sole responsibility for the juvenile's own support, who is married, or who is in the military. In other words, the court order allowing his marriage must have come first, then the recognition of his emancipated status automatically followed. Unless it was different in 1974. See here [[3]] and here [[4]]. It seems that this issue will not go away, so we need to get it right. Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

But now I find this [[5]] apparently less official site which makes a different case. Perhaps the laws recently changed? Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This site says "Just because a child becomes emancipated there are still certain responsibilities the child must take care of themselves: Cannot get married unless he/she has parents permission". Which, combined with the info above, suggests that Rawat got permission to marry and that led to emancipation. Momento (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I'm enjoying all the discussion into which came first, emancipation or marriage, the actual point of this discussion is - should emancipation appear in the lead when only one source, uncited, mentions it. And as I suggested above, if it is allowed what is to stop editors from proposing other minor aspects of the article for the lead?Momento (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

ConsensusPatW (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As we've seen here recently people tend to vote on POV lines. I'd rather we followed Wiki policies, guidelines and practices as strictly as possible. It would mean that "emancipation" wouldn't appear in the lead but it would also stop other single sourced items appearing in the lead such as "Downton concluded that the students had changed in a positive way, "more peaceful, loving, confident and appreciative of life".[130]Momento (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

IN the meantime we should at least change the lead to reflect the article which says "Rawat became emancipated as a result of the marriage" not "emancipation" first and "marriage" second as stated in the lead.Momento (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Momento, I believe that you made several comments regarding verbage and lead priority. Second, The best option we have here would be to acquire a pimary source like court documentation. Primary ources like that are not open for contention, so that would settel the which came first battle. Second, according to WPLLEAD, which Momento so voraciously cites, major items deserve coverage. Emancipation (or minor marriage) that split his movement is VERY major. Ronk01 talk, 04:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all Ronk01 this has been a discussion about the number of sentences and sources given to Rawat's "emancipation" and to Rawat's "marriage". By weight of material and sources the "marriage" is a far bigger issue than his "emancipation" which has one uncited sentence. If you want to go and find a source for "emancipation" just do it. Secondly his "emancipation" didn't split the movement and there isn't one source to suggest it did. What split the movement was his "marriage against his mother's wishes" because she still had control of DLM in India and legally cut him out.Momento (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about editing this article

Before I spend further time arguing about things that I don't see as issues, or chasing around finding evidence to support someone else's case, I'd appreciate some clarity on the ground rules here. If people want to re-edit something (like this emancipation sentence in the Lead for example) do they actually need a consensus or vote of confidence from others to do so? If so, do they need to formally request the edit at some point? It seems to me that (in the above case) it would have been better maybe if Momento and Rumiton just discussed their proposed edits amongst themselves and only needed to draw others in when they have supportive evidence for a case that they are confident can be put to the vote. I just realised that I'm spending a lot of time possibly getting unnecessarily frustrated and even angry, getting involved in arguments that are essentially possibly not mine. This is actually because I'm worried that the edits will just go ahead behind everyone's back as it were. Is this an unnecessary worry? I notice Willbeback has not seen the need to join the discussion at all. Maybe because he sees no need and he'll just vote when Momento and Rumiton have hashed it out? PatW (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Pat, it would be brilliant if you could find time to get some wider experience at editing Wikipedia. To answer your questions:

1) A Wikipedia article is never finished. There will always be someone around who wants to improve something, and in general this is a good thing. If a change they make is disputed, a talkpage consensus is required, but this is not the same thing as a vote. If that were the case, anyone could stack the talkpage with their own like-minded allies. Generally issues are resolved by reference to Wikipedia principles, which admittedly are quite complex, but are based on common sense.

2) For any group of editors to discuss proposed edits "among themselves" is forbidden. This is called "tag teaming" and "cabalism" and is against the independent spirit of Wikipedia. You might notice that Momento and I quite often publicly disagree on how to proceed, as we do with everyone else. This is healthy, and reflects a spirit of independent editing.

3) I do think it is an "unnecessary frustration" for you to feel you have to get involved in every issue, especially if you don't think some of them are very important, but feel you have to stop "them" from winning points, which is how I read your question.

4) Willbeback stated some weeks ago that he had had enough of the endless discussions and felt the article was good enough in its then current form. Since then, a surprising number of errors have been discovered in the article, mainly by Momento, and they have been corrected, which points up the need for more scrutiny. This "emancipated" thing may be another. I just am not yet sure, and the online sources seem contradictory. Rumiton (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on - that wasn't the gist of my question. Please don't be so patronising as to give me a kindergarten Wikipedia lecture. What I am really driving at is clarification as to the actual implications of the status of this page being 'under protection' particularly with regard to how that effects you and Momento's actual 'going ahead' with these edits without consensus. Momento and you both seem to think you can just do that and have said us much above. This is a serious matter as bragging about that comes across as a threat. Well..can you or can't you go ahead with edits without consensus? And what is your understanding of getting consensus? Whose consensus do you think you need?PatW (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any point in trying to continue this dialogue. Rumiton (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you Rumiton. One minute PatW is complaining about all the discussion taking place about edits, the next moment he's complaining about "going ahead with these edits without consensus". One minute PatW complaining about being "patronised for being given a kindergarten Wikipedia lecture", then next moment he's asking "can you or can't you go ahead with edits without consensus".Momento (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I see now that the article is 'semi-protected' as from Dec 2009. This is the thing I am trying to understand better. You could have simply told me that. PatW (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We're not mind readers. How can you expect anyone to come to that conclusion from reading your jumble of confused comments that it related to "semi-protected' as from Dec 2009". But one thing always remains clear in your communications and that is a need to blame someone for your problems.Momento (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not blaming anyone for my confusion and I'm not about to suffer paroxysms of guilt about my incomplete knowledge of Wikipedia. I thought this page was protected and 'under mediation' and that might have implications about 'consensus' that I've missed. You don't need to be a mind reader to have got that from my questions. Regarding your comment that I always blame others for my problems, let me clarify. If someone blames me for something I try to be accountable. If I hold someone to blame for something I expect the same standards. I don't hold with this idea that all blame can be dismissed as 'victim mentality'. I think I could be forgiven for asking you to clarify your understanding of 'consensus' since you have been rather scornful of others opinions, often don't answer questions in discussions about your proposed edits and throw the rule book at people in a dismissive manner.PatW (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you write above "You could have simply told me that"? That means - we should have explained something to you and it was simple for us to do so but we didn't anyway. And what are we supposed to explain to you? We're supposed to read your questions about one of the fundamentals of Wiki editing (consensus) and realise that it's not actually about "consensus" but is really a hidden question to which the answer is "this page 'semi-protected' as from Dec 2009"! And just to clear up your inflammatory language. Yes, you should read the rule book. Yes, I won't respond to personal attacks. And yes, I am dismissive of arguments that aren't based on Wiki policies, guidelines and practices. Good bye PatWMomento (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If I owe an apology/explanation it is possibly to Rumiton for saying I thought he was being patronising. That obviously sounded more aggressive than I intended. I did appreciate his response but just felt that he had gone to great lengths to explain things I had not asked (that I already demonstrably know) and yet had not elaborated on my particular question about consensus. That's why I duly refined my question for him and you. My original question was not aimed at you specifically. I was asking for anyone's help. Again you've kind of hijacked this and made it seem much more negative than I certainly intended. The page protection thing is quite complicated and I was wondering if there was the need for so much time-consuming discussion when that might mean there was going to be some future 'vote'. Then it could be at least on a well-presented case with evidence such as Ronk and Rumiton have suggested re the Primary Source Legal Docs. That would mean that if someone wants to make an edit it rather behoves them to do the donkey work getting firm evidence and others could not have to get involved in tortured arguments that I'm sure most will agree would be great to avoid.PatW (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

|}