Talk:Sahaj Marg/Archive 7

message: CREATED ARCHIVE ON AUGUST 28, 2007   --Renee 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

message: Hi Folks,
I created a message box per Rumiton's suggestion to put at the top of the page.  (I did contact Vassyana and he directed me to pre-made boxes but I wanted to keep it light and positive and most seemed a bit heavy-handed.  So, I made one up that briefly gives the rationale for brevity in editing this page [and you wouldn't believe how long it took me to figure out how to do it...].)  The butterfly represents new beginnings,  transformation, and lightness.  Let me know what you think.
Renee     --Renee 23:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not put these type of messages or disclaimer in mainspace. I have moved it to talk and edited it for accuracy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Thanks.  Do you think "third-party sources" should be added?  (Otherwise people will add tons of in-house sources and think they're following the guidelines.)   Renee     --Renee 23:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. Third party sources that meet the criteria established in policy (WP:V, WP:NOR and, WP:NPOV) are most welcome. Those that do not, are not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - perfect - this is very clear now.  Renee   --Renee 00:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Message Box

message: Removed POV, the autralien page is an advertisment site for California SRCM, and is not RS. info regarding disputed trade marg with accurate date is also provided. this info also cannot be ommited in any encyclopedia article. Will be adding the pilosophy and outcome of Sahaj Marg soon.
Tnx--Shashwat pandey 18:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The conclusion at the end dismissed the case. So the trademark is no longer disputed. This sort of information does not belong in the first paragraph. IPSOS (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You haven't even read your reference. See the bottom for the conclusion. Case isn't pending, it is over. IPSOS (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits in intro section

message: An encyclopedia article regarding a group without stated philosophy is something missing greatly !! hence philosophy of both the factions have been provided. few correction's also done they are:-
1. ISRC is not related to Sahaj Marg, they have different trade Mark PAM, and only claim linage from founder, they do not claiming to teach Sahaj Marg, but PAM, which is their own method, any reference to Sahaj Marg is direct violation of WP:NOR.
2. Largest group and smaller faction. Again a POV push. they are simply group registered in California and USA, their sizes are only claims are cannot be verified.
3. Major disagreement between two Sahaj Marg's one claims living leader is must, another say's not at all needed.
This info is part of an encyclopedia page, can be ommited in different groups personal website's !!--Shashwat pandey 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition's

message: Dear Shashwat,
According to the box at the top of the page, this article is to remain a stub due to lack of reliable third-party sources.  Further, editors are respectfully asked to discuss any changes and keep them short because of this.  This scenario was agreed upon with intervention from administrators.
To avoid starting an edit war, I respectfully ask you to revert your edits back to the stub of July 12th, and then let's discuss any changes one-by-one.
I looked at your edits so far and virtually none pass the Wiki standards for reliable evidence.
First, "anti"-secte sites are by definition biased (they promote an anti-secte view).
Second, Elizabeth Denley's article in Australian Yoga Life is a bona fide article.  Where is your evidence that this was an advertisement?  You must prove that this magazine is not a valid magazine.  You just assert it.
Third, the philosophy section and the constant remembrance section are not admissable according to Wiki standards, because you use only source text to make your POV.  Vassyana gave an excellent example to Sethie about why this is not appropriate, and I paste in here below (found on Sethie's talk page):
:::Brief explanation. When using only primary sources, it is very difficult to build an article without including original research by drawing conclusions from the information. Secondary sources allow the sourcing of conclusions about primary sources without engaging in original research. A good example of this is the meaning of religious texts. As an example, Jesus says it is better to cut off a hand than to sin. This would be easily presented as Christian scripture encouraging severe self-mutilation if only the primary source (the Bible) was used. However, that is not an accurate presentation and not supposed by reliable secondary sources. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Vassyana 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Revert your Edits and Discuss first

message: According to the box at the top of the page, this article is to remain a stub due to lack of reliable third-party sources.  Further, editors are respectfully asked to discuss any changes and keep them short because of this.  This scenario was agreed upon with intervention from administrators.
It was also agreed that page will remain same, during mediation process, however, wiki is dynamic, and is bound to change, there is nothing in recent edits with is against any wiki policy, kindly point out one such incidence.
To avoid starting an edit war, I respectfully ask you to revert your edits back to the stub of July 12th, and then let's discuss any changes one-by-one.
why would there be any edit war? if there is nothing against any policy ? if you feel there is something which is against wiki policy then kindly point out which edit you are refering to ? as a matter of fact, stub is not what is intention of wiki project, an encyclopedia has detailed information as in case of word book or britanica. stubs can be used in any blog or groups personal website, not on wiki, here information needs to be placed.
I looked at your edits so far and virtually none pass the Wiki standards for reliable evidence.
pls point out one such edit along with reference to wiki standered where you feel is not a reliable source. once you have found out, we will remove that section
First, "anti"-secte sites are by definition biased (they promote an anti-secte view).
it is WP:RS as they are:- 1. SME (subject matter expert) 2. Unbiased to any POV (they have info regarding cults, not only SRCM, it is one of them)
Second, Elizabeth Denley's article in Australian Yoga Life is a bona fide article.  Where is your evidence that this was an advertisement?  You must prove that this magazine is not a valid magazine.  You just assert it.
Elizabeth Denley's is a member of SRCM California, and hence his POV is advertisment and not a neutral source.
Third, the philosophy section and the constant remembrance section are not admissable according 
to Wiki standards, because you use only source text to make your POV.  Vassyana gave an excellent example to Sethie about why this is not appropriate, and I paste in here below (found on Sethie's talk page):
:::Brief explanation. When using only primary sources, it is very difficult to build an article without including original research by drawing conclusions from the information. Secondary sources allow the sourcing of conclusions about primary sources without engaging in original research. A good example of this is the meaning of religious texts. As an example, Jesus says it is better to cut off a hand than to sin. This would be easily presented as Christian scripture encouraging severe self-mutilation if only the primary source (the Bible) was used. However, that is not an accurate presentation and not supposed by reliable secondary sources. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Vassyana 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to inquires in my talk page: Wikipedia articles cannot be based on self-published sources only. For NPOV, we need secondary sources. As there are no secondary sources about this subject, the only way that an article may remain in Wikipedia is by creating a stub with minimal information, or it will be otherwise deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response inline (in bold)

message: It was discussed between Renee IPSOS and me also that there is need to create two different pages for Sahaj Marg, one is the Sahaj Marg (California) and another one is Sahaj Marg (India) then both the faction's can add or modify their own flavor of Sahaj Marg according to their POV's and can easily be discussed and debated there.
Welcome more comments about creating two different Sahaj Marg pages'--Shashwat pandey 20:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent communication on user talk page

message: ...re-add material about which there are no third party reliable sources. The article was re-created as a stub for this reason. Attempts to re-add unsourced material, may be considered disruptive edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to inquires in my talk page: Wikipedia articles cannot be based on self-published sources only. For NPOV, we need secondary sources. As there are no secondary sources about this subject, the only way that an article may remain in Wikipedia is by creating a stub with minimal information, or it will be otherwise deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not ...

message: In Sahaj Marg (California) it is recognized that a living Male Master is indispensable to an adherent's spiritual progress. . According to Sahaj Marg (California), Leader is representative of God, The Ultimate and inner divinity of its member's. The stated goal of the Sahaj Marg practice is complete oneness with divinity (Leader). According to SRCM (California), the Leader not only represents the higher self but is a representative of God  
and that this God is "male", while nature is "female".  
In Sahaj Marg (India) Only one guru is identified (Babuji the founder) and it is stated that a Guru never die's. India based SRCM does not recognize the need for changing guru with time. 
According to recent speeches by the leader of the SRCM (California), the adherent is to: First, love the Master. Then meditate, do cleaning, because he says you should do it. I don’t personally believe that meditation can lead us to the goal because, according to the spiritual history of India, there have been people who have meditated thousands of years and they didn’t make it.... “Obedience. (To) create obedience in people.” 
The founder, Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur, (Babuji), wrote a book called "Sahaj Marg  Philosophy."  Chariji, the president of the SRCM (California) faction, in his New Year's address in Jan. 2005, stated:
There is no room for philosophy in speeches of Sahaj Marg. In fact, Sahaj Marg has no philosophy. It does not rest on any philosophy. It is neither advaita nor dvaita nor vishishta advaita.
===Constant remembrance===
Constant remembrance is a Trade Mark registered by California group 
* The method for cultivating constant remembrance is to think with firm conviction during your leisure hours, whether at the office or at home, in the street or at the market that the leader is pervading all over and everywhere. The adherent is to try to remain in the same thought as long as he/she can.
* The adherents are to feel connected with the leader every moment with an unbroken chain of thought during all their activities
* According to the SRCM material, retaining the remembrance of the leader at all times engenders in the adherent a deep attachment to the leader, the representative of the divine, and leads to the state in which love for him develops.
The adherent is to think about Chari throughout the day, whereas when thoughts of daily life come, they must ignore them "like a dog barking".  According to some, this method causes adherents to become totally isolated from all their responsibilities and the leader's responsibilities becomes the adherents' duty, and the leader thus becomes "responsible" for the adherent's life and death.
On the question if member's can continue with their normal life like to keep the contact with his family, his children, one cult watch group claims that Chari teaches that it is not possible. As for member's if they obey him and fulfill their duty towards him, that take's care of all their responsibilities. 
Chari is explicit: It is the error which the people make who imagine that, because they met the Master, they can with abandonment partly continue or old life and also take part in spirituality. They think that they can follow spiritual practices and also remain attached to their customs. It is not at all possible. He says in addition: When we fill our duty towards the Master, all our duty will be accomplished. It deals with the remainder in our interest. It takes even care of your duties for us.
--Shashwat pandey 20:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shashwat, All that you put in is either source or an anti-secte citation.  As such, it must be removed per Wiki policy.  I have done that here.  Please reduce and retain the stub, not add primary source info.
Renee    --Renee 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: pls point out any wiki policy which prohibits direct quotation from primary source, also kindly provide any reference from secondary sources which indicates that neutral group cannot be used ? anti-sects is not against SRCM but is a reliable SME relating to cults. hope this clarifirs secondary sources pls feel free to ask me for further clarification's.
What do you say about two Sahaj Marg pages. will that not solve the purpose, both group with their own Sahaj Marg.
--Shashwat pandey 21:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shashwat,  You can't use "mainly quotes of the leader" because, as Vassyana pointed out in the text I pasted in previously, this information can be pulled out of context and selectively interpreted.  That's why it's not valid.  That's why this article was reduced to a stub.  Again, I understand you want to get a certain perspective out there, but a blog is the place to do it, not Wiki.  I hope you can respect that.  Renee   --Renee 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, what it indicates is the one editor, namely yourself, is not listening to the other editors about the use of primary sources. That's why people are talking to you on your talk page. The other editors get it. IPSOS (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shashwat, I keep trying to engage you in discussion, but you just ignore everything I say and post what you want.  Again, what did you think of Vassyana's explanation of why you can't use primary sources (like "quotes of the leader")?  Does this seem reasonable to you?  Do you agree this is Wiki policy?  Renee   --Renee 22:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy

message: Constant remembrance is a Trade Mark registered by California group 
* The method for cultivating constant remembrance is to think with firm conviction during your leisure hours, whether at the office or at home, in the street or at the market that the leader is pervading all over and everywhere. The adherent is to try to remain in the same thought as long as he/she can.
* The adherents are to feel connected with the leader every moment with an unbroken chain of thought during all their activities
* According to the SRCM material, retaining the remembrance of the leader at all times engenders in the adherent a deep attachment to the leader, the representative of the divine, and leads to the state in which love for him develops.
The adherent is to think about Chari throughout the day, whereas when thoughts of daily life come, they must ignore them "like a dog barking".  According to some, this method causes adherents to become totally isolated from all their responsibilities and the leader's responsibilities becomes the adherents' duty, and the leader thus becomes "responsible" for the adherent's life and death.
On the question if member's can continue with their normal life like to keep the contact with his family, his children, one cult watch group claims that Chari teaches that it is not possible. As for member's if they obey him and fulfill their duty towards him, that take's care of all their responsibilities. 
Chari is explicit: It is the error which the people make who imagine that, because they met the Master, they can with abandonment partly continue or old life and also take part in spirituality. They think that they can follow spiritual practices and also remain attached to their customs. It is not at all possible. He says in addition: When we fill our duty towards the Master, all our duty will be accomplished. It deals with the remainder in our interest. It takes even care of your duties for us.
--Shashwat pandey 20:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shashwat, All that you put in is either source or an anti-secte citation.  As such, it must be removed per Wiki policy.  I have done that here.  Please reduce and retain the stub, not add primary source info.
Renee    --Renee 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: pls point out any wiki policy which prohibits direct quotation from primary source, also kindly provide any reference from secondary sources which indicates that neutral group cannot be used ? anti-sects is not against SRCM but is a reliable SME relating to cults. hope this clarifirs secondary sources pls feel free to ask me for further clarification's.
What do you say about two Sahaj Marg pages. will that not solve the purpose, both group with their own Sahaj Marg.
--Shashwat pandey 21:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shashwat,  You can't use "mainly quotes of the leader" because, as Vassyana pointed out in the text I pasted in previously, this information can be pulled out of context and selectively interpreted.  That's why it's not valid.  That's why this article was reduced to a stub.  Again, I understand you want to get a certain perspective out there, but a blog is the place to do it, not Wiki.  I hope you can respect that.  Renee   --Renee 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, what it indicates is the one editor, namely yourself, is not listening to the other editors about the use of primary sources. That's why people are talking to you on your talk page. The other editors get it. IPSOS (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shashwat, I keep trying to engage you in discussion, but you just ignore everything I say and post what you want.  Again, what did you think of Vassyana's explanation of why you can't use primary sources (like "quotes of the leader")?  Does this seem reasonable to you?  Do you agree this is Wiki policy?  Renee   --Renee 22:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Constant remembrance

message: Dear IPSOS,
Thanks for your edits.  I was so glad to see the secondary citations in newspapers, etc.  thanks for your efforts.  Renee   --Renee 22:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great citations

message: Dear IPSOS, Jossi, Sethie, Vassyana, Rumiton, and other editors,
I have pleaded with Shashwat to work with me.  After fair warning I asked administrators to help.  After he repeatedly reverted their edits, I filed AIV, to which he retaliated and filed an AIV against me.  (I believe these are the steps to follow when handling disputes, according to Wiki policy.)
Kindly provide any refrence where you intended to discuss any topic on article talk page, you have always been contacting various admin with sole intention to block me. which is not an act of good faith, nor it indicates a healthy approach to debate. 
Now, he is posting personal attacks on the talk page (as well as on my user page).  I would like to request a permanent ban against him for tendentious editing, persistent disruptive editing, persistent edits from primary sources with selectively chosen text to promote a point of view, as well as personal attacks.  We were really making progress on this article and the Shri Ram Chandra Mission articles and then today the edit wars started again.  
I have simply replyed to places where you have tried to defame me with reason (along with diff/links) there is no edit war, i simply added a section in article, after discussion, and asked editor's to point out if there is any OR or any mis-quatation of RS. thats it, there is no revert by me in last 10-15 days.
I am unsure as to what process I should take in addition to the above steps?  I would like to continue editing on Wikipedia and have faith the community will police such actions.
You are always welcome to edit wikipedia but not other editor's, if you disagree with some topic, discuss it on article talk page, asking admins to ban a user is not what is intention is any fair debate !!
p.s. the blog Mr. Pandey refers to above was accessed through a link formerly posted on the Wikipedia page .  On this page, Michael refers to "Shashwat Pandey's" blog (see second paragraph and links on the right).  This same blog also appears as a direct link on a former Sahaj Marg page (see the end of the Wiki Sahaj Marg page June 26th and previous).  If the Wiki user "Shashwat Pandey" is different from the "Shashwat Pandey" blog, my honest mistake and my apologies.  The style and syntax of language sound identical to me and I thought he had purposely posted his blog on the page.
 this is Micheal's blog and it has no refrence to Shashwat Pandey as such, it only uses first name, which happens to be Shashwat, name that i also use here as i like this name. This pre-judgeing of your's claiming that a link give's full name of a user whereas it does not, also clearly indicates that your approach is very much personal rather then edit oriented. This however is not my actual name!!. Here(www DOT orkut DOT com/ Community DOT aspx?cmm=15300853) you can find more then 100 Shashwat's around 40+ Shashwat Pandey for that matter, most of them are against one or the other cult and almost all of them has a blog or other, how can you pinpoint a user on wiki with any blog on internet. without any crdible source of information !! this tentamounts to personal attack and also act in bad faith. If there is any issue with my edits, you can disucss it on talk page, if consensus is not reached, then we can go for mediation process which we accepted and is currently underway, You have demonstrated lack of faith in wiki community by changing the complete article even when mediation process is underway. I simply tried to restore what was there. an encyclopedia is not a place where information can be hidden. whatever is truth must be project here. no false information or manipulated version is acceptable in open forums like wiki.
Thanks for your understanding. !! --Shashwat pandey 01:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Excellent job editing this Sahaj Marg page IPSOS.  For the first time in ages it reads like a high quality Wiki article, complete with proper formatting, references, and further reading.  Your work is greatly appreciated.   Renee    --Renee 03:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks to IPSOS

message: Article is now protected for 1 month. Please take the opportunity that the protection affords to attempt and find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: My questions for you:
Regarding #1, the citation you give for this does not say anywhere that constant remembrance is trademarked.  It seems if the citation does not match the claim, the claim must be deleted - yes?
Kindly refer bottom of the page, in small text, all the trademarks registered are placed, C R is one of them
Regarding #2-5, these have no secondary citations and seem to be your understanding of constant remembrance based on your analysis of the literature?  To me this seems like original research? 
These are from primary sources from Sahaj Marg site only, now there are two Sahaj Marg, one is California based and other one is India based and both have different approach towards CR, this is the only reason why i had praposed two page's one for Sahaj Marg California and one for Sahaj Marg India. SRCM will ultimatly become one only after court decide's. Hence there is no need for two SRCM page's but there will be two Sahaj Marg for sure, as both the groups will be teaching their own version of Sahaj Marg. Reference for the same has been provided
Regarding #6-7, besides the same issues as for #2-5 above of being OR, it also is my understanding that anti-secte sites are not viewed as reliable or verifiable by Wiki because they are (a) partisan websites and derogatory ,  (b)  self-published(and meet the following Wiki guidelines for non-reliable research -> are contentious, self-serving, involve claims about third parties, and promote a non-neutral point-of-view), (c)  are not in English  , (d) present non-verifiable original research ("The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" ). 
I respectfully do not agree with the above reference's because:-
1. It is not Biographies of living persons
2.  this clearly say's Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.  Now any article has to be based on secondary sources and the anti-secte is a secondary source as it is sourced from newspaper article's and based on government report kindly verify this statement from above link In general, the most reliable sources are books, journals, magazines, and mainstream newspapers; published by university presses or known publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. this will clearly demonstrate that the above link is very much a secondary source as it is not biased against any perticular group but is againts cults in genral!!
3. Non-english pages are very well accepted in english article. I can provide you link for that statement. but after sometime.
 
Other administrators have pointed out as well on this talk page that anti-secte or cult sources are not within Wiki guidelines.["The main problem with this article, besides its length, is that sources used are either self-published or anti-cult sources. As such, the article suffers greatly. We need third-party scholarly sources on the subject. I will do some research and offer sources that interested editors may want to explore.
Pls provide a diff. As per which policy of wiki does an anti-cult group report is non-acceptable ? in the same line under what condition does a government report not accepted as valid wiki source ? kindly provide a link for the official wiki policy which state's 1. Non-english pages cannot be used (i can provide reverse link soon) 2. Govt. report are not considered as valid wiki source. 3. Newspaper article's are not reliable. 4. Link to a page which has reference only to newspaper report's are not considered as valid wiki input. Lets solve this with discussion, (on this page only !!)--Shashwat pandey 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Heya Renee
Thanks for trying to keep the page clean and tight and Sethie unarchived it for two reasons:
1) Generally only old discussions are archived... there is no hard and fast rule and Sethie doesn't archive that are less then a month old. 
2) When you archive, you create a new page, not add to the old one. 
peace, Sethie 02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, sorry, I thought it was by length (it seemed like we had to scroll a long ways). Thanks for fixing it!  Renee    --Renee 10:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undoing of archiving

message: All Editor's,
Kindly refer  I fail to find any useful contribution from the user regarding content of the article but discussion is only about one perticuler user (mostly on admin's talk page) and that's me. Is there any experienced user who can elaborate more on working method on wikipedia ? as per my understanding, it is more or less content oriented and not contributer oriented. 
It will be benefitail for all, to make sure that we keep focus on content's rather then contributer. Which is the very core of wiki policy. I will be proposing a new page here soon. lets discuss that. --Shashwat pandey 14:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see .   --Renee 17:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Working Method

message: Discussion of trademarks does not belong in this article. It belongs in the articles about the organizations only. That is, you are putting it in the wrong place. IPSOS (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademarks 

message: Hi Folks,
Here seems to be the summary so far of Shashwat's text:
-- Rumiton -- "sources used should be unbiased...Similarly in writing about a spiritual or political group, you would not accept information from an indignant ex-member, a member of an opposing organisation, or from a person or other group dedicated to damaging such groups...quotes from the organisation or person themselves are generally not permissibleItalic text...If there is no research available from professional scholars there is no alternative to leaving the article as a stub..." [italics/bold added]
-- IPSOS -- "Discussion of trademarks does not belong in this article."
-- Shashwat -- "These are from primary sources" and  "the above link is very much a secondary source as it is not biased against any perticular group but is againts cults in genral!!"
-- Renee -- anti-secte sites are self-published, non-verifiable, original research.  
::(Shashwat -- you asked for the sites to prove this and I provided them above, but here they are again:   
Analysis of primary source material by an editor is considered original research, i.e., "Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a positionItalic text. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." 
-- Vassyana (this originally appeared on Sethie's page but it explains why one himself cannot conduct original analysis with primary sources; analysis or interpretation has to come from secondary sources that have a fact-checking or vetting system, see OR):
::Brief explanation. When using only primary sources, it is very difficult to build an article without including original research by drawing conclusions from the information. Secondary sources allow the sourcing of conclusions about primary sources without engaging in original research. A good example of this is the meaning of religious texts. As an example, Jesus says it is better to cut off a hand than to sin. This would be easily presented as Christian scripture encouraging severe self-mutilation if only the primary source (the Bible) was used. However, that is not an accurate presentation and not supposed by reliable secondary sources. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Vassyana 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary so far

message: Regarding the proposal for two Sahaj Marg pages, this makes no sense at all, as the practice of Sahaj Marg is the same across all three groups.  
:ISRC: http://www.sriramchandra.org/Methods/Methods.htm#Standard%20Meditational%20Practices http://www.sriramchandra.org/About/Isrc.htm#Uniqueness
:SRCM-Chennai: http://www.srcm.org/members/meditation.pdf
:SRCM-Shah: http://www.srcmshahjahanpur.org.in/sahajmarg.html
Each group does have its own body of literature that is different (though there are core pieces shared across all three). 
The "text" that Shashwat is analyzing and extracting information from is all from the SRCM-Chennai, and it is not part of the basic practice.  Most of this text is from compilations of speeches given in certain contexts, responses to specific questions by practicants, talks at specific events within a specific contect, etc.  To me they appear selectively chosen to promote a certain point-of-view.   
It is my understanding that text pulled from primary sources to support claims made by an editor is analysis, and hence, original research. And, I think that Rumiton and Vassyana agreed with that from their comments above.
Clarifications from other editors welcome and appreciated?!
Thanks, Renee     --Renee 18:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sahaj Marg - the Practice