Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 3

message: Please read Wikipedia:Valid_Sources, as discussed above, some do not comply. Please add to the discussion instead of adding unproductive content. Sfacets 05:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been discussed ad nauseum, and the consensus is that the report is a valid and credible source.  If your memory needs refreshing, see "The Religious Movements Homepage Project" section above. --NovaSTL 06:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: YOUR memory needs refreshing. Some of us spent valuable time debating this the first time round. Sahajhist 06:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are being deliberately disruptive.  Stop it. --NovaSTL 08:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? Who? Why? What are you talking about? Sfacets 08:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You continue to remove valid sources, such as the link to the Religious Movements Homepage Project at the University of Virginia website, claiming it's "unreliable", while adding multiple dubious ones (like repeatedly citing the organization's own website as a source). .  You have an obvious agenda to promote the Sahaja Yoga organization, putting as much promotional information about it onto Wikipedia as you can manage, while systematically deleting anything that is negative or critical.  You have now been blocked twice for this type of disruptive activity.  If you continue like this, you will eventually be totally banned from Wikipedia. Please change your ways, and work constructively with other editors to create an article about Sahaja Yoga which presents a balanced view about it, both positive and negative.  This will make for a stronger article. --NovaSTL 02:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The [[Wikipedia:Verifiability}burden of evidence]] is yours. (The link you gave above doesn't show me "repeatedly citing the organizations' own website btw). It's not about promotion. Which material is promotional? You are hypocritical in telling me to work in tandem with other authors, since you won't even join in the discussion on why the source in question is/isn't reliable and reach concensus. Your continued vandalism and POV (such as your continued bias shown through labeling the organisation a cult) speaks volumes about your own agenda. You keep referring to the first time I was blocked (when was that, 1.5 years ago?)  as usual talking about things you don't really know anything about (such as calling Sahaja Yoga a Hindu organisation).
I have asked you time and time again to join the conversation. Maybe instead of all this aggressiveness you could help reach a NPOV article, as you claim your goal above is.
I have been on Wikipedia for almost 3 years now, and my edits show that I am not just here to push my POV, and that in fact I aim at creating dialogue between editors. All your edit history says is that you have targeted Sahaja Yoga related articles, and without joining into the discussion have arbitrarily asserted your POV.
Disruptive is when you tear apart an article which has taken the better part of a year to create in the matter of hours.
Sfacets 02:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As has been said multiple times, by multiple editors, including me , the Religious Movements Homepage Project is a valid source.  You need to stop removing it from the article. --NovaSTL 02:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Valid sources

message: You guys go on and on and on. Try this instead:  WikiPossum 14:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chillout Time

message: Edits made without consulting other editors, and without participating in discussion are disrespectful of the time and effort editors have put into this article, and are generaly unconstructive, since without concensus reached (and how can concensus be reached without discussion?)edits are reverted to versions which had already either reached NPOV status, or were currently under discussion.
NovaSTL may complain about the "hour's work wasted" when I reverted to an earlier version, but that is nothing when compared to the combined efforts of all editors involved in editing this article being torn apart by one individual in a few edits. An example of this is the organisational stutus in different countries paragraph under the 'Sahaja Yoga International' heading, which took me days to find, verify and compile. This was removed without even mention in the edit summary. To me this shows total disregard for efforts supplied by other editors.
Sfacets 13:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And this, combined with abuse of Administrator status, is what will eventuallly bring down the whole Wikipedia edifice. See, for example, the following discussion:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054949.html
Sahajhist 22:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Respect for other editors

message: This link was removed:
* Sahaja Yoga profile at "Overview of World Religions
With this summary:
*deletion of webpage with inaccurate info
May I ask what info is inaccurate? -Will Beback 22:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both HQ addresses given are old and superceded. 'Disciple of Rajneesh/Osho' is incorrect. Sahajhist 03:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we use it as a source for the HQ's address, that is an inconsequential error. Do you have a source for the 'Disciple of Rajneesh/Osho' being erroneous? I think I've seen that same claim elsewhere. Where is it disputed?  -Will Beback 04:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is flawed in that it doesn't state the name of author/date. Also, the burden of finding a valid source for Osho/Rajneesh lies with the editor who has made the edit in question.
Sfacets 04:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is another instance of getting a stream of changing reasons for deleting sources. I note that many of the sources and external links don't name an author, or provide a date. If that is going to be the standard we should enforce it fairly. -Will Beback 07:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey as long as the reasons are valid... Which sources are you referring to? Sfacets 17:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Shri Who Must Be Obeyed", July 13, 2001, The Independent . Removed here , and again here . -Will Beback 22:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate info? 

message: I have emailed Douglas E. Cowan of The Religious Movements Homepage Project at The University of Virginia alerting him to the discussion here about the The Religious Movements Homepage Project as a source and asking for comment. Paul foord 12:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he will tell us all to buy his books or the books of his friends. Andries 12:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope you wrote to the correct address. Assoc Prof Cowan moved to Canada in 2005, as noted in my archived comment of October 6. Sahajhist 04:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: which is understandable as the discussion here relates to an undergraduate essay from the year 2000 supervised by his late predecessor. Sahajhist 21:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the nature of the interaction evidenced throughout the discussion seen here. Paul foord 23:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment sought from The Religious Movements Homepage Project

message: One of the reasons for this article being accused of being 'unbalanced' is because three other, previously separate, articles have been merged into it. Sahajhist 00:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also according to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited)minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in someancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; andregardless of whether you can prove it or not". I think this applies here. Sfacets 01:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This viewpoint is not held by an extremely small minority as shown by large list of removed links critical of Sahaja Yoga.  As stated previously, I feel a section discussing the criticisms of Sahaja Yoga is necessary to reach a neutral point of view. --Thomaskmfdm 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be links to websites critical of SY, but the number of actual critics are fairly low. Sfacets 13:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even links to neutral parties that make critical comements get deleted. -Will Beback · † · 18:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Per these comments I've applied the {POV} tag until we can achieve a more neutral article that includes all viewpoints. -Will Beback · † · 09:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Surely the unbalanced tag already addresses these concerns? Sfacets 10:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Sahajhist, the unbalanced tag addresses the fact of the merged articles. However I didn't add that tag so I can't speak to it. The {POV} tag addresses the lack of substantive critical viewpoints. -Will Beback · † · 10:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually Smeelgova added the tag  with the edit summary "no critical section or critical information whatsoever present in article" so obviously already addresses the issue.
Sfacets 11:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a POV tag is more appropriate. The problem isn't balance, in my opinion, it's a lack of neutral point of view. Please don't remove the tag again until we've added a reasonable criticism section. You can remove the Balance tag if you and Smeelgova think that his concerns have been addressed. -Will Beback · † · 04:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And how are the two issues not identical? A neutral article is balanced, a non-neutral one isn't. All the extra tag does is mess up the article. It's one or the other. Sfacets 05:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't object to removing the {balance} tag, though Smeelgova might. -Will Beback · † · 06:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've posted a note asking him if he minds if we consolidate the tags. -Will Beback · † · 07:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced?

message: What justification is being used to consider this a relaible site: http://www.webspawner.com/users/letdvdau2/index.html ? It has no named author, no date, no sources, and is clearly self-published. -Will Beback · † · 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Life Eternal Trust (LET) is the legal entity used by Sahaja Yoga in many countries, including Australia. Presumably 'letdvdau' is the DVD distribution service of Sahaja Yoga in Australia. I agree the statement of authorship could be clearer. Sahajhist 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we know this? Can you provide sources for your assertions? It looks to me like an amateur web page. In any case, since the standard here is to only have links to crendentialled authors with recent, dated webpages this source does not suffice. If we'd relax the standard to meet those of the rest of Wikiepdia then maybe we could let it in. -Will Beback · † · 06:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page has authorship and date - see the copyright notice at the bottom of the page: Copyright © 2006 Life Eternal Trust Australia. Sahajhist 06:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the date in question challenged? Why is a source needed here? Sfacets 06:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, we have a date, now we need to know the author's name and credentials. As for needing a source, everything should be properly sourced. Since some editors here demand very high standards for sourcing we should be consistent. For all we know this site may have been written by an undergraduate. ;) -Will Beback · † · 07:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, the validity of the date isn't in question, unlike other claims which would require a source. Whatever, keeping the date in the article unsourced for the moment doesn't adversely affect the article. Sfacets 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it isn't a reliable source perhaps we should remove the material until we can find one. We have no way of knowing when the event occured. -Will Beback · † · 07:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a clear waste of everyone's time and Will Beback should be at the very least warned as to his conduct. btw, I have ordered a copy of the DVD. Sahajhist 08:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we'd all take a more constructive approach to this article, one which didn't involve removing every critical source, then we'd waste much less time. -Will Beback · † · 09:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this a reliable site?  

message: Why is "Dharma" linked in "See also"? If there's a connection is would be better to explain it here in the section on "beliefs". -Will Beback · † · 00:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it pertain? There's no way of telling now. Also, there's no need to add add links to the "See also"  section that already exist in the article, such as meditation or yoga. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout: Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links. The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article. -Will Beback · † · 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yoga cannot be found independently in the article. Sfacets 12:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we instead say, in the "Beliefs" section, something like "SY is a Dharmic religion" or "SY belongs to the traditional Dharma belief system"? That'd be much clearer than just a bare link in the "See also" section. -Will Beback · † · 11:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really, Dharma isn't a belief system per se, more of a spiritual concept. I think the quote by David Frawley sums the idea of Dharma up pretty well:
A universal tradition has room for all faiths and all religious and spiritual practices regardless of the time or country of their origin. Yet it places religious and spiritual teachings in their appropriate place relative to the ultimate goal of Self-realization, to which secondary practices are subordinated. Sanatan Dharma also recognizes that the greater portion of human religious aspirations has always been unknown, undefined and outside of any institutionalized belief Sfacets 12:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but what does SY say about Dharma? Is Dharma mentioned in any of the religious texts of SY? If not, why include it here? Gravity is universal, but we don't include a link to it.  -Will Beback · † · 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If it is fundamental and mentioned in the texts then it should be included in the "beliefs" section or eslewhere, not tacked on at the end with no explanation. If you'll tell me where it's mentioned I'll see if I can research it myself. At present this article does a poor job of actually describing the beliefs and practices of SY. -Will Beback · † · 06:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How about this? "SY incorporates the Dharmic principles common to many eastern religions." Is that inaccurate? I couldn't find anything on the web that specially mentions Dharma, so if someone can find a source that'd help too. -Will Beback · † · 11:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dharma 

message: This section needs to reflect the changing nature of this movement. The influence of Shri Mataji on individual members is clearly different now in the 2000s than in earlier decades, and especially post 2003. This has not yet been reflected in published critiques.  And this is the major reason why I have argued against use of the 2000-1 student essay from the Univ of Virginia website. Sahajhist 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can change it by saying it refers to the situation at the time of writing. Everything changes, but future changes don't affect the past. If we could get more information on the changes that you refer to then we can add those in the appropriate location. -Will Beback · † · 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. I have some agreement with Sahajhist' suggestion... up to a point. Criticism by several eras should include the current one. • Beyond that, it sounds to me like a suggestion for recrudescing the likes of Christian Science (CS) revisionist church history. It's one thing to describe the current situation, and quite another to try to wipe out or cover up the past. Among ex-devotees claiming harm, as with ISKON, the emotionally traumatic issues of the past remain valid for their lifetimes. For them, only continuous displays of the past can bring them a measure of their claim for justice. ISKON acknowledged its past and so began the decades-long process of emerging from their cult status, as referred to by global citizens. Milo 07:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, though those particular websites would not count as reliable sources. Undoubtedly there are many reliable websites, at least within or aligned to the movement, which are positive. We already include several. Positive criticisms don't negate negative criticisms, but they can balance them. -Will Beback · † · 08:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's a positive criticism? Is that a compliment or promotion statement? If so, it doesn't belong within a section titled Criticisms. Milo 10:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. In literary and artistic fields "criticism" refers to all reviews, positive or negative. Rebutals to negative criticism could be in the "Criticism" section or elsewhere, but they need to be as well-sourced as the negative criticisms. -Will Beback · † · 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bias POV thrives on ambiguous language. In this context, I would not use the ambiguous phrase "positive criticism". Nor would I use "negative criticism", precisely because it invites misconsideration of its ambiguous inverse. It already appears that significant risk of rhetorical confusion with other meanings could cause section "Criticisms" to be installed with yet more promotions and praise — rather than the reliably-sourced claims of faults and shortcomings that are generally understood to belong here. NPOV is enhanced by disambiguation and plain meanings. Accordingly, the "Criticisms" section should be renamed like "Complaints and doubts about Sahaja Yoga". Only downsides should be listed internally to that section. If balance in the sense of rebuttals is needed, then another following section should contain them, named like "Response to complaints and doubts". Milo 14:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms section

message: Barrett, David V. The New Believers 2001 p. 297-298
:“Sahaja Yoga, like many other new religious movements, is involved in charitable social work, including a hospital and a cancer research centre – both using Sahaja Yoga methods for healing – a classical musical school, and a shelter for the poor in Delhi.
::Sahaja Yoga makes a big point of its teaching being free: 
::Amazingly, without any financial support from any person, Shri Mataji neither chagers for Her lectures nor for Her ability to give Self Realization, nor does one have to become a member of this organization. She insists that you cannot pay for enlightenment and to-date she continues to denounce the false self-proclaimed ‘gurus’ who are more interested in the seekers’ purse than their spiritual ascent.
:But in fact this is one of the major criticisms of the movement, that the often middle-class members are encouraged to make regular donations to pay for Shri Mataji’s trips around the world, and to buy her expensive properties, such as Shudy Camps Park House near Cambridge, England, in 1986 and an Italian castle in 1991. There also seems to be strong emphasis on Shri Mataji herself, her background (growing up in Gandhi’s ashram), her accomplishments (honorary doctorates, and other awards and honours made to her), and on how she is welcomed by high-ranking dignitaries in cities around the world (cf. Herbert W. Armstrong’s ‘world’s most expensive autograph hunt’, page 488) – rather than on her message. Devoted member refer to her as the Divine Mother, and she has called herself Adi Shakh, Primal Mother of All; many take her advice on child-rearing, and some ask her to choose their marriage partners. This amount of influence over her followers’ lives has caused concern in several countries. Some former have said that they were expelled from the movement because they resisted Shri Maraji’s influence over their lives. Apparently, neither her husband nor her two daughters are followers of Sahaja Yoga.”
Andries 18:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already mentioned in the article that properties are being transferred. The Cabella house does not look cheap.  If anyone has exact figures for the values we can insert them but we'd come dangerously close to OR if we did. We can include the Srivastava speech as a rebuttal to the assertion that he is not a follower if we ever get around to including that criticism.  -Will Beback · † · 02:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested quote to check interpretation

message: User:Sahajist removed the followin sentence with the edit summary "malicious misinterpretation"
:"For the health of the liver a diet high in white cane sugar and white rice is recommended. < ref > http://www.meditate4free.co.uk/Liver%20Diet.pdf Sahaja Yoga: Liver Diet < /ref >"
Why is this is a misinterpretation? And why is this alleged misinterpretation malicious? I thought the interpretation is accurate. 
Andries 08:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there perhaps a better description of the Liver Diet? -Will Beback · † · 09:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I found it. Andries 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Really? Would you mind sharing the quote with the rest of us? Sfacets 04:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've written a more comprehensive version of the diet. It should be balanced and appropriate.   -Will Beback · † ·
Ive had a thorough read through the diet sheets and can find no mention that a high sugar content is beneficial, what is suggested is that cane sugar is the 'food of the liver' but it does not state that it is the only thing that you should eat and in fact mentions many other items. The subtitle of the section reffering to sugar is 'cooling for the liver, and recommended for intake' not you must take vast quantitites of cane sugar and rice.  As suggested in the preamble to the actual diet, the concept of a diet to detox the liver is an old one and in past years very similar versions to the diet that Shri Mataji suggested in the mid 1970s are now in common use in the US, UK and Australia see the book The Liver Cleansing Diet: Love Your Liver and Live Longer by Sandra Cabot. Shri Mataji has suggested that cane sugar is beneficial for the liver and in recent years there have been several completely independant research studies carried out that partially back up this suggestion. For example in May of 2006 a paper was published in Phytotherapy Research (M.Motob et al Volume 20 issue 5 pages 359-363) with the conclusion that sugar cane extract has an immunostimulating effect on chickens and reduces liver damage in experimental mice. --Willia 12:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See the current version in the article. I think it addresses your issues.  -Will Beback · † · 19:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: health of the liver a diet: Misinterpretation?

message: I have re-added the image of the portrait of the band of which I am the copyright holder. Sfacets 11:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When and where was it taken? -Will Beback · † · 21:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also please explain how you produced the "Subtle system" graphic - which program did you use? When did you make it? How did your version of it come to be so widely disseminated? These claims of creating many major SY photos and graphics are no longer credible. If you want to call it as a fair use logo then that would be legitimate. If you want to claim you created it personally you'll have to prove it. -Will Beback · † · 07:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I asked you previously about this and a number of other images which had unrealistic assertions.  You replied that you were too busy to respond. Can you now tell me when and where you made this image, using what software? If you really made it that should be an easy question to answer. -Will Beback · † · 09:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it matters, but I used Illustrator, Photoshop and Image Ready. Are you satisfied now? Sfacets 11:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I also asked when you produced this often-duplicatd image. -Will Beback · † · 11:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it does make a difference to the validity of the license. That image is posted on a copyrighted website. Wikipedia editors can't just pick photos off of websites and claim to be the creators. There've been previous problems with this user using incorrect licenses, hence the questions. This information should be easy to provide if the editor was the creator of these images. -Will Beback · † · 19:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Previous problems? Sfacets 11:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed on your talk page. -Will Beback · † · 19:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nirmal Bhakti image