Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Sahaj Marg/Archive001

message: I'd like to ask a few questions to understand where you stand as we start off in this mediation. Please try to keep your answers brief and avoid casting blame on other editors. Vassyana 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting questions

message: # Sethie appreciates the progress made over the last 2 months. He particularly apprecites the NPOV around the split or schism in lineages.
# It is hard to choose one issue.... and if forced to, Sethie chooses the length and the number of quotes. 
# From Sethie's perspective there are two disputes around sources: 1) Accurately portraying what the sources say 2) How often can one source be used?
# Sethie looks at undue weight in terms of what is the accepted paradigm "in the world" and how much weight/time/attention is given to a particular view in WP:RS's. Anything that is known or reported in those realms- gets "airtime." That which isn't gets slim to none.
# For Sethie an extraordinary claims are something controversial (generally about a person) or outside the realm of accepted science. 
Sethie will need to proceed slowly, due to lotsa issues and he will participate! Sethie 11:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses

message: Please confirm or deny any observations I make, to ensure I have a correct perception of things, and answer any questions I may present. Please try to keep responses concise, but do not worry about length if it takes a bit to explain or answer. It is more important that I, and the other party, get a solid understanding of your view, than to keep it short. Thanks for your continued patience and cooperation as we talk things out. Vassyana 23:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observations and questions 

message: # Sethie definatley sees the article has moved towards a more neutral state.
# For Sethie they are seperate issues though with a bit of overlap. In terms of quotes, Sethie is looking at the "teachings" section which is quite long, yet looks like it is roughly 85%+ just quotes. Sethie would like to see the quotes summarized and some of them removed. He doesn't see the "be like lions" section as neccesary, nor an entire paragraph on homosexuality.
# Sethie thinks [] is a slightly reliable source and is fine with a few citations from it, however to use a translation of one paper over and over, with a lot of material that isn't elsewhere, doesn't work for Sethie. And to be fair, some of the material from this source IS elsewhere too. Sethie doesn't dispute the reliability of the source so much as the overuse of it and accurately summarizing it. 
# Undue weight... if a view is not represented in a wide variety of sources, don't give it a "wide" :) place in the article. Per extraordinary.... Sethie does not have any issues with extraordinary claims in this article. Sethie loves your idea of an objective standard... and let him know when you have found it! :) Sethie 08:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses

message: #"Be like lions."
#Group views on homosexuality
#Use, misuse and/or overuse of a single source
#Differences of opinion about the use of quotes
#Differing interpretations of undue weight and extraordinary claims.
===Questions===
#Why is this section necessary or helpful to a reader? What about it is good/helpful? (Or if you disagree, feel free to explain why it is not.)
#Why should this section be included or excluded? 
#Can additional reliable sources be found for the claims made by this source? Does the information provided by this source provide new material not found in other sources? Does this source make any claims that are contradictory to other sources?
#How should quotes be used in Wikipedia, generally speaking? Are direct quotes preferable or is paraphrasing what sources claim preferable? How should we determine when quotes or paraphrasing should be used?
#I have some questions about this, but I will ask them after other issues are clarified.
====Responses====
I have placed an additional comments line in case you have any further questions or comments, in addition to what we've covered.
# Sethie believes that this section doesn't really add much to the article, especially since it already contains a section of SM values. Plus, it is just one more quote. 
# Sethie believes that the groups views on homosexuality are worthwhile in an encyclopedia. He doesn't however see the need for a whole quote or whole paragraph. That feels like undue weight to Sethie- the groups views on homosexuality have not recieved major media or scholarly attention.
# Does not believe there are additional sources and he may be wrong. Some of the claims are collaberated, some are not. Sethie doesn't find any contradictory claims.Sethie 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Points of dispute

message: #Why is this section necessary or helpful to a reader? What about it is good/helpful? (Or if you disagree, feel free to explain why it is not.)
#Why should this section be included or excluded? 
#Can additional reliable sources be found for the claims made by this source? Does the information provided by this source provide new material not found in other sources? Does this source make any claims that are contradictory to other sources?
#How should quotes be used in Wikipedia, generally speaking? Are direct quotes preferable or is paraphrasing what sources claim preferable? How should we determine when quotes or paraphrasing should be used?
#I have some questions about this, but I will ask them after other issues are clarified.
====Responses====
I have placed an additional comments line in case you have any further questions or comments, in addition to what we've covered.
# Sethie believes that this section doesn't really add much to the article, especially since it already contains a section of SM values. Plus, it is just one more quote. 
# Sethie believes that the groups views on homosexuality are worthwhile in an encyclopedia. He doesn't however see the need for a whole quote or whole paragraph. That feels like undue weight to Sethie- the groups views on homosexuality have not recieved major media or scholarly attention.
# Does not believe there are additional sources and he may be wrong. Some of the claims are collaberated, some are not. Sethie doesn't find any contradictory claims.Sethie 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: I have placed an additional comments line in case you have any further questions or comments, in addition to what we've covered.
# Sethie believes that this section doesn't really add much to the article, especially since it already contains a section of SM values. Plus, it is just one more quote. 
# Sethie believes that the groups views on homosexuality are worthwhile in an encyclopedia. He doesn't however see the need for a whole quote or whole paragraph. That feels like undue weight to Sethie- the groups views on homosexuality have not recieved major media or scholarly attention.
# Does not believe there are additional sources and he may be wrong. Some of the claims are collaberated, some are not. Sethie doesn't find any contradictory claims.Sethie 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses