Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 5

message: Long version:
To Sfacets and Sahajist
For over TWO MONTHS, I have tried to engage in dialogue about whether the charts would make a better article or not. Neither of you have replied and merely ignored my queries and attempts at dialogue and stuck them back in.
You have said, "Oh it is important to Sahaj Yoga" but have failed to address why it is important to THIS ARTICLE.
I have no opinion on Sahaj Yoga and here I am wasting my time trying to discuss things with two very obviously biased editors. I have asked three or four times, "How does this make a better article" and your only replies have been to reinsert the pictures.
Either engage in dialogue or leave this page. Seriously.
Talk or leave. And I mean actual talk.
Wikipedia is based on creating concensus, not people dropping by and shoving stuff into articles and then disapearing or not addressing concerns. 
I have been extremely paitent and given A LOT of time to answer my concerns with this.  
I would ask both of you to review WP:CON and actually dialogue about this. To quote myself: Look if you think it'll make a better article to have the charts- I am open, tell me! "The charts are very important to SY" doesn't convince me one iota that there inclusion would make a better article! It convinces me that we need more info about the charts.
I am open. Let's talk. Otherwise, please leave.
I don't like to go around reverting edits, however I have given you TWO months to give a reason for their inclusion. I am still opposed to it, and since you have given ZERO reason for their inclusion, on this page, the current concensus is 1-0. 
Come on Sfacts you're an admin, I expected better of you. Sethie 17:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without even reading what you wrote, thank you for showing here on the talk page. Sethie 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You know I saw that I would be undoing another edit or two and I did feel regret about that. I might have been a bit more cautious under different circumstances. 23:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: as Sfacets added the charts, I'll leave the two of you to interact. My comments remain as above. sahajhist 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Charts, again

message: Greetings !  I just want to know What are the 16 gunas (attributes) that one qualify in order to be considered a true guru (Satguru) ?  Thank you.
:This isn't a general discussion page, just a place to discuss this article. However you might find some relevant information in our articles on Guna and Satguru.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 16 gunas (attributes) of a Guru ? 

message: * The article does look a bit odd as it is. The top of it looks like an extension of their literature department and at the end of the article there's a bunch of critism. Head of gold and feet of clay. Perhaps the article should show a sample or two of the type of pictures, only as thumbnails on the article, that one would likely encounter should one visit their website but more than that just turns it into a text book IMHO. It needs more outside-looking-in perspective. Regards Bksimonb 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statments by uninvolved parties

message: this talk page is getting awfully long. Can someone do the necesssary please? Sahajhist 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: An editor posted a proposal to split out an article to tbe titled "Sahaja Yoga International", with the note: suggest page be split into one on the yoga, one on the organization. However he may not be aware that that article was already deleted and he material merged here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaja Yoga International. Are there any significant new sources on the topic that would justify recreating the article? If not, we shouldn't split it out.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be better to allow some of the emerging cultural, educational and social welfare organisations being set up by Sahaja Yogis to have their own entries, rather than being all merged into one omnibus article. Sahajhist 09:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tha may be true, but such a split would first have to go through deletion review, WP:DRV. I'm going to remove the split tag until there's enough interest to pursue it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment Those interested in the split may want to review Article spinouts. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jreferee, I think this may be an option for the longer sections in thus article, for example the 'practices' section. Sfacets 12:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I restored two that are still active.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that U of Virginia page is looking very dated, esp its links. Sahajhist 10:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still has interesting information.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Someone asked for this section to be tidied up. I agree. So I have removed (IMHO) extra and old links. Obviously only a small selection of available links can be included, and the resulting listing needs to be balanced and uptodate. If anyone disagrees, please add your comments. Sahajhist 01:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored two that are still active.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that U of Virginia page is looking very dated, esp its links. Sahajhist 10:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still has interesting information.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: WikiProjects exist to improve articles. Their scope is often wide, encompassing articles that may have only a minor relationship. There is no harm in attaching an article to a project, and some benefit.  
In this instance, Yoga is one of the six schools of Hinduism. Furthermore, Kundalini and Dharma are Hindu concepts. Finally, Shakti is a Hindu deity, and the founder of SY is an incarnation of her. So there are several reasons to connect this article and related topics to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my thinking. Thank you! IPSOS (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: One member has described SY as "a Hindu-based world religion".  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more accurate to say that SY is a new religious movement that is largely based on Hinduism (including folk traditions and modern interpretations), certainly moreso than any other religion. Most of the festivals celbrated are Hindu festivals. Most of the deities worshipped are Hindu deities and even those that are not (eg Jesus) are held to be incarnations of some Hindu deity (eg Mahavishnu). SY puja is based on Hindu puja and SYogis wear Indian clothes for this. Pilgrimmage is made to various Hindu sites in India, moreso than any other religion or country. The mass arranged marriages are based largely on Hindu marriages. Most of the children are named with Hindu names. Etc, etc ... But SY is no way as Hindu as a NRM like the Hare Krishnas. --Simon D M 12:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly SY is based partly on Hinduism, certainly it is based more on Hinduism than any other religion, it is easy to argue that SY is based largely on Hinduism. This is not because 'there is so much Hindu culture', there is also a lot of African culture, Australian culture, native American culture, Siberian culture, polynesian culture, etc, etc but they don't figure in SY at all. Regarding what SahajHist said, most religions think they are beyond other religions. --Simon D M 11:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Hinduism 

message: *Dharma
*Nirvikalpa
These terms appear only vaguely related to this topic. Can any explain the relationship?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That term is already linked in the intro, so there's no need to add it to the "see also" section.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there's still no justification for these "see also" terms. I deleted them and they've been added back by an editor who apparently missed this discussion. We still need a justificatoin for their inclusion.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: isn't linked in the intro. --Simon D M 17:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" links 

message: I removed epilepsy as the source says "No reliable evidence to support the use of yoga as a treatment for control of epilepsy." I left the cite in there, but there needs to be a source that supports this.Ticklemygrits 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm not happy with that at all: "Results: At 3 months, a reduction in seizure frequency was noted in all except 1 patient, six of whom had ≥50% seizure reduction. Of 16 patients who continued the YMP beyond 3 months, 14 patients responded at 6 months; 6 of them were seizure-free for 3 months. All eight patients who continued the YMP beyond 6 months responded; three of them were seizure free for 6 months.".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ticklemygrits (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It really needs to be claimed. It doesn't even have a control group.Ticklemygrits 15:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints, including those that find insufficient evidence. I've added a summary of the "Yoga for epilepsy" finding.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's good Will. I don't have a problem with it being in the article, just it listed as being 'proven' or 'scientifically proven' without proof of that. I'm fine with the your changes.Ticklemygrits 11:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Epilepsy

message: Please see the discussion at Talk:Chandrika Prasad Srivastava#"Sir".  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: I unlinked puja, because puja in a Hindu context is different than puja in the context of SY. Dharma is relevant - the mere fact that it is part of "Vishwa Nirmala Dharma" is proof of that. Sfacets 04:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we know that this is the same kind of dharma? Is there any source for the connection? Is there a translation for "Vishwa Nirmala Dharma"? (I've asked about the Pujas below)  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vishwa Nirmala Dharma is usually translated as Universal Pure Religion, although the Nirmala is an obvious reference to Mrs Srivastava as well. I don't think the term came into existence before the 1980s, if it did I'd like to see some evidence. Before then, as well as afterwards, the organisation was generally known as Sahaja Yoga. VND is little more than a synonym, note the suggestion here: http://www.whois.ws/whois-org/ip-address/sahajayoga.org/ and here: http://www.inforel.ch/index.php?id=i1108 . VND is referred to as a religion on these pages: http://www.sahajayogafacts.org/ http://vishwa-nirmala-dharma.org/  So really both Sahaja Yoga and VND refer to the same religion or new religious movement. VND is also the name of SYoga tax-exempt organisation in some countries eg the US. This is not always the case, the 'charitable' body set up in the UK was called the Life Eternal Trust, but this was probably before the term VND came into existence. Dharma is also used in a way similar to 'morality' in SYoga. The Dharma wikipage is much less relevant than the Puja wikipage because Dharma has so many diverse meanings (one book I read counted 22 in Buddhism alone). Thus the Religion page would be more relevant than the Dharma page. --Simon D M 10:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dharma and Puja

message: Is there more than one kind of puja? The article about it describes a rite that appears similar to what is depicted in SY videos. The article indicates that there are many kinds of pujas. Furher, SY calls the rites that it performs "pujas". Do we have source that describes the difference, if any, between SY pujas and other pujas?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SY puja is a development from Hindu puja. Most of the ritual elements described in the Puja article apply to SY puja including: meditation, chanting, scripture reading, offering food, prostrations, application of a tilaka mark on the forehead with vermillion (kumkum), conclusion with aarti, prasad, bhajans (religious prayer songs) and food. The idea that all this, or the totality of SY healing/cleansing techniques, falls under the category of meditation is absurd. --Simon D M 10:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone can provide a source that differentiates SY pujas from Hindu pujas then I think we should restore the internal link.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Does the same standard apply to every internal link? Shall we unlink meditation, yoga, dharma and all other terms that don't have definitive sources showing that the concepts in the Wikipedia articles are the same as the practices and beliefs of SY? If so I expect it will mean we unlink virtually every linked phrase.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Good. Now we need to prove that there isn't more than one "Nirmala Srivastava" and more than one "Bohdan Shehovich". According to one viewpoint, we'll need to remove those names from the article until we can establish that there aren't other people with the same names. How shall we prove it?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Which Nirmala Srivastava are you talking about? There could be more than one, just as there could be more than one "Bohdan Shehovich" (according to you).  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Sfacets is talking about the Nirmala Srivastava mentioned on this webpage: http://www.iosho.com/oBook/The%20Life%20Of%20Osho/05-24-hindus.htm who couldn't possibly be the same NS. Or could she? But seriously, there is another NS mentioned on this page: http://home.iitk.ac.in/~vaibhavs/ and another here: http://www.d4desi.com/matrimony/matriprofile.asp?param=100002 and another here: http://cities.expressindia.com/local-news/archivefullstory.php?newsid=172353&creation_date=2006-03-05 etc etc etc So it seems you can find multiple Nirmala Srivastavas on Google but ONLY ONE "Bohdan Shehovich" of any description. How long must we continue with this filibuster? --Simon D M 11:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sfacets is asking us to prove the unprovable, see: Negative proof --Simon D M 11:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If the name is as common as Sfacets claims, then the spelling must be very uncommon, because another one doesn't come up on the whole of Google. Yet he suggests that there just happen to be 2 GPs of the same name from Australia in Sahaja Yoga, that both are senior enough to be entrusted with hand-delivering Mataji's letters or being World Leader, and that offical SY sources don't bother to distinguish between the two. As he & SahajHist are both in SY and both have connections in Australia they could confirm this very easily but they don't because you know it's stupid. In fact both John Noyce) and Bohdan are listed as Australian representatives on the Sahaja Yoga Media Project: http://talks.sahajayogaonline.com/welcome.html Case closed. --Simon D M 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pujas 

message: I recently reverted Simon D M's edits - please discuss here before making large multiple edits. Sfacets 18:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed multiple small edits, some of which have already been discussed here eg the fact that the Bohdan referred to on the 2 webpages is the same as you well know. Others are just simple points of fact eg that you had cited the Sahaja defenition wrongly. Another that Mataji came to the UK in 1972 in non-controversial and well-known and sourced widely. The rest were things that should never have been in the article and were put there without any evidence being presented. The unrepresentative quote in the references was a liberty and you know it. The claim that Coney has said that Mataji founded a NRM at Nargol is false and you can provide no evidence otherwise. Re puja costs, you also cannot substantiate your claim that money for pujas is for costs. --Simon D M 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If you read the page you'd see it reproduced a photograph of a letter from the Metropolitan Police concerning the SY World Leader in question. I am not the registered owner of the website, but of the domain name that points to a website that sits in the folder above the website in question. I am the the owner/webmaster/administrator of neither of these websites. I note you have even removed the later edit about the same World Leader's threatening behaviour even though it came from the offical SY website. It looks like you are just removing anything that shows SY in a bad light no matter where it is sourced yet at the same time sitting on a high horse and handing out warnings, etc.--163.119.105.27 09:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Check this out Sfacets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete
This is the section on criticism. You want any info from a critical site banned from that section. OTOH you are happy with pro-SY sites being quoted in the rest of the article. The edit you reverted said that this has been reported and that evidence has been produced. This is more than for most of the stuff on Mataji. Can you even verify her birth date from her birth certificate and passport? Some people find it odd that her birth date happens to be the same as the 'Enlightenment' date of her former guru Rajneesh. Or are there 2 standards of evidence, one for the pro-SY and one for the anti-SY? This page is badly in need of balance and I point to 2 main things: 1) the religious and superstitious elements of SY are being purposefully hidden (look how long you've taken to accept a puja link); 2) all criticism of SY is being stifled (look at you laughable attempt to conjure up another Bohdan). --Simon D M 11:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your conspiracy theories. Information on Shri Mataji's life is widely found, in third party sources as well. Do you see me deleting the criticism section? In a word, no. This is because some of the information is sourced with reliable sources. I will repeat that - reliable sources. Very even-handed of me. Please also read (in the linked article you provided above) "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views". Sfacets 11:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sfacets has removed critical material so often that I don't have time to count them all. Please don't misrepresent the recent past.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 13:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed with reason, as you well know. I have always backed any removal/addition with arguments. Sfacets 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that were true, some arguments are so flimsy as to be unworthy of the name. --Simon D M 13:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, thanks for your opinion. Very useful and constructive as always. Sfacets 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my theory, please point out one reliable 3rd party source that isn't drawing their information on Mataji's birth date from her own claims. Anyway the argument was Reductio ad absurdum. You are happy to report Mataji's various claims but not the claims of her critics. You accept X reliable source says these criticisms have been made, rather than pointing directly to the criticisms being made - that's not the same as stating the criticisms as fact, just saying that they have been made. Your insisting on a 3rd party to confirm what is directly evident is simply a case of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete  You operate no such 'high' standard when it comes to the claims of SY. --Simon D M 12:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sfacets, check this out: WP:UCS and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRINGE#Sourcing_and_attribution especially the section on parity of sources. --Simon D M 14:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And the section on parity of sources that I particularly pointed you towards says: "Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources... if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer review journal. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may generally include material gleaned from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Verifiable critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not peer reviewed since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed. Parity of sources may mean that certain obscure fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported or criticized in alternative venues from those that are typically used in publishing about mainstream topics." --Simon D M 14:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct, it is irrelevant because Sahaja Yoga is not "a well-known, mainstream topic". --Simon D M 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not share our views of this religious group, especially views which are disparaging. We're just here to write an encyclopedia article, not debate about the merits of a belief system. However I'd agree that SY is not a "well-known, mainstream topic".  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You're attempts to provoke are uncivil. --Simon D M 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I was only expelled some weeks after having left as part of a group of a dozen or so people, as you may well have heard on the Sahaja Yoga mailing list before you abused the trust of the members and vandalised it. I'm well aware that things have changed. I wasn't aware that I'd made any assertions about the administrative framework. This page is about Sahaja Yoga not me. You and Sfacets have been systematically sanitising these pages. This must stop. Sahaja Yoga is a religious movement devoted to the worship of, and submission to, Nirmala Srivatava. I am aware of announcements about the desirabilty of appearing to be an innocuous stress relief program, but not about any real change. If there has been such an announcement, perhaps you could cite it. --Simon D M 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: New NGO Link: www.nirmalprem.org  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatla.subhash (talk • contribs) 07:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new website link on NGO 

message: :Incidentally, it's worth noting that the study you are 'reporting on' in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=prev&oldid=173673348 is basically claiming alchemical transmutation which has never been shown to happen outside of a nuclear reactor or star. If anybody took this seriously it would be the study of the century, and Mataji would be on the cover of Time. That hasn't happened. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you should be careful how you report such extraordinary claims. --Simon D M (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks once again for your opinion. Sfacets 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If the level of iron has changed, that is alchemical transmutation, unless it magically appeared out of nowhere - either way it would be the experiment of the century. --Simon D M (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Wording for Extraordinary Claims

message: Could Simon please discuss them here? Sfacets 11:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of which, you aren't discussing your edits either. You deleted a whole section without any explanation. I suggest you set the example you want others to follow.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't your content. It belongs to the project. I'm going to restore it pending a consensus on the matter. If you want others to discuss their edits, and complain when they don't, then please show the same courtesy yourself. Also, please comment on the edits, not the editors. I've removed an editor's name that you aded to this section heading, because it focused on the editor.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please re-read WP:3RR. Lack of discussion alone is not a sufficient reason for exceeding the revert limit.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Will, do you think that the information on the Sahaja Yoga World Leader being on the Home Office's immigration list needs to be removed because the source of the accusation and evidence is not reliable and neutral enough? Are you saying the same thing about SY's statement on his threatening behaviour? --Simon D M 12:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Please discuss your edits before undoing other editor's work - you made five edits where you removed content. Please be more considerate in your edits- Will Beback - are you going to warn him about 3RR now? Sfacets 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I removed one sentence of content and explained exactly why. The reference supposedly supporting the sentence did not do so. If you think it does, please say why. We need to be careful about not being fuzzy about Sahaja Yoga the meditation method, the new religious movement, the formal organisation, etc. A statement about one does not necessarily apply to the other. --Simon D M 15:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This letter could have been made by anyone...it is not even signed !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.41.161.47 (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Has he ceased to be part of SY? Have you got a reference for that? I only saw that he'd resigned his official posts. It's not worth wasting our breath over till Will pronounces his view about whether the section relating to the letter should be removed--Simon D M 15:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: True, but he's still running his SY splinter group. Anyway the letter predates his departure. --Simon D M 15:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? Sfacets 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait to see what Will says before running round looking for more sources. --Simon D M 09:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Because he's an experienced editor without conflict of interest. I expect a fair and reasoned judgement from him. --Simon D M 13:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is that the source for the letter does not meet Wikipedia standards for this type of assertion. Souorcing aside, if an SY World Leader committed a felony while a leader then that would certainly be relevant. However, if he committed the crime and served his time before becoming a member of SY, before attaining self-realization, and long before becoming a World Leader then I don't think it's relevant to this article. There a many reasons a person might be prohibited from entering a country. The U.S. maintains a list with at least tens of thousands of names. I wouldn't consider it terribly relevant to the article about a religious group if one of their leaders was on that list for unknown reasons. Since we don't know why this fellow in on the U.K. list, or how the U.K. decides to exclude someone, I don't think we should make too much of it. If malfeasance among World Leaders were ever to become a common and verifiable problem then this may become more relevant. Otherwise I don't think we should include it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point, I'll remove it. --Simon D M 12:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Meditation is not mentioned in that section until 2 paragraphs later, and then only in passing. The section is pretending to talk about Sahaja Yoga as a whole, not just meditation. Can you demonstrate otherwise? --Simon D M 17:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Interconnected does not mean interchangable. Pertaining makes no difference. Actually you remind me that all the (junk) scientific studies that have been done on SY have only been done on SY meditation, and do not validate SY (including all the Mataji worship, shoe beating, arranged marriages, etc). That should be made clear. --Simon D M 09:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, if you read the sources, you will see that the studies were  confirmed by third parties. Sfacets 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The 'interconnected does not mean interchangable' point remains. The issue of scientific studies into SY is very complex. Most, if not all, studies do not have credible meditation control groups, thus confounding the effects of SY meditation with meditation per se. The waters are further muddied by having investigators with a conflict of interest who do not disclose this. So SY research has all the hallmarks of junk science and it would need to be clearly demonstrated that this is not the case with full disclosure from all those involved. It is even more important that the researchers are independent than that the funding is independent. Independent funding of studies by researchers with [non-disclosed] conflict of interest is still poor science and ultimately a waste of independent funding and abuse of the funding body. --Simon D M 11:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: a straight quote out of context is misleading in this case, the true sense is revived by this edit. "the generic approach in reducing stress" without qualification would suggest that there is only one generic approach and that sy is more effective. The article is not saying that. It is comparing SY with one particular 'credible' generic method, and only making claims relative to that method. --Simon D M 17:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing to do with POV, that's what the article clearly states, that SY meditation was compared with one other credible generic method. If you have nothing constructive to contribute I will restore my orginal edit. --Simon D M 09:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you open a Request for comment if you want to take this further. Changing a quote is unacceptable. Sfacets 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, it is standard practice in academic articles to restore the original sense of a quote using inserts in square brackets. To quote wikipedia: "bracketed comments indicate when original text has been modified for clarity"  --Simon D M (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BITE|Simon]]'s edits

message: :The view is not coming from the Medical Observer as suggested, but from Ramesh Manocha, a Sahaja Yogi (although he doesn't declare this to the journals that publish his articles). In the T&Cs the Medical Observer makes no warranty that "its Content or information is complete, up-to-date or appropriate for clinical decisions."  --Simon D M 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Referring to yourself in the 3rd person is common in academic and pseudo-academic articles. The issue is the author of the article. John Eden is the coordinator of the 'herbs in focus' section of the site. See: http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/displayarticle/index.asp?articleID=2650&templateID=108§ionID=0§ionName= --Simon D M 09:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere in the article or website does it claim that Manocha is the author. Sfacets 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They wouldn't publish an article without stating the author. You need to know how to read a byline. Take a look at another example from the same publication here: http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/displayarticle/index.asp?articleID=1980&templateID=108§ionID=0§ionName= While only the author is mentioned in the byline (standard practice), both author and editor/coordinator are fully referenced at the bottom of the articles (also very common). --Simon D M 11:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Only you have difficutly figuring out who the author is. The article has a standard byline that only mentions Manocha. John Eden is the coordinator of the Herbs in Focus section which is obvious not only from the article itself but from other articles in the Herbs in Focus section. As it appears you have nothing further to add on this discussion apart from "the author could be John Eden", and I have repeatedly explained why this is obviously not the case, there is no point continuing with this discussion. I don't mind serious discussion but this has gone far enough. Case closed. --Simon D M 10:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It is expressly written in the byline. He is also named as the author on this page: http://www.thesmilingdoctor.com/What_s_Hot.html Maybe you should write to Dr Wadegaonkar and tell him he's got the author wrong. And while you're about it, write to the Medical Observer and tell them that you think their format is confusing people. If you need help then feel free to open an RFC. I'm sorry to be so blunt but your constantly shifting objections to non-controversial edits are a real time-waster, and I'm not wasting any more on this. --Simon D M 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The various bylines used in the Herbs in Focus articles can be seen here. It is clear that the bylines are introducing the authors, including Ramesh Manocha. --163.119.105.27 18:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: RFC opened, as requested. --Simon D M 18:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: SahajHist closed it, deeming it decided in favour of the rather obvious view I was putting forward. --Simon D M 10:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Authorship

message: I am going to ask Simon once again to be courteous and discuss major proposed changes here. His large ondiscussed and unconsesnsed changes to the article are disruptive. Feel free to add inormation - but if you need to change/remove/re-organize content, then please have consideration for other editor's work which has gone into the article. Sfacets 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we expect all editors to follow that same standard?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further complaints

message: It appears that Ramesh Manocha ("R. Manocha"), "a clinical research fellow at the Sydney Royal Hospital for Women's Natural Therapies Unit", has done considerable writing and research connected with SY, and there is also indication that he practices and advocates SY meditation.
* Manocha, R. “Sahaja yoga in asthma”, Thorax 2003;58:825-826. URL: http://thorax.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/58/9/825-a 
* Manocha R, Marks GB, Kenchington P, Peters D, Salome CM. “Sahaja yoga in the management of moderate to severe asthma: a randomized controlled trial.”, Thorax. 2003 Sep;58(9):825-6. 
*Ramesh Manocha, Sahaja State and Therapeutic Consciousness: High Quality Empirical Evidence for a New Definition of Meditation 
*Harrison, L.J., Manocha, R., & Rubia, K. (2004). Sahaja Yoga Medictation as a family treatment programme for children with Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder.
**The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Alice Bhasale, Robert Hutcheon, Kim Pearce, Liallyn Fitzpatrick, Ione Docherty and other Sahaja Yoga instructors who provided training for the participants on a voluntary basis. Sarah Yates help with data entry is gratefully acknowledged. We also thank the Royal Hospital for Women, University of New South Wales, for providing facilities for running the meditation clinic. Importantly, we thank the developer of Sahaja Yoga meditation, Mrs Nirmala Shrivastava (Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi), for her advice and permission to evaluate her technique. We acknowledge that, as a matter of principle, Sahaja Yoga is always taught free of charge.
**"Drug-free treatment for ADHD" Interview on Australian TV.
*Manocha R, Black D, Spiro D, Ryan J, Stough C (2007) Skin Temperature Changes Associated With Practice Of Sahaja Yoga Meditation Or Rest, an exploratory study, in press.
*"Making sense of meditation" Dr Ramesh Manocha considers the effectiveness of meditation as a treatment. 13 August 2004
*"New Scientific Insights in Meditation and Mental Silence: Its Effects on Wellbeing, Stress and Performance" SPEAKER: Dr Ramesh Manocha MBBS BSc, TIME: 1:00pm – 2:00pm, 10th October 2007 
**A brief hands-on meditation session aimed at eliciting the state of mental silence. The same technique that was used in our clinical and physiological trials, Sahaja Yoga, will be demonstrated for the audience to personally experience the practical aspects of meditation
*"Clinical Applications of Meditation", 6th International Holistic Health Conference 2000 (Lorne, Victoria – Australia) and published in the book "Pathways to Holistic Health", published by the Monash Institute of Public Health. 
*Manocha R, "Meditation, Sahaja and the Indian idea of optimal consciousness: Reconciling the modern evidence base with popular and traditional perceptions by revisiting the original definitions of meditation" Toward a Science of Consciousness 2006, April 4-8, 2006, Tucson Convention Center, Tucson, Arizona, Sponsored by The Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 
*"He has just finished a seven-year doctoral research project "aimed at the answering the question: does meditation work in any way - body, mind, spirit, whatever?"...At the Sydney Menopause Centre, Manocha has also used sahaja to treat a group of women suffering hot flushes. The women had about a 70 per cent reduction in their hot flushes over eight weeks, he says....Last year, he tried the technique on a group of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder."
*"Ramesh Manocha, who ran the yoga trial, said at the end nine out of 10 women had experienced more than a 50 per cent improvement in their menopausal symptoms.``That's the kind of effect you would see with HRT. But Dr Manocha said there was no evidence to support most natural alternatives."
*"Today, a happy home is also a sanctuary from encroaching stress. Ramesh Manocha, the former director of the Meditation Research Unit at Sydney's Royal Hospital for Women, has found that a meditation technique called sahaja yoga can improve chronic conditions such as asthma, migraine and menopause symptoms. He describes the home meditation room he uses daily as "a place you don't bring the rest of your life". "You don't do your tax return there and you don't have arguments there," he says. "I have two children aged two and three and they understand the meditation room is a place for quiet. If you bring children up to respect a meditation space in the same way you bring them up to wash their hands, then they will."All's well For details of free classes in sahaja yoga meditation in the Sydney area, go to http://www.freemeditation.com.au"  
*"A medical doctor from Australia, Ramesh Manocha has conducted clinical studies of the effect of meditation on people, and, in particular, advocates the Sahaja Yoga technique, which, he claims, studies have proven to be the most effective method of enhancing one’s emotional intelligence and thus impacted the individual consciousness positively. This, in turn, had a positive effect on organizational development."
He has also written on other, non-medical topics, including a review of a book titled "Jesus Lived in India" that says:
*The implications of Kersten’s discovery are monumental. Christ’s life in India, after the crucifixion, challenges current Church teachings at their very foundation. The theology of Saint Paul, the major influence on modern Christianity, is empty fanaticism in the light of this discovery. Threatened also are the doctrines of obedience to the Church, original sin, salvation through blind faith and the non-existence of reincarnation, etc. Yet these ideas underlie the morality and ethics, (or lack of them), that govern the entire Western social structure, from the legal system to medical health care schemes. It is no wonder that the modern Churches and their secular interests refuse to consider such a proposition as Kersten’s! 
His are qualifications variously listed as:
*Dr Ramesh Manocha is a Barry Wren Fellow at the Natural Therapies Unit, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney. Associate Professor John Eden, MBBS, MD, MRCOG, FRANZCOG, CREI, is the director of the Sydney Menopause Centre and Natural Therapies Unit, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney.
*RAMESH MANOCHA is a general practitioner and researcher who currently holds the Barry Wren Research Fellowship at the Royal Hospital for Women and the School of Womens and Childrens Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia where he is involved in scientific evaluation of complementary and alternative medicines. In 1998 he established the Meditation Research Programme (MRP). Since that time, the MRP has conducted exploratory clinics, physiological evaluations and several high-quality randomized controlled trials. In 2002 the MRP was approached by members of the community to explore the potential of Sahaja Yoga meditation for children with ADHD and thus the ‘Meditation for ADHD Clinic was initiated. Dr Manocha is a recipient of the Bernard Lake Memorial Prize for complementary medicine research. CONTACT : Natural Therapies Unit, Royal Hospital for Women, Locked Bag XXX, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia. E-mail: XXX@unsw.edu.au
Steven Hassan writes:
*Meanwhile in Sydney, Australia a franchise group of medical centres have decided to offer its patients free Sahaja Yoga programs, as bona fide treatment to alleviate stress. All those patients who complain of stress or stress-related diseases to any of the doctors serving these medical centres will be referred to the Stress Management Programmes run by a Dr. Ramesh Manocha and other yogis. 
According to a speech by Sir CP, Dr. Manocha was part of the medical team that treated Shri Mataji in 2006.
* I can go on and on about this, but I want to tell something a little more, and it is that I am deeply grateful to Australia and Australian Sahaja Yogis, your collective, for having provided the medical team which has looked after your Mother, and I want to express my very, very deep gratitude to Dr. Bohdan and Dr. Ramesh Manocha, and the nurses, sisters who are here. 
What to make of this? We can't second guess the reliablity of the peer-reviewed journals that have published his work. It may be worth noting, though, that Menocha specializes in doing research on SY, advocates its uses, and practices it himself.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and that he attends to Nirmala Srivastava's personal medical needs. The peer-reviewed journals are not aware of Manocha's conflict of interest as he does not declare it. This is certainly the case with Thorax with whom I have corresponded. Monocha sent me a series of emails denying he was an SY and making all sorts of wild threats if I wrote a formal letter to Thorax as they suggested. I felt the guy was fighting to save his career and felt sorry for him so let it go. However, the fact is certainly relevant to this article. Incidentally, I don't think you are quoting Steve Hassan directly, but rather an article that he published which is a commentary on Sahaja Yoga newsletters. --Simon D M 09:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramesh Manocha 

message: The beginning of this article is clunky because it defines SY as a practice and then goes on to talk about associated
beliefs, organisation, guru/goddess, etc. What is the overarching concept here that includes all the others? It is
New Religious Movement - that includes all the other facets. The article would be improved if it started like this:
Sahaja Yoga (Sahaja meaning innateBuddhism Dictionary (Oxford University Press) definition of 'Sahaja' and Yoga meaning union) is a new religious movement founded by Nirmala Srivastava, more widely known as "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" or "Mother" by followers - who worship her as the complete  incarnation of the Adi Shakti.Invitation to Shri Adi Shakti Puja 2005 The term Sahaja Yoga can also be used to refer to the practices that are promoted by the movement, including meditation and puja. There are a number of formal organizational bodies within Sahaja Yoga, the main one being known as Sahaja Yoga International or Vishwa Nirmala Dharma. 
Sahaja Yoga grew from India and England (where Nirmala Srivastava moved in 1972) and spread internationally. There are now Sahaja Yoga centers around the world http://www.hinduonnet.com/mp/2003/04/07/stories/2003040700860400.htm The Hindu Monday, Apr 07, 2003 viewed 6 November 2006].
As this is a major change, I'm putting it up for discussion and of course welcome constructive input. --Simon D M 16:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's more about the overarching concept. However, the movement came first. Mataji has had a group of followers since at least 1971. She only started 'raising kundalini' of groups in January 1972. After that the current techniques developed over a decade or so. So the movement came first.--Simon D M 09:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sfacets, "since you got kicked out" is an inappropriate personal remark verging on a personal attack. Please comment on the edits, not the editors.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I am just establishing context - it wasn't an attack just a statement of fact. Sfacets 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unnecessary. Please don't make further negative personal comments about other editors.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've changed the wording. Sfacets 23:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sfacets, are if your only objection is to term "complete" re: incarnation, why not add the rest and continue sdiscussing that one issue?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed the word and link pending a resolution of the dispute.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sfacets, I notice you've dropped out of this discussion but you are continuing to replace references to a NRM or movement with references to a practice. Please explain yourself. --Simon D M 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't dropped out of any discussion, and don't know what you are talking about, please clarify. Sfacets 14:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you still trying to deny that SY is a NRM? If not, why are you replacing references to it being a movement with things like "practices and associated beliefs"? --Simon D M 14:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not replacing anything - You are the one reverting a much revised introduction. Without awaiting consensus. Sfacets 14:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a dog's dinner. The fact that SY is a NRM is fully established and adopting that framework simplifies the article greatly. The constant shifting between practice, belief and organisation within no framework just made for confusion. If you have something further to say on the matter just say it, or we can close off this discussion and move on. --Simon D M 14:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Sahaja Yoga

message: You can't talk about an NRM without talking about its beliefs. So we need a section on that. Most of the Sahaja Yoga meditation article is just about the beliefs surrounding SY meditation and could be incorporated easily. That would lead little left in the Sahaja Yoga meditation article which is no bad thing because it doesn't really say much about SY meditation eg where the attention is put etc --Simon D M 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've added a short Beliefs section to give some kind of context to the practices. I'll look at the previous discussion on the issue of length. --Simon D M 11:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sfacets, I see you have cut out the short Beliefs section. I've read through all the prior discussions pages and I don't see any objections to having such a short beliefs section. If I've missed something, pls give the url. An article on an NRM without one is patently absurd. Farming the Beliefs section to the Sahaja Yoga meditation page is highly problematic. I saw the discussion of the charts where you seemed to be in favour of including them. Actually I guess it would be fine to just link to them. That isn't a big issue as far as I can see. The Beliefs section is an issue, obviously so. --Simon D M 12:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is not spin-out article on General SY Beliefs, the beliefs of the beliefs section do not only apply to SY meditation so do not belong on that page. That pagy should refer to the main SY page for general beliefs pertaining to SY. The SY meditation page is currently mostly off-topic and should not be controlling what is on the main page.--Simon D M 10:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It says a lot about the beliefs pertaining to SY in general, very little about SY meditation in particular. Almost nothing in fact. But let's leave discussion of that page to that page's discussion page. The important point here is whether a Beliefs section is pertinent to a page discussing a NRM. Either raise a valid objection to that or the section goes back in. --Simon D M 10:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And are you trying to say that those tenets don't apply to other aspects of SY??? --Simon D M 11:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Cleansing techniques, the functioning of the Vashi health center, bandhans, interpretation of accidents, etc etc--Simon D M 11:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, you haven't understood. I'm not listing other tenets of SY, I'm listing other aspects of SY that basic beliefs such as kundalini, chakras, nadis, etc apply to. Other examples would be chakras relating to parts of the world, days of the week, deities worshipped in pujas, qualities manifesting in everyday life. Nadis and balancing practices. Kundalinis seen in the sky. Vibrations felt here there and everywhere and used for guidance in everyday life, and even in choosing new national leaders (although this can be overridden by Mataji or CP as happened this Summer in France). Those basic concepts apply to every aspect of SY life, not just the meditation, as you well know. --Simon D M 12:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Simply stamping your foot isn't enough. You need to supply reasonable objections. We can't wait for them for ever. --Simon D M 10:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't me stamping my foot, that was me showing my contempt at your last answer. I have made my case. Everything pertaining to SY meditation belongs @ Sahaja Yoga meditation. And you forgot to sign in again. Sfacets 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if that's the best case you can make, then it's weak to say the least. Do I need to waste time on another RfC for you to come round to the obvious truth? --Simon D M 10:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. --Simon D M 16:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beliefs Section/Merge with Sahaja Yoga meditation

message: Despite the reverting of Simon D M and the warning of Wilbeback, I insist this
Nirmala Srivastava has stated that meditation is not thinking "about your problems at all, whatever chakras you have, anything", rather it "means exposing yourself to God’s grace." [10] She has described meditation as "an individual journey towards God." [11]
Is not the exact (correct) quotation. She said:
Don’t worry at what point you have a problem. Say, many people during meditation, I have seen, if they catch somewhere they go on looking after it. You just don’t have to worry. You just let it go and it will work by itself. So you don’t have to put in any effort. This is what meditation is. Meditation means exposing yourself to God’s grace
Either we add the correct one, either we take out this line. I don't understand what is going here ? Thank you per advance
PS: And I do not understand why we should discuss and argue for such evidence. Agenor 77 12:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no opinion, I feel I cango on then...--Agenor 77 12:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These two sets of quotations don't appear to even overlap. The page has many lines of commentary. If you want to add the lines you've cited here that's not a probelm, though it may get too long. The lines cited at top appear to be quoted accurately. The line about "an individual journey towards God" doesn't appear on that page, it may be an incorrect link. It does appear on this page..  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: Why is this website being used as a source? The link http://www.valaya.co.uk/KNOWLEDGEpujaProt1.htm for example, states its origin as being from a "Private archive", nothing else. Unless a good reason is provided to keep this as a source, I will remove it as well as associated content. Sfacets 16:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagee. If you look at the home page it is clearly an official SY website.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: How do you know that?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is kind of obvious looking at it - have you seen other official websites sporting free counters, using tiled images as background? Sfacets 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page says that "all the knowledge, contents, and materials in this website come from and belong to H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi. Copyright 2001 H.H. Shri Mataji Devi 2001 all rights reserved". Are you contending that there is more than one individual called " H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi"?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If it is from  "H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" then it is relevant. You assert that it's unreliable, but there's no evidence of that.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If we can prove that the material is self-published and inaccurate then I agree that it would be unreliable,. However I don't see any proof of those assertions.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea about all this, but, by curiosity I have check main page of this website http://www.valaya.co.uk/, and you discover that it should be a kind of private website, or intranet maybe as a login is requested. Official website are public. So, it is a self-published website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked this up on one of those doman tools, and it's registered to a "Gian Luca Masciangelo". I don't know if that's person or a company, but its address is in Italy even though its a U.K. domain. By comparison, the "sahajayoga.org.uk" domain is registered to "LET", a known official SY organization with a suburban London address. (I guess there is more than one entity.) That being the case, I think this "www.valaya.co.uk" site looks like an overeager adherent,. Though he copyrights the information in the name of Shri Mataji, I doubt that she actually wrote most of it herself. The incorrect application of copyrights seems to be a common issue with groups like this. I'm sure it's well-intentioned.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LET is Life Eternal Trust, the tax-exempt equivalent of VND (created before the term VND was coined). SYogis setting up their own websites was official policy under the Mataji-inspired Project 2800 which tried to drown out critical voices on the Web with a flood of SY sites. See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syrc/message/38  --Simon D M 11:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But Simon Dicon Monfort who wrote this letter it's you no ? --Agenor 77 13:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yeah right, I'm really going to bother writing all that. I'm surprised you want to deny your Guru's work. There's another reference in here:  The failed project hasn't been completely air-brushed out yet. --Simon D M 13:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your confirmation --Agenor 77 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: LET is not necessarily tax-exempt in all countries, nor is it the exact equivalent of VND. This varies from country to country. Sahajhist 13:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon, please refrain from using unreliable sources (mostly created by you) to back your claims. Sfacets 13:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand why you are embarrassed about the attempt to drown out all critical voices on the Net, pretty shameful I agree, but it happened, and failed miserably. And if you want to accuse me of fabricating any more embarrassing material, please provide some evidence to back up your accusations. You may choose to believe what you are told in SY, but you need some evidence before you pass on such stories on this page. --Simon D M 13:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no accusation, you signed the message that you show http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syrc/message/38 so it's an evidence. Then forgive me to suspect each and every editing of yours as it seems you are here only for that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Simon+D+M   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The message is not signed by anybody. I posted it. Here only for what? --Simon D M 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see... very practical (grin) Thank you to state that you posted it.--Agenor 77 17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The message may have gone out on the old Sahajnet from Mark Mays. Check with him if you're interested. --Simon D M 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May ? --Agenor 77 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. --Simon D M 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "But Simon Dicon Monfort who wrote this letter it's you no ?" is an accusation in the form of a question. How is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syrc/ any less reliable than an official SY site?  --Simon D M 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a question off course.. don't be paranoiac
Now let's stop the petty back-biting and get back to the subject in hand: "Valaya is in line with the international policy of Sahaja Yoga" http://www.valaya.co.uk/HOME.htm It is also listed by the Canadian site: http://www.sahajayoga.ca/WorldWide/PersonalWebsites.html --Simon D M 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make it a valid wikipedia source. Sfacets 21:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another official site linking to it approvingly is here: http://www.mpsahaj.org/links.htm --Simon D M 12:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I completly agree with you. Both point are obvious --Agenor 77 13:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it says they are largely not acceptable. If we are going to restrict ourselves to "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses" then there won't be much. For a fringe theory like SY, the important thing is to ensure parity of sources. --Simon D M 12:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Between the restriction you put supra and evidence posted by the editor itself, there is a middle path my dear :) --Agenor 77 13:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Valaya site is uploading standard SY materials and speeches of Mataji. It is reliable stuff, linked to by official sites of SY. If Mataji's speeches were changed (apart from maybe the most embarrassing bits, but then official sources do that as well) then there would be no linking, it would be classed in the same category as adishakti.org (which doesn't change speeches either but obviously breaks other norms). Furthermore, valaya is produced by a professional web developer who knows better than to misrepresent his subject matter. The site is password protected so that non-SYogis can't find out what SYoga is all about, which is also the problem with this page. That kind of information can only be found behind password protection or on the sites of critics of SY which are currently barred from most of this page because parity of sources is not practised. However, we need to look at the overarching aim of Wikipedia: it is not to produce an article based on "whay SY wants people to believe", rather "what SY is".  --Simon D M 14:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would put Valaya on a par with Sahajavidya which Sfacets and SahajHist have strongly defended as a suitable source in the discussion here --Simon D M 14:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon is misrepresenting my views. I merely commented on the factual accuracy of the Sahajvidya site as part of an earlier ongoing discussion. Sahajhist 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious. Everybody can see that... --Agenor 77 22:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: To be precise SahajHist said that the site was reliable, accessible and heavily used. Sorry if I overstated the case in SahaHist's case by lumping him together with Sfacets. --Simon D M 11:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: gni?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My opinion is that this site appears to be a personal site that uploads official documents. It's in the same category as the Sahajavidya site, which we use as a source. I'm reluctatnt to include either site, but if we include one then there's no reason to exclude the other.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The Sahajavidya site is registered to an individual, Nick Kerswell, rather than to an SY entity such as LET or VND. Therefore it too is a personal site publishing SY material.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nick is on the official team previously mentioned (includes our friend Bohdan and a certain self-proclaimed expert on Sahaj History who will go unnamed) responsible for collating all audio and video recordings of Mataji. The Valaya site allows quotes to be seen in full context so is in many ways an even better source. --Simon D M 11:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go again, Simon yet again twists the facts! There is no 'official' team on the Media Project, merely a list of names, arranged by country, acknowledging those who have helped. Sahajhist 11:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Simon says : " The Valaya site allows quotes to be seen " but anybody who is not twostedm can understand that it is a private site and it has been build to beunder privacy / with a login altough it doesn't work at all. But mainly, it is a private site.--Agenor 77 13:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As SahajHist said about the Sahajvidya site, "this website is accessible to all via Google... This site is very reliable, being based, literally, on the teacher's exact words." In fact, Valaya avoids the one problem SahajHist identified with Sahajvidya ie "the compiler takes what could politely be called a 'biblical' approach - a sentence from one talk, a paragraph from another - which results in Shri Mataji's comments being discussed out of the context of the original talk"  --Simon D M 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Valaya and Sahajvidya do not have the same value as sources - Sahajvidya references each paragraph back to a specific speech given by Nirmala Srivastava, complete with dates. Valaya makes no claim of doing so, and is therefore not a Reliable source Sfacets 08:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obvioulsy ! I would request that we consider this site (valaya) as definitely unsuitable for reference here --Agenor 77 08:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: On the contrary Sfacets, see: http://www.valaya.co.uk/IN-DEEP.htm  (btw you seem to have picked up a cheerleader). --Simon D M 11:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you even bother to follow the link? It's a list of full talks with dates, locations and full text. Am genuinely glad to see a flicker of humour in you. --Simon D M 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I followed the link, my question was in regards to the references currently used in the article. Sfacets 11:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly believe we shouldn't be using http://www.valaya.co.uk or http:// or the Sahajvidya site as sources here - we all agree that they are personal sites and as such cannot rely on them as a source for reliability.  It seems to me we have consensus on this.  We've gone back and forth on this long enough even after having Will take a look at it and agreeing they are personal sites.  All references to these two sites in the article need to be removed.Yogasun 14:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this discussion has gone on long enough, but there is an important principle to be taken into account and that is that the acceptable level of reliability is relative to availability which in turn depends on how mainstream a theory is. The section on parity states, "if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer review journal" which implies the the point I am making. Many of the beliefs of Sahaja Yoga are largely hidden on official sites because the organisation does not want newcomers to know what they are getting into. Thus information can only be sourced mainly from non-official sites and the sites of critics. Not to address these topics would make the article unbalanced, to do so may require reliance on non-official sites. This is an unusual situation that requires thought beyond the usual policies. --Simon D M 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Valaya site is disallowed then there's no reason to include the Sahajvidya either. They are similar enough to be treated identically.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Will and Yogasun - let's remove references to both. --58.110.125.64 10:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Valaya.co.uk

message: Sfacets, you keep changing the illustrative video for puja from the original http://www.sahajayoga.com.au/shrimataji2006/video8.html to http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=17308564 (some of your edit summaries even refer to the latter as the original, which you must know is incorrect). MySpace is listed as a link that should normally be avoided. On a less technical note, although this is a self-published puff piece, you do see various aspects of SY, and if it doesn't contravene WP:EL it would be good to link it somewhere. BUT, you have to watch for 20 minutes or so before getting half minute glimpse of the actual puja with somebody talking over it. Nevertheless, it was nice to see Derek F on the video who I used to work with at Shudy Camps. --Simon D M (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing the event that surrounds the puja with the puja itself. See: http://www.theworldsavior.org/swan/view/swan_614_2007.asp - the puja is on just one of the days. Look at the definition of what a puja is, it does not include unloading a lorry or talking to a camera about "what Sahaja Yoga means to me". There is puja and the preparations, music programme, etc that goes on with it. --Simon D M (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I edited the article to show both videos, would that be an acceptable compromise? Unfortunately your disruptive Australian co-religionist at 121.210.52.44 has removed one of the videos already and only left your choice. Maybe also  you could explain to me why a video on a normally be avoided site is OK while an article is not, after all, that article could be hosted anywhere too. --Simon D M (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sfacets, I see that without any consultation you have moved these videos to the External Links section. Please explain yourself. --Simon D M (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MySpace Video

message: *Second Coming? or Mother of all Cults? Opinions by Steve Hassan
Sfacets, why do you keep inserting that this link is 'opinions by Steve Hassan'? It is bemusing given that there is absolutely no indication of this on the page, especially so given that you were not able to discern Manocha's authorship of his article even though it was clearly indicated in the byline.--Simon D M (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sfacets. Sahajhist 20:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We all can see that it is his website and it is unsigned, the question is whether it automatically makes him the author. People don't become authors by publishing unsigned articles on their websites. --Simon D M (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Coming? or Mother of all Cults?

message: This RFC, insisted upon by Sfacets, concerns this article which is quoted in this section. It has been discussed here.In brief Simon D M maintains that the article indicates that Ramesh Manocha is the author and that John Eden is the coordinator of the Herbs in Focus section of the website. As evidence he points to Ramesh Manocha being mentioned in the standard byline and John Eden being billed in the same manner on every instance of a Herbs in Focus article for example. Simon D M points out that Dr Wadegaonkar has reached the same conclusion. Sfacets initially objected to this because the author refers to Ramesh Manocha in the 3rd person. Later he objected that John Eden could be the author of the article because no part of the article explicitly says that Ramesh Manocha is the author. --Simon D M 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that Manocha is the primary author, while Eden is acting as the editor or procurer of the article. This other article has an identical arrangement with Manocha: "Could herbal treatments have a role in glycaemic control?" Eden apparently has a series on alternative medicines that includes about 10 articles.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have viewed the above article and concur with WillBeBack's assessment. Sahajhist 19:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Disputed Authorship of Referenced Article

message: This RFC, suggested by Sfacets, is over whether there be a Beliefs section including info on Chakras, Kundalini, Self-Relisation, etc in this article or should this be in the Sahaja Yoga meditation page? Previous discussion takes place here and here
In brief, Simon D M maintains that these concepts are relevant to many aspects of the new religious movement Sahaja Yoga, while Sfacets maintains they are specific to one aspect, namely meditation, which currently has a spin-off page.
Simon D M has sourced a number of examples where these basic concepts are applied to other aspects of Sahaja Yoga: Knowledge of chakras and kundalini used to diagnose; anapurna mantra used before taking food or drink; and vibrations used to match couples.
Sfacets has responded by seeking to widen the definition of 'Sahaja Yoga meditation' to include all other practices. I will let Sfacets provide his own sources and rationale as I am not aware of any he has provided so far.--Simon D M 16:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Puja may involve meditation, but I've never seen a definition of "meditation" that includes puja, footsoaking, shobeating, and other religious practices. Perhaps it would be simpler if that article we renamed "Sahaja Yoga practices", "SY rituals" or some other name that encompasses all the practices?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there really is enough on practices to justify a spin-out page, at the moment there is not that much. Currently the page offers little more than the disputed charts and some general SY beliefs. If you want to put all practices and beliefs into one page, and leave the organization in another, surely the organization page should be the spinout. At the moment I don't think we have enough solid material for any spinouts to be necessary. --Simon D M 10:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The solutions would be to duplicate the basic info (redundancy, not good) OR to refer the reader to the main Sahaja Yoga page for the basic belief. Unless you want a spinout page for that as well and there currently isn't enough for that either. I don't think encyclopedias are meant to be depositories. --Simon D M 10:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, and the basic beliefs of SY belong in the main article, where all the subjects they pertain to are dealt with. --Simon D M 11:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? When there is already a specific article relating to SY meditation. Sfacets 12:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, not willing to go round in circles. Read what has already been written and think for yourself. --Simon D M 12:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  The other article isn't a fork. It is an article relating to Sahaja Yoga meditation. Sfacets 14:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said it was a fork? --Simon D M 15:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You, with your link. Sfacets 15:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is just sourcing the statement. There is a danger though that the spinout page under discussion could become a POV fork. --Simon D M (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, I note that just 4 hours before writing the above, you removed links from Sahaja Yoga meditation claiming that they "don't discuss SY meditation". So I think you need to make your mind up whether  Sahaja Yoga meditation is about just SY meditation, or about SY beliefs & practices. --Simon D M (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If Sahaja Yoga meditation was to be about Sahaja Yoga Beliefs and Practices, then that's what it should have been called, unless you are trying to give the impression that the only practice is meditation and the only beliefs in Sahaja Yoga pertain only to that - which we all know is not the case and is a clear POV fork. If you take out the beliefs and practices, what is left on the main page? Just the organisation and its history? Surely that is a better subject for a spinout as it is of less general interest. Ultimately, the page is not long enough to justify any spinout even if beliefs were added in. Some organisational bits could be cut down as they are of little significance. --Simon D M (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sahaja Yoga beliefs and practices" sounds like a reasonable name with a clear scope. Any objections?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None from me if you really think another page is necessary. --Simon D M (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It makes sense to cover all the beliefs together, either in this article or the other article. Meditation is just one of the beliefs. Is there any objection to "Sahaja Yoga beliefs and practices" as a new article name for "Sahaja Yoga meditation"?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: But there are practices and beliefs not covered in it, such as pujas. If we can't keep the info together there then maybe we'd better move it back here.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What you think is not the issue, where are the sources to back up your unusual POV that puja is part of meditation? Your division of the NRM into organisation and meditation is a false dichotomy because it leaves out a lot. If you have sources to show that SY is just meditation and organisation then let's see them cited. Read the title of this section, it is about your blocking of a beliefs section in the main article which is about the NRM as a whole - when did it become just about the organisation or did you decide this unilaterally?--Simon D M (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read what I wrote above. Sfacets 16:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read it and all the relevant policy. If you want to make any extraordinary claims about SY meditation including all other practices and beliefs within it then show the sources. If not, just make up your mind what your article is about and we can move on. Trying to base a discussion around unsupportable claims or shifting goalposts is just a waste of time. --Simon D M (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "The power of Kundalini which is your own Mother has to rise & manifest itself, because of your Pure Desire. In your introspection, pujas & in your Meditation, you should see for yourself, why are you in Meditation. It is for Pure Desire of compassion & love to be awakened within us." Mataji's words from http://www.tnsahaj.org/Kundalini.htm NB that she says "introspection, pujas & ... Meditation". I can find many, many more sources to show your dichotomy is false but I won't find more till you provide one single source to support your POV. --Simon D M (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't, if you read carefully it says even if your position re: a meditation/organisation dichotomy made any sense, it still wouldn't give you the right to block sourced content from the main page. We're yet to see any source from you that supports this dichotomy. If you can't produce sources you need to stop equivocating - either say your page is about syMeditation or syBeliefs&practices, one or the other. Till you stop shifting the goalposts, there is no hope of progress. --Simon D M (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You have explained your POV but provided no sources to back it up. Time to put up or shut up.--Simon D M (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked me to explain. I explained. Stay civil. You want to insert duplicate content. It isn't my POV to say that duplicate content is wasteful. Please read Wikipedia:Summary_style - you obviously want to insert more than an introductory paragraph. Sfacets 09:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I understand Sfacets' posiiton. Is he saying that puja and cleasning technique sections should be included in the meditation article?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we should move the meditation studies there too.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Pls provide a source to back up your assertion that all SY practices, including puja and 'mass wedding ceremonies', are covered by the term 'meditation'.--Simon D M (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to have difficulties in reading my comment above, so here it is again: "SY meditation discusses beliefs relating to Sahaja Yoga. There is the organization Sahaja Yoga (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) and then there is Sahaja Yoga meditation, a separate 'school of meditation' which encompasses spiritual practices such as Puja etc." - nowhere do I mention the term - I mention that there are two parts of SY - the org and the spiritual (meditation) side. Sfacets 09:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can read very well. You seem to have difficulty understanding that you are creating a false dichotomy, a model of SY that leaves a lot out and forces concepts under umbrellas where they don't belong. Unless you can provide sources that show otherwise. Still waiting for those. Less bluster, more sources. --Simon D M (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Every decent editor needs sources. You have set up the dichotomy and are trying to control what goes where on the basis of it, often in a self-contradictory way. I've already given a quote showing that Mataji does not consider puja part of meditation. Without sources it looks like you are just pushing your POV regardless. --Simon D M (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to get consensus as you well know. Don't be wreckless, we already have enough vandalism from your co-religionists. --Simon D M (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/co-religionist Sorry, I can't understand your comment on the template and not sure which template you are talking about. Could you please discuss the matter at hand. Still waiting for your sources that justify bringing all beliefs and practices under the title 'Sahaja Yoga meditation'.--Simon D M (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am discussing the matter at hand. You removed  from the meditation section- read - it helps. Sfacets 21:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting for sources. Not sure if I did remove that, I think it might have come out in Will's revert. I'm willing to be corrected if you can find the diff. Actually I don't think it is appropriate to put it anywhere until the purpose and scope of the page is defined, and it supplies some useful extra information beyond the disputed charts.--Simon D M (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with sfacets, the section should be reinstated. Could you please take care of that simon? There are plenty of things as you know that we need to include ie on chakras, the historical basis of Sahaj, the scientific basis, clearing tecniques and bandhan perhaps. By the way simon have you forgot about footsoaking? You could make use of such a section. You would benefit greatly from it. No one will know we wont tell your Catholic friends, you just need a bucket and some salt remember? [[User"Teamantime]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamantime (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the section under discussion is being blocked by sfacets. Incidentally, I have no connection with CC contrary to sy propaganda. --Simon D M (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: ah yes, from the meditation section, I thought you meant from the practices section. I removed it from the meditation section because you were saying that the symeditation page was about all beliefs and practices. Like I said, I don't think it belongs anywhere till the purpose and scope of the page is made clear. You've presented a POV but no sources to back it up. On the other hand, I've presented sourced material to show that your POV is misleading. --Simon D M (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've read and understood your POV many times. I've provided evidence to the contrary. Now I'm waiting for your sources, as I've said many many times.--Simon D M (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Since we're talking about deletions, why does the same sourced materialget deleted over and over again? Teamantime appears to be responsible for many repeated deletions. Can he explain himself instead of just removing amterial, often with incorrect edit summaries?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: RfC. Do not keep the information off this page. It's relevant. Leadwind 04:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Should there be a Beliefs section incl Chakra info &c

message: I set the above RfC up, and the previous discussion, to get consensus on adding a new section to this page as requested by Sfacets. Now Sfacets, after unnecessarily dragging out the discusssion by repeating the same POV while ignoring requests for evidence, has gone headlong into a major re-organization of this page without seeking consensus. It appears that having no defence, he had decided upon attack. This strikes me as hypocritical and disruptive behaviour.--Simon D M (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sfacets, BOLD does not mean reckless, you must abide by the edit-revert-discuss cycle, not just push your edits through by force. You complain about your hard work being reverted, yet you deleted by Beliefs section and had no worries. Seems you are applying different standards. It seems that the changes of others must be removed and bogged down in interminable discussion while your edits are sacrosanct and must be discussed before being removed. The more you push this position, the more ridiculous it becomes. --Simon D M (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, you are reorganising the page around a POV that you have been trying to push but have not been able to support with sources, despite repeated requests. Not being able to find sources for your POV should lead you to question it, not recklessly edit based on it. --Simon D M (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The beliefs section was my hard work just as the reorganisation you have done is your hard work - yes, both belong to the project. Problems with your 'reorganisation' is that SyMeditation is no longer included under practices where it should be and the sourced material on medical applications of SY (as a whole) has been disappeared. Meanwhile your co-religionists are doing their usual work of removing sourced material and neutral wording.--Simon D M (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Meditation is clearly a practice of SY, this is a relationship that has been under discussion for weeks. You have ignored sourced material that contradicts your view and have ignored repeated requests for sources that support your view. Furthermore, under the cover of your reorganisation you are removing headers you don't like eg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=prev&oldid=173625436 and you are slipping in POV wording like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=prev&oldid=173606896 Meanwhile your co-religionists are doing their usual work of removing sourced material and neutral wording. You know better but are using a blitzkrieg approach to push through your POV. --Simon D M (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By that same logic, all of SY is part of meditation, since all of SY was an outcome of the meditation. Maybe we should move the whole article to that name.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all the same thing. The organization and the meditative practice are both separately notable. Sfacets 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The organization is not notable. You created an article about the organization and it was deleted at AfD.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason there is a spin-off article is because the article was getting too long. Simple as that. Sfacets 00:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't deal with the issue of mediation coming first, and therefore everything being a part of meditation. BTW, the studies of meditation should go under meditation.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that the organization is the same as the meditation? Yes, the studies on meditation should go under meditation - I made that change, but Simon reverted. Sfacets 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon seems to have an issue with removing meditation form practices - the reason he gave for reverting. How does he figure that it is a practice? Nirmala Srivastava has described it as a "state" of being. And it certainly is prominent enough to feature it in its own section. Also he doesn't seem to know what he wants - Puja classified under practices or under Meditation? I make changes that comply with his requests, and then he reverts. Sfacets 01:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had an issue with the edit blitzkrieg by a group of editors - much of the critical material was removed, neutral wording was replaced with POV wording and the page was re-organised around categorisations which were the subject of ongoing discussion. The issue of which came first is a red herring and no sources or other rationale were provided for SYmeditation not to come under practices. Now Sfacets has provided an alternate rationale, that meditation is a state rather than a practice. Actually the term 'meditation' is used in SY (and elsewhere) to describe both a state and a practice (thus Sfacets has himself referred to it as a 'practice', 'meditative method' or 'meditative practice'). I see this as a valid point, and therefore think we should consider a compromise solution. --Simon D M (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't pass comment on your edit summaries. Extraordinary claims like that should be reported neutrally, just because a source uses POV wording it doesn't mean that it should be reported POV wording. What I actually said was that the NRM came before the current meditation practice. I also said that which came 1st doesn't determine which is the overarching concept. You have argued and argued but still have not provided a single source for your extraordinary claim that puja falls under SY meditation. --Simon D M (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've given the diff, anybody can see the POV wording for an extraordinary claim. Your "which came 1st, the organisation or the meditation" is a moot straw man based on a false dichotomy. I have said all along that the NRM came before the meditation that is described on any of these pages, and the sources back it up. Mataji had followers before she started raising kundalini. I've also stated all along that which came first is not important, it is a red herring you have introduced. What matters is what is the overarching concept - practices or meditation. By definining SY as a meditative practice you include it within the category of practices, yet you want to waste time arguing that it's the other way round, that practices like puja are part of the meditation. When provided with sources contradicting this, you just repeat your POV, introduce red herrings, set up straw men, but never, never, actually provide one single source that backs up your POV. And so it goes on and on while you and your co-religionists go full steam ahead into reorganising the page, replacing neutral wording and removing sourced content.--Simon D M (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to discuss your red herring, ask a question on my talk page. The issue at hand is whether you have any sources to back up your POV that SY is just meditation and organisation, and that meditation covers other practices such as pujas? Well, are you going to provide any sources?--Simon D M (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Set up that straw man on your talk page, you can discuss with it there. This discussion is about your reorganisation of the page without consensus, based on a view of SYoga that you put across but produced no sources to back up. The burden of evidence is with you, you have produced none despite repeated requests. I know it may be difficult for you, but please try to stay on topic. --Simon D M (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Since when is arguing one's point enough to override consensus? It looks like you have no intention of providing souces. --Simon D M (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing was getting done because whenever I want to do anything you demand that I take it to discussion, which I dutifully do. However, it is now clear that you don't apply this standard to yourself. You are the one making changes, you need to supply evidence, as you very well know. --Simon D M (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My claim is that you are reorganising the page based on your POV without seeking consensus or offering sources to back up your POV. You have provided all the backing that is necessary.--Simon D M (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So now you make decisions unilaterally, I see. I've already provided evidence while you have provided none, despite repeated requests. You are obviously unwilling to budge so I suggest mediation. --Simon D M (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganising the Page

message: I think we should file for mediation. It is pointless to carry on like this. --Simon D M (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So file for mediation. Creating a section doesn't do anything. (Did you even really file for RFC, or did you just create a section here?) Sfacets 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your co-operation is necessary for mediation as you need to sign the form, thus I set up this section to request it.--Simon D M (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm following edits in Sahaja Yoga article since long, it's so shoking to see your abilities to biase evirything about Sahaja Yoga and Her founder  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.140.35 (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be more productive if you raise specific issues. --Simon D M (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: As an alternative to mediation, we could consider a compromise. I would accept SY meditation as its own top-level section with subsections on the practice and the state (possibly also with a Medical Studies subsection), and the Practices section being renamed Other Practices. It is also acceptable for the SYmeditation material to go on the Sahaja Yoga meditation page, and there remain just a neutrally worded summary on the main page. However, it is not acceptable the existence of the SY meditation page to block a Beliefs section in the main page (that would be like saying there should be no Beliefs section in the Christianity page because there is a theology section in the Eucharist page). Also unacceptable is all the recent POV wording and removal of sourced material, so the reorganisation would have to be based on the current revert to Will BeBack's last version. The reorganisation would also have to be based on consensus. --Simon D M (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, the main article would have a neutrally worded summary of the spin-out. It doesn't necessarily have to have the subheadings. If the content were duplicated, the spinout would better drop that content and be renamed something like Sahaja Yoga Description of Subtle System. --Simon D M (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is about whatever you want it to be about. Short introductory paragraph is fine.--Simon D M 22:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise