Talk:Siddha Yoga/Archive 1

message: Why I removed the history section.
Here is the removed text:
The group’s success in the west is founded on the work of Gurumayi’s predecessor Swami Muktananda (d. 1982) who brought the practices of chanting and meditation to a spiritually hungry west in the 70s and early 80's.  The group has always kept a fairly low public profile shunning the limelight sought by others such as Rajneesh, Hare Krishna  and Transcendental Meditation (TM). Students of Siddha Yoga come to it primarily by word of mouth and personal contact and its  followers are from diverse social and economic backgrounds. 
Siddha Yoga has been quick to adopt the modern technology of the international video link and internet as ways to keep its world-wide network of ashrams and meditation centres part of its global community. Currently there are centers in countries on each continent, western, eastern, and in First World, Second World and Third World countries.
The first line 
:The group’s success in the west is founded on the work of Gurumayi’s predecessor Swami Muktananda (d. 1982)
is technically correct.
However the rest of the line containing
:who brought the practices of chanting and meditation to a spiritually hungry west in the 70s and early 80's
is false.  Muktananda did not bring chanting and meditation to the west.  Chanting and meditation have been around in India and the west for hundreds of years.  Technically, it might be more accurate to say that Siddha Yoga originated in India and was brought to US and the west by Muktananda, though I am not sure how accurate that statement is.
The statement
:The group has always kept a fairly low public profile shunning the limelight sought by others such as Rajneesh, Hare Krishna  and Transcendental Meditation (TM).
Seems to be more an opinion than an actual statement of fact.  Plus there is no supporting evidence cited.  For example, did the original author contact anyone in the SYDA organization and ask if this is an official policy?
Likewise with the statement
:Students of Siddha Yoga come to it primarily by word of mouth and personal contact and its  followers are from diverse social and economic backgrounds. 
Again, did the original author verify his information.  This is a statement about the demographic makeup of the organization, and should be easily verified if the organization keeps such statistics.  So why is there no reference cited?
The line
:Siddha Yoga has been quick to adopt the modern technology of the international video link and internet as ways to keep its world-wide network of ashrams and meditation centres part of its global community
is again opinion, and not really history. 
Maybe it belongs in the description section.
Finally the line
:Currently there are centers in countries on each continent, western, eastern, and in First World, Second World and Third World countries.
is once again somewhat true, but there seems to be no effort on the part of the original author to supply supporting evidence, and really seems to be not su much about the history of SYDA but just another description.
Thanks for reading this.
TheRingess 03:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ringess, I would appreciate it if you made corrections to the article instead of only deleting things that may not be 100% accurated and verified. Andries 10:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I re-inserted the link to the New Yorker article because your objections to the article sound to me excessively skeptical. I will try to find the original article. Andries 10:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: The controversy section should describe attributed detailed criticisms, not an unattributed (probably personal) very general interpretation and speculation about the causes for this controvery. Unless it is attributed and sourced the controversy section seems to me like Wikipedia:no original research and will be deleted and rewritten. Andries 10:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not disagree with the analysis, but the controversy section should at least start with more concrete accusations and not with an analysis of the causes of the controversies without mentioning them. In general, this kind of unattributed opinions and comments have no place in Wikipedia. Andries 10:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This section was added by me to contain material originally added by anonymous user 163.1.207.79 on, 24 June 2005. I agree it is a defence without citing the accusations to which it is responding and should not remain on Wikipedia without more work. I will try to redraft it. Lumos3 16:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree too, I will delete the section.TheRingess 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the header also.TheRingess 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section is not according to Wikipedia guidelines

message: It would be helpful if people could sign their comments on this page so we could track the conversation and see where one person's comment leaves off and another person's takes up. To sign a post type four comments. 71.195.206.168 02:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean four tildes: the ~ symbol. Indium 02:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sign your posts?

message: Basically I still feel that the history section needs a lot of work.
For example, the line
"The group’s success in the west...."
needs to be expanded, clarified and sourced.
What is meant by the word "success"?  
When I have some time, I will work on the history section.
TheRingess 01:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History Section needs to be changed

message: Perhaps you want to keep an eye on 151.205.115.183. This user keeps deleting all the criticism in this article. Thanks. JHMM13 08:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Criticism 

message: I started a rewrite of the history section, to present more of a timeline of the main siddha yoga events.
TheRingess 09:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Started changing History section 

message: I don't see how a section titled "Beliefs " can be anything other than POV since it is describing what Siddha Yoga beleives. I think the inspired edit by 68.198.7.14 added considerably to the article and should be reinstated. 
NPOV does not mean an insipid view which offends no one , but that all views on a subject are given a clear exposition. Lumos3 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs 

message: I noticed that a previous editor asked why I shortened the descriptions of the links in this section.
I just felt that it looked a little nicer without all of the extra verbage.
For example, the official site does not need to say that there is information about programs...etc.  That much will be obvious to anyone visiting the site, and since it is the official site, one would expect that information to be available there. 
As another example, the student's website description did not need a run on sentence to describe the content.
This is just a personal viewpoint.  It's obvious that at least one other editor thinks it looks better with the extra wording included.
TheRingess 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to External Links 

message: I'm sorry I could not figure out how to put this comment on a separate page and I hope it does not mess up this page too much.
I believe that the article on Shakta Tantrism in Siddha Yoga by Sarah Caldwell qualifies as a verifiable reputable source since it is published in a scholarly journal of a well known large university by a scholar who has been a professor involved with indological studies at the college and university level, including as a visiting professor at Harvard Divinity School. Even though this article is somewhat controversial, it does present teachers and students in SYDA in both a positive and negative way.
Sarah Caldwell's article was posted on Leaving Siddha Yoga but dismissing a reference to her article because of that fact does not seem to be a valid criterion for deleting the reference.  The fact that the article was published by UC Press argues for the consideration of the article INDEPENDENTLY as a scholarly essay and research article, in addition to a personal account.  Perhaps some of the posts on Leaving Siddha Yoga web site can be dismissed as rantings of mentally disturbed people or mere "sour grapes", but I doubt that applies to Sarah Caldwell because she continued to follow the teachings of SY under S. Nityananda at least until 2001 and converted to Hinduism in 2002.  I can post the URL for this later if anybody is interested.
I did not insert the reference to Caldwell's article in the References section because it appeared to be broken and I could not figure out how to add it there without possibly breaking it even more.
Furthermore, I would like to reinsert Sharon Janis' book "Never To Return" as a source, after I see what the reaction to adding Sarah Caldwell's article is. The book is available on amazon.com, does have an ISBN number, and has been updated on her web site. Even though I believe that this book probably presents SYDA in an unjustifiably favorable light, still I think it does qualify as a verifiable source according to Wikipedia standards. Unfortunately there is not a lot of information on the SYDA site that does not sound as if it were produced by an advertising agency. For that reason, I think Sharon Janis' book is a refreshing alternative source, when compared to the SYDA web site.
Perhaps I misunderstand the standards and guidelines of Wikipedia, but according to my newbie reading of a little of it, mere references to both Caldwell's article and Janis' book do NOT constitute original research.  Furthermore, a verifiable source does not even need to be true, accurate, or unbiased, just verifiable.
Futhermore, I believe that Siddha Yoga should be disambiguated because I think that the Kashmir Shaiva Agamas, Shaiva Siddhananta Agamas, and Nath Sampradaya traditions of Siddha Yoga probably have more followers in India each by themself alone than the total current practicioners of SYDA derived Siddha Yoga.  However, being a newbie, I am certainly not eager to attempt this.  I believe that the more proper reference to the Siddha Yoga discussed in this article would be "Siddha Yoga (SM) SYDA".  The other mentioned siddha yogas have been traditional in India for centuries, if not more than a millenium.
Since the SYDA also claims the Yoga Gurus whose pictures it sells in its bookstore and displays in its ashrams are also Siddha Yogis, in a full and fair treatment of the disambiguation of Siddha Yoga, references to the web sites of those Siddha Yoga Gurus and to books about them should probably be given, so that the reader can decide for himself whether or not SYDA belongs to the traditions of those Gurus as claimed.
Alfalfahay 08:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the link because the article is already available on the LSY site.  Adding a link does not constitue "adding material".  If you had added material, that material would have to be judged on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, the article is not used as a source for any of the material on this page and neither is the Janis article.  Remember Wikipedia is not a link farm. For further reference, see WP:EL and WP:NOT.  If you wish to create a disambiguation page, then please do so.  Please do more than simply add links, please consider contributing more fully.TheRingess 08:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have added a mention of Sarah Caldwell's views expressed in her article in the criticism section and supported it with a reference to the article itself. The reference seems to meet all the standards set by wikipedia on citing sources. Lumos3 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to fit.  Though I'm not sure that the one sentence summary of the nearly 50+ page is an accurate summary.  I think I will rewrite the sentence.TheRingess 23:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and started a rewrite, mostly based on the abstract of the paper.  According to what I read of the article, it really doesn't talk much about SY per se, but more about Muktananda.  Since it is such a lengthy article, and by Caldwell's admission it was her own viewpoint and opinion (she does say this in the paper) I think we need to be careful when summarizing it down to a sentence.  The abstract of the paper is a good starting point.  It was published in a reputable journal, and peer reviewed so does seem to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion.  The paper does not seem to argue any points, just to present her viewpoint on the allegations.TheRingess 05:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Both groups were mentioned in the external links section.  Though both groups require membership.  And the guidelines on external links discourage linking to websites that require membership.  Feel free to Be Bold in the Wikipedia parlance and contribute to the article. Personally, I have no interest in writing about the website or either group, so if you don't do it, probably no one else will.TheRingess 14:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More On External Links 

message: Since there exists at least one other article relating to siddha yoga, I've decided to create a disambiguation page as suggested by a fellow editor.
I'm going to create an article called "siddha yoga (disambiguation)"
This new article will simply link to both this one and the shaiva siddhanta article.
At the top of this page I'll put a link back to the disambiguation page.
TheRingess 03:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: In the TENETS section, perhaps "God dwells within you as you" should be replaced by "Honor your Self, Worship your Self, Meditate on your Self, God dwells within you as you" in order to reflect more accurately the statement on the SYDA web site. 
http://siddhayoga.org/teachings/essential/essential.html
I do not intend to edit such a change myself, since I am not sure whether the existing brevity should be kept as a matter of style. BTW I agree that analysis of the details of SY lineage is beyond the scope of the article and of my own qualifications. Alfalfahay 16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to make the change.TheRingess 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Some helpful links that might answer your questions (and this is by far not an exhaustive list) are:  guidelines for citing sources, guidelines for verifiability, and wikipedia's guidelines for external links.  Also keep in mind that no one "owns" any article on Wikipedia.  If an edit of yours is deleted, you can always reinstate it.  If you feel that a fellow editor is unjustly deleting material or adding it and you feel you cannot reason with them, then there are arbitration processes in place.  One of the great things about WP is that every edit remains in the database, so if any editor is acting in bad faith and vandalising an article, then their will be plenty of evidence.  You might also wish to read wikipedia's guidelines on assuming good faith.  My reason for deleting the Pearce reference, was that 1) it provided no new material 2) it did not seem to fit in the tenets section as the statement itself did not refer to the tenets, it was simply a statement that Pearce wrote something.  You might wish to create a new section that might be more appropriate for the Pearce material. TheRingess 05:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenets, Aphorisms 

message: MEDITATION, CHANTING, SELFLESS SERVICE, STUDY AND CONTEMPLATION, DAKSHINA, HATHA YOGA are listed as Siddha Yoga practices here:
http://www.siddhayoga.org/practices-siddha-yoga.html
Perhaps "study and contemplation" and "hatha yoga" should be added to the list of practices in the WP SY article.
In addition, the WP SY article's discussion of practice of Satsang might be considered as "original research" according to WP guidelines. Perhaps a book reference or online reference might be in order on "satsang".
If "satsang" is included as a practice of SY, then I suggest that "intensives" should also be considered as such, viz. a "practice", since the SY "intensives" could rather accurately be described as ceremonies or rituals of initiation or shaktipat diksha.  The fact that shaktipat diksha (initiation) is considered to be a sine qua non of SY would further recommend its addition here, or somewhere in the article.  The use of the word ritual or ceremony is not intended to be derogatory in my use of it here at all, even tho' many in the West and elsewhere place such a connotation on these words.  The SY practice of "sadhana circles" may or may not be widespread in SY, but its functions and purposes are probably adequately covered under "study and contemplation" and "satsang".  Since I am not currently a follower of SY teachings, I do not intend to contribute these additions, however I thought they should be considered in light of the guidelines of WP and the official statements of SY. Alfalfahay 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't do it, probably no one else will.  Happy Editing!!!!TheRingess 00:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I just disproved my own statement.  I tightened the wording on Satsang to remove most of what would be original research.  I also gave a reference basically the SY glossary page.  I agree that it isn't a practice per se, maybe there could be a new section called programs in which both the intensive and satsang are included, but I'm too tired.   
It also might be worth pointing out here, that according to WP's guidelines anyone can edit this article regardless of whether or not they follow the SY teachings.  That kind of goes without saying. 
TheRingess 00:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practices section, additions? 

message: According to WP:CITE references not specifically cited in the body of the article should be listed under "Further Reading".  I believe this applies to the  book "Meditation Revolution".
Also, according to Wikipedia Tutorial (Keep in Mind) and WP:NPOV I do not yet see any good reason for excluding some reference to Pearce's book or Janis' book, and actually some justification *for* including them in some reference or further reading section.  One of the claimed goals of Wikipedia is to be informative, I believe.  Just because there apparently does not exist an anti-SY book with an ISBN is not a reason to exclude mere "further reading" references to Pearce's book or Janis' book (pro-SYDA) in the name of avoiding "undue weight" on the pro-SYDA side. Alfalfahay 06:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I see no reason to discount any book about SY from a Further Reading section.TheRingess 06:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References, "Meditation Revolution" 

message: The 1992 Hinduism Today article is not clear on whether SYDA considers the property given to Muktananda at Gavdevi to have been an Ashram *before* 1961, namely Shree Gurudev Ashram.  Therefore I merely changed the founding date to cover the range 1956 to 1961 as a temporary adjustment.  Perhaps somebody else will nail this down. To the best of my recollection the name change to Gurudev Siddha Peeth happened around the year that I started to study SY, that is, 1977. Alfalfahay 08:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History, Gurudev Siddha Peeth date 

message: The current version of this talk page is getting rather long.  So I think it might be time to archive.  Sept. 24 or 25 would probably be a good time since that should be time enough for all interested editors to read and respond to the current topics under discussion.
Just a heads up. TheRingess 14:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next Archive 

message: In case anybody wants to add a section about the other "predecessor" siddha yogis (whose pictures are sold by SYDA), I spent considerable time collecting links to sites about them and posted small excerpts and links at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/siddhayoga , which is a group whose archives are PUBLIC so nobody has to join to see all messages, Aug/Sept 2006 time frame.  I am not suggesting this article link there.  Just as a resource for editors, if so desired.  I have no interest in SY.  Therefore I have very little stamina left to continue trying to edit this article.  I am fearful of an organization like SYDA that mutilates it's own archives, and I think others should be wary. Alfalfahay 16:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siddha Yogis of the Siddha Yoga lineage 

message: As per my own suggestions elsewhere, I started this section.  And started it with Pearce, using as a reference the Bond of Power book.
I'm not really sure how much this adds to the article.
I'm using the word notable here in the way that I understand fellow Wikipedia editors use it.  
In other words, when determining when someone should be added to this section we should probably go by the guidelines set forth in WP:BIO.  
I would also suggest that we keep each person's entry somewhat short, 1 - 3 sentences, just for readability's sake.
TheRingess 06:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable students 

message: The concept of Mahasamadhi (and Samadhi) is an integral part of Hinduism. It is also traditional to refer to a Guru (Swami) as having taken (attained) Mahasamadhi - as opposed to died. Samadhi and Mahasamadhi within Wiki provide the details behind the meaning of these terms. The latter,in particular, illustrates the significance of the word Mahasamadhi in contrast to the word death. The concept of Samadhi is an integral concept in Raja Yoga and is the final stage in Patanjali's eight limbs of Yoga. Also, if one visits the shrines of many saints in India - these place are referred to as the Samadhi shrines (not graves or deathbeds). A search of Wiki with the word "Mahasamadhi" will show many examples of the term as used in this context. 
Wikipost (talk) (contribs) 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not disagree with any of that.  I feel that it's irrelevant in the context of this article and have listed my reasons below.  Hopefully we can get some more opinions on this matter.TheRingess 05:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahasamadhi 

message: There seems to exist a brief, minor disagreement, between myself and another user over the phrasing used to describe Muktananda's death.  The disagreement is over whether or not we should use the phrase "takes mahasamdhi" versus "dies".
My contention is that it's recorded and verifiable that Muktananda died on October 2, 1982.  And that the entry in the history section should read simply "1982 October 2 - Muktananda dies".  It also has the added benefit of being simple and direct.
Another editor wishes to replace the phrase with "Muktananda takes mahasamdhi".  
I contend that this phrase is not desirable for several reasons:
#"Takes mahasamadhi" is not a common English phrase.  For an average reader to understand what mahasamadhi means they are forced to go look it up in another article.  Since this is not an article full of technical jargon, there's no real reason why they should be forced to go look anything up.  So the phrase actually detracts slightly from the article.
#If you look up mahasamdhi you find the following sentence: "The difference between physical death and mahasamadhi is that death is not conscious and mahasamadhi is."  There are certain established, recognized procedures for ascertaining that a person has physically died.  They are accepted worldwide (no heartbeat, no brainwave activity, no breath, etc.).  I know of no universally accepted standards for determining that a person "consciously died".  And even if there were, I know of no sources that would meet WP:RS that actually verify that Muktananda died consciously.   I can only conclude that in this context, the phrase "takes mahasamdhi" represents a particular belief.  Hence, the phrase is neither verifiable nor neutral.  The best that might be said is "His students/follower/devotees believed that he took mahasamadhi".  Which would be find, if it was used as additional material, not just the sole entry.
TheRingess 05:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion Requested (not necessary anymore) 

message: This is regarding the suggestion to merge the new Shree Muktananda Ashram article into the Siddha Yoga article.
My original intent in creating Shree Muktananda Ashram was actually as a support for a possible article on the Bhagawan Nityananda Temple. There is a whole Wikipedia category on Hindu temples in the U.S. and I think the Bhagawan Nityananda Temple at Shree Muktananda Ashram should be included, not just for the benefit of people in Siddha Yoga, but anyone looking for the opportunity to visit. There are plenty of Indians in the states now, some of whom must be devotees of Nityananda but not necessarily part of Siddha Yoga. The point is, that Shree Muktananda Ashram might have significance for some people outside of Siddha Yoga, so it should have its own article.
Shree Muktananda Ashram is not only significant for the Nityananda temple, but for its place in the history of Sullivan County, NY, and its community involvement there. These are separate from its significance for Siddha Yoga.
MahaDave 14:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point.  Let's leave the tags up for a couple of days, and if no one else objects, we'll take them down. TheRingess (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, sounds good. I know you want to see the Siddha Yoga article expanded and improved. I'll put some effort into other ideas for that.MahaDave 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Shree Muktananda Ashram here 

message: A few days ago I added some text about the significance of Shaktipat Intensives in Siddha Yoga, namely that they are one of the most important distinguishing features of Siddha Yoga (which they are).
Someone removed this piece of text.
Maybe I'm too thin-skinned, but was there are particular reason for removing this passage?
Ditto, where I added a passage to the page on Shaktipat, saying that Gurumayi is one of the gurus who purportedly have the power of shaktipat.
This passge has also been removed. Once again, why?
I didn't mind when people removed some external links I added to some pages, because I didn't fully understand the policy on external links, but in this case it was perfectly legitimate text that was deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilrobertpaton (talk • contribs) 11:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shaktipat intensives 

message: Regarding the frequency of Shaktipat Intensives: they are definitely held more than once a year. Last year I went to two intensives myself, in June and October. They have always been held more frequently than one per annum. Not much point running a page like this one if you can't even find out the most basic facts. What a wank. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilrobertpaton (talk • contribs) 09:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that miscount.  Actually, I don't run this page.  I have no formal authority over this page or any other page for that matter.  I have listed myself as a maintainer, meaning I am someone interested in helping anyone who wishes to contribute to this article.  There is absolutely no implication that I am in charge of anything.  This article is on my watchlist, along with several dozen other articles, some related, some not.  When changes are made to this article, I try to double check them to ensure that the material added meets Wikpedia's two basic content policies:  attributability and neutrality.  The only authority that I have, is that authority granted to all contributors, the authority to question material that I believe doesn't fit the above guidelines.  This does not imply that I have the final say in what gets added to or removed from the article.  The community values and encourages polite discussion and consensus building when disagreements over content arise.  I still believe the material that you added was original research and have not changed my mind.  Thank you for pointing out below that one of the statements lacked a source, I provided a link to the mission statement, if you think that the material is still OR, then please feel free to rewrite it or remove it. If you feel you cannot discuss the material with me or any other interested editor, then there are alternatives ranging from a simple request for a 3rd opinion, to mediation resolution and finally, in extreme cases, to an arbitration ruling.  Welcome again.TheRingess (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more on shaktipat intensives 

message: You stated that my statements were "original material...It was not a statement of fact." Let's have a look at one of your own statements on the tenets of SY: "The central tenet of Siddha Yoga is that the goal of seekers is to find the Self, inner conscious, in all humans, and in everything." Are you saying that all seekers have this goal, without exception? As a Siddha Yoga devotee for fifteen years, I have never come across the statement that the goal of seekers is to find the Self. It would be ridiculous to make a general statement that all seekers have the goal of finding the Self. General statements like this are not made in SY. This statement looks more like an "original conclusion" than a statement of fact. You have not attributed this statement to anyone or specified a source. What factual foundation is this statement based on? In short, judge yourself by your own standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilrobertpaton (talk • contribs) 09:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not write the statement you reference.  You can look through the history and see who did.  I have never objected to it because it seemed supported by the SY Mission statement.  Since we cannot place copyrighted material on this page, the original contributor rewrote it.  I agree that it needs a reference, and am going to add it.TheRingess (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  original material or statement of fact? 

message: Hi,
Me again. What I was getting at is that, if one person goes around deleting people's contributions, we can all do it. The statement I referred to was just a good example of something that could be deleted because it doesn't specify a source and is questionable at best.
Why haven't you deleted that statement the way you deleted mine? Personally, I don't delete other people's text; I don't like it when they do it to me, so I don't do it to them. We can all do it to each other if we choose to, but where would it end? As a newcomer to Wiki, I have come to the conclusion that some people have a territorial attitude to certain articles, ie they think the article is their property. They don't like other people trespassing on their "property", so they delete the new material. Needless to say, this is completely against the spirit of Wiki. No-one owns an article.
Sorry -- I keep forgetting to sign my entries.
Neilrobertpaton 08:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleting people's contributions 

message: A fellow editor believes that the following statement contained in the tenets section represents original research.
The central tenet of Siddha Yoga is that the goal of seekers is to find the Self, inner consciousness, in all humans, and in everything. The aim of Siddha Yoga is to help every human being realize and experience that they and all other humans have an inner Self which is perfect and divine, and that a reachable goal is the end of human suffering and the attainment of supreme bliss.
Basically, I believe that it is supported by the SY mission and vision statement.  I did not add the material originally so do not know the actual source the original contributor used.  It does seem to me to be a rewording of the mission statement.  I have added the link to the appropriate page as reference.
TheRingess (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems appropriate to me, though I would recommend sourcing the four bullet points and the philosophical base statement that follows. Vassyana 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the following statement OR? 

message: The discussion starts in Talk:Siddha Yoga#shaktipat intensives.
Requester's statement:  Basically I feel that I have laid out my arguments regarding deletion of a specific sentence.  I base my argument on my belief that the deleted material was original research.  I feel that I am too close to the material to be objective about statements the other editor has made regarding "ownership" and "territoriality".  I can benefit from a review by a neutral 3rd party. My goal is to determine how I might have behaved as they describe or violated WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF.  I can then act to correct any wrong done.
TheRingess (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct in demanding adherence to WP:ATT and enforcing WP:NOR in sometimes controversial area of Wikipedia. You have made no accusations and launched no insults, so I think you're within bounds of CIVIL and AGF. It may have been more kind to slap it with a fact tag and notify the user it needs a reference, but that is not necessary. I would recommend you take that kind of action in the future, provided the information added is not obviously biased, poisonous or detrimental to the article. However, you did nothing wrong that I can see. Vassyana 04:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for 3rd Opinion 

message: I apologise if my comments were taken personally by The Ringess or anyone else. My comments were a personal impression and were not directed at anyone in particular. I stand by my impression - and it is just a personal impression - that some people seem to think they own certain articles. For example, I added some text to the article on Rose Byrne, but a few days later it was gone. It was completely relevant, accurate and legit. Why was it deleted? The only explanation I can think of is that someone thinks he owns the article. As I said, if we all went around deleting things that look "questionable", there would be nothing left. Wiki would be a collection of blank pages. Wiki has given us the privilege of being able to delete as well as add. Perhaps we shouldn't have that privilege. I for one don't intend to use this privilege, unless I see something that is grossly out of place, ie inaccurate, pornographic or otherwise abusive. Once again, my apologies if my statements were taken personally.
Neilrobertpaton 09:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of WP:OWN, but rather a matter of people demanding adherence to WP:ATT and WP:NOR. You will find in biographical articles and controversial articles that these standards are interpreted even more strictly. Hope that helps. Be well! Vassyana 15:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More on deleting other people's contributions

message: What we could use on Wiki is a general discussion board, where we could discuss general matters pertaining to Wiki. The matters I've been talking about lately are of a general nature, not restricted to Siddha Yoga. Does anyone know if there is a general discussion board?
Neilrobertpaton 10:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What we need around here

message: I have added a couple of sentences to the passage about shaktipat in the Practices section. It is sourced directly from the SY website, so I trust there won't be any controversy about it (I hope).
Neilrobertpaton 10:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shaktipat intensives 

message: I uploaded two pix today, but can't find them anywhere. Can anyone see them?
Neilrobertpaton 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The images you included have a very clear copyright notice.  Please read WP:COPYVIO.  In essence, wikipedia does not allow copyrighted material.  If the copyright notices were placed in error, please remove those notices.TheRingess (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: found them
Neilrobertpaton 12:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: again

message: In the second paragraph, the article states that "As of 2007, the guru is a woman, Gurumayi Chidvilasananda (born June 24, 1955)."  My thinking is that it would be more appropriate to say, in whatever wording is appropriate, that Gurumayi became the guru in 1982, and that she is still the guru as of 2007.  Does this make sense to you all out there?  I respect the rules about how things are worded, so if you agree that this would be an appropriate edit, what wording might be best to say this?  Would it be appropriate to say "Muktananda appointed (or named or ?) a woman, Gurumayi Chidvilasananda as his successor in 1982, and she is the current guru as of 2007"?  Any other suggestions?
If you don't agree that this would be an appropriate edit, why do you disagree?
Namaste
Adventurer96 06:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your suggestion. How about linking to the list of Ashrams and Siddha Yoga Meditation Centers 
http://www.siddhayoga.org/community/centers/index.html
MahaDave 17:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference to Gurumayi as the the current guru 

message: I have expanded the text as proposed and agreed upon. I hope everyone likes the results. Let us know here if you have any reservations.
Neilrobertpaton 09:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to make those changes.  I would suggest that we move Gurumayi's initiation description into the article about her, although I have no real strenuous objection to it's inclusion here.TheRingess (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: I would like to bring up the subject of the external link to Leaving Siddha Yoga. I personally feel that this website is biased against Siddha Yoga and does not present a neutral or impartial point of view. SY has no right of reply and it seems to me that this link is inappropriate. What do others think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilrobertpaton (talk • contribs) 09:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good subject to bring up.  In my experience, the two policies that govern inclusion/exclusion of links are policies/guidelines on external links and guidelines on neutrality.  According to the npov policy, neutrality means that an article should represent all significant viewpoints.  As such, the LSY website does seem to represent a significant viewpoint.  It is also referenced as a source for some of the statements on this page.  Perhaps it does not represent an impartial viewpoint, but the neutrality guidelines seem to suggest that it doesn't need to.  To include the link to the official SY website and not include a link to the LSY website might could be interpreted as a violation of the neutrality guidelines.  I have removed other links in this section, favorable or critical for other reasons.  For example, there are 5 or 6 yahoo groups that in one way or another discuss SY.  Some of them require membership, in general, we don't link to websites/groups that require membership.  The others seem to contain a lot of spam, and for that reason, cannot serve as reliable sources.  For other websites, we have to be careful to not give one viewpoint or another undue weight, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight.  In general, regarding external links on Wikipedia, the idea seems to be that less is better.  A common phrase is "Wikipedia is not a link farm" (see what Wikipedia is not).  From what I've seen recently, the trend seems to be instead of an article having more than just 2 or 3 external links, editors are adding the  which basically provides a link to a category in the open directory project.  I hope that helps.TheRingess (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leaving Siddha Yoga

message: Further on the same subject, I'm not sure Neutral Point Of View requires that we present every view on the subject. For example, if you did an article on the history of Christianity, you wouldn't feel obliged to cover every point of view on the subject: atheist, agnostic, existentialism Marxist and so on. Neutral point of view doesn't require that.
I also think there may be an issue of undue weight with LSY. Given all the sites on SY (including mine), why give special treatment to LSY?
Debate invited.
Sardaka 08:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the principal collection of articles critical of Siddha yoga the link would be essential reading to anyone who consulted an encyclopedia to find out more on the subject. I don’t believe that its inclusion offends any of Wikipedia’s principals but its removal almost certainly would.    Lumos3 09:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The neutrality guidelines state that we should include all major viewpoints, not every single viewpoint.  Read guidelines about undue weight.  Once we start including every website we find on the web about SY we run the risk of giving undue weight to minority viewpoints.   We also run the risk of giving one viewpoint more coverage and look like we are endorsing a given viewpoint over every other.  Wikipedia is not a link farm and it's not a search engine.  Right now the external links has the two major websites about SY, if a reader wishes more info, they can go to google and read more and decide for themselves which links are helpful.TheRingess (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leaving Siddha Yoga again

message: The article is missing the history of the movement in any detail.
*Early development in India
*Muktananda’s early visits to America and other western countries.
*Establishment of first ashrams in the west and their locations.
*Involvement of celebrities.    Lumos3 10:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Thanks for bringing this up.  Some of this was mentioned in the peer review.  I tried to start a section on celebrity involvement.  The trouble was finding independant sources where the celebrities mentioned that they were involved.  For example, I believe John Denver was, but have yet to find a publication in which he himself discussed his involvement.  I think Harris mentioned him, but I don't remember.  We would also need a disclaimer to the effect that their current involvement might not be known. I added your suggestions to the To Do List.TheRingess (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Since some people have suggested that the history should be expanded, I have worked out a few paragraphs that do this. I thought I would put it up in the next few days and people can comment. Then we can take it from there. At this stage I'm only concentrating on the early years, from Nityananda to Fallsburg.
Sardaka 09:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: I changed the first sentence to something I thought was more suitable, but I see someone has changed it back to the first version, in which SY is described as practising traditional Hindu practices. I doubt very much if SY would say they are practising "traditional Hindu practices". SY is an autonomous organization and they have never, to my knowledge, described themselves as Hindu. I know someone who was hauled over the coals at an SY ashram for telling someone it was Hindu.
I suggest we try to clear this up now. Does anyone have any evidence that SY is officially a Hindu organization? If not, can we get rid of the Hindu label forthwith?
The opening sentence could say something to the effect that SY is a spiritual organization teaching Indian philosophy and spiritual practices, for example.
Sardaka 09:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click on the History tab you can find out who made the change and contact them on their talk page.  SY does say that their philosophies are based on Kashmir shaivism and advaita vedanta, both of which are considered by many to be branches of Hinduism. On the other hand, removing one word is not a big deal.  I'm not concerned either way.  Why not just drop the word Indian as well.  Are the practices necessarily Indian?  If you contact the person who objected on their talk page, you might get a little farther.  Don't get into a revert war over a minor detail.TheRingess (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu?

message: As I said I would do previously, I have rewritten the first few paragraphs to provide more detail on the early history of SY, since it was generally agreed that there was a need for more history. Comments are now invited and we can take it from here.
Sardaka 10:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. It needs some cross linking to other articles. Weave it into the web of knowledge across Wikipedia. Lumos3 10:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work.  This fragment seems a little vague to me "...who had been dedicated to the spiritual path".  Which spiritual path was he on?  The sentence also makes it sound like there is only one spiritual path.TheRingess (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: I thought it was worth mentioning that no-one knew where Nitya came from or where he was born, which I put in the first  or second sentence, because it is relevant info, just as his birthplace and DOB would be relevant if we had them. Should I put it back in?
Sardaka 12:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them because the linked article Bhagawan Nityananda, gives his place of birth and approximate date. Therefore, somebody does know. IPSOS (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nityananda

message: I rang the manager's office at Fallsburg and was assured that Siddha Yoga is not Hinduism. Indian origins, yes, but it is not Hinduism. Unfortunately, I forgot to ask about Gurumayi herself, but presumably the answer would be the same. I'm still waiting to hear from info@sy for their version of it.
The reason I keep harping on it is that, if SY is not Hindu, then we're misleading people who read the article.
The new historical material is developing really well.I see someone tracked down the Time article with Muktananda in it. Good work.
Sardaka 10:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the opening sentence accurate?  Are the practices of SY "traditional Indian practices"?  If so, how are they different from Hindu practices or meditation/chanting practices from other countries?  My thought is that if SY isn't Hindu, then it's probably not any more accurate to call their practices "traditional Indian practices".  However I can't think of a way to reword the intro.  Thanks for taking the time to contact the manager's office.   In my opinion, the best way to resolve this question is to ensure that we write an accurate and informative article about the history/practices/tenets of SY.  Then an interested reader can decide for themselves how SY is similar to and/or different from not just branches of Hinduism but all religions/spiritual paths.TheRingess (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu? Moi?

message: I understand the need to honor everyone's input, but the term 'Hindu Kashmir Saivism lineage' is a pretty awkward construction in my opinion. I'd like to suggest either 'Guru in a lineage of the Hindu tradition of Kashmir Shaivism', or 'Hindu Kashmir Saivite lineage' as a replacement. I also want to add the caveat that Gurumayi has never called her lineage a Kashmir Shaivite lineage that I know of. Swami Muktananda said only that Kashmir Shaivism is the philosopy that most closely resembles Siddha Yoga. Kashmir Shaivism is only one of the traditions referenced in Gurumayi's teachings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MahaDave (talk • contribs) 02:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The history tab would answer your question.  I will since I removed it for practical reasons.  The section already had a reference to the essential teachings page that supports all of the statements in the section, not just the statements about the aphorisms, so an extra reference at the end seemed unnecessary.TheRingess (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I really wonder too. Was Nityananda Hindu? Muktananda? When does a clearly Hindu paramapara based on clearly Hindu texts and practices become non-Hindu? It seems perfectly appropriate to list other influences. It seems downright against common sense to not acknowledge that Shaivism is Hindu, that Kashmir Shaivism is Hindu, that bhakti is Hindu, that the Guru Gita is Hindu, etc. IPSOS (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kashmir Shaivism 

message: I think there should be a more prominent mention of the Shaktipat intensives. The website makes it clear that it is an important part of SY practice, but at the moment there is nothing about it. There used to be a mention of it, but the gremlins removed it.
Sardaka 09:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I removed that section.  The brief material that was in that section is now in the History section.  It seemed to me to be redundant to have that section.  The section was not so much about intensives but about shaktipat.  It's just my opinion that the shaktipat section should have more information than what is contained in the history section.TheRingess (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaktipat Intensive

message: I know that most if not all of the SY literature is copyrighted.  There is a passage in the history section that seems to be copied verbatim from the book Ashes at my Guru's feet.  Does anyone have an argument that this is not a copyright violation?  Is its usage here "fair use"? TheRingess (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, my words were: "I also like the idea of adding information about her initiation process".  I then went on to say to use the book as a reference.  I did not say add copyrighted material.  I have reinstated the material Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text supports its inclusion.TheRingess (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright violation?