Talk:Eckankar/Archive 2

Broken Link
Apologize this is not the correct way to do. Ref 13 link to VA is broken. New link is: http://www.cem.va.gov/hmm/emblems.asp Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.42 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

spirit, soula and body
does your teachings include that we as people are spirit, soul and body? and that our spiirt includes three parts, those parts being our consceince, imagination and our intuition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda.brooks32 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section
I couldn't help noticing that the criticism section fails to summarize the criticism, and in fact seems crafted to obscure it rather than clarify it. DrSocPsych (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly after reading the page. It felt like I was reading the about section of their facebook page. The criticism section wasn't even criticism and it was rather confusing what the point even was. This page seems to be written by eckists with no objectivity. 70.139.68.205 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * DrSocPsych I also doubt about the notability. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest being BOLD and editing the article by adding actual criticism from reliable media and academic sources. DrSocPsych (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia's policy is to favor integrating material into an article rather than having it relegated to a criticism section. And this particular criticism section is about as poorly written as any I've seen on Wikipedia. I think what I wrote was clear, and a similar point in the criticism section did not come across well (in fact, seemed intentionally obfuscatory), but my well-cited addition was deleted by someone "policing" the article for negative comments. I suggest we eliminate the criticism section and integrate material into the article. DrSocPsych (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No one has commented, so I will revert the ill-advised deletion of important, cited material I added in an appropriate place. It does not "belong in the criticism section" in my opinion. Supporters, especially those affiliated with Landmark, should be careful editing this article so as not to violate Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest. DrSocPsych (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the template that seems misleading: redundancy is not the issue; bias in editing this article is. Replaced with appropriate template. DrSocPsych (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms belong in the criticism section. This is not an article on the "Controversies of Eckankar".. It is an article on Eckankar. This site has a Criticism's section specifically for such commentary. I have not edited within the criticism section for exactly that reason. If it is disjointed, it us up to one of the critics to edit it into a coherent narrative. But the narrative I have done in the other sections is only degraded by the derogatory opinions of Dr. Lane. Isn't there also some sort of rule against someone citing himself in the third person. I believe that DrSocPsych is Dr. David Lane and he keeps inserting self-referential lines. Sarunfeldt (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) User talk:Sarunfeldt
 * Sarunfeldt reveals a common mindset among cult members, that any criticism must be from a small group of suppressive persons, and not the conclusion drawn by an objective person representative of the larger public. No, I am not David Lane. I have no connection to Eckankar other than a professional interest in new religious movements / cults, and having seen a few promotional pieces and having a short conversation with an adherent around 1980. I don't think "keeps inserting" is an appropriate characterization of my having composed something coherent (unlike what's in the criticism section), and restoring it once when it was deleted without good reason ("the narrative I have done in the other sections is only degraded by the derogatory opinions of Dr. Lane."). DrSocPsych (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, "Wikipedia's policy is to favor integrating material into an article rather than having it relegated to a criticism section." I also mentioned, "Supporters, especially those affiliated with Landmark, should be careful editing this article so as not to violate Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest." Sarunfeldt, who clearly has an association with Landmark, should not delete cited material just because he disagrees with it or considers it "derogatory." DrSocPsych (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the mostly incoherent (and largely supportive!) criticism section in favor of integrating the material into the text (retaining only one concise criticism); this method is preferred in Wikipedia according to its policies. If anyone thinks a valid, sourced criticism should be retained that wasn't, please add it back to the article under the appropriate topic section. DrSocPsych (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

———————————————————

The notion that controversial and contested criticism belongs within the descriptive narrative is specious at best. I refer the reader to the Wikipedia page on the Catholic Church. There are many anti-Catholics with many well documented criticisms of the Church, but those criticisms do not appear side by side with the basic descriptions of Catholic theology on the Catholic Church Wikipedia page. There is a section on the recent child abuse issue. But the basic article provides information for people who want to know what the beliefs and history of the Catholic Church are. The criticisms are also available, but in their appropriate places.

The main body of the Eckankar page provides an objective description of the Eckankar religon, beliefs and practices. It does not present these from the perspective of a member. For example, under History, it says "Although Paul Twitchell founded Eckankar in 1965, Eckists believe that the basis for the Eckankar teachings dates back beyond the beginning of human existence" It does not say simply "The Eckankar teachings date back beyond the beginning of human existence.", which would not be a neutral presentation. The article, as written is a compilation of many independent contributions. I am not the sole or even the primary author.

I have clearly identified myself by my real name and my interest in this subject. Does Wikipedia ban Catholics from contributing to the Catholic page or Muslims from contributing to the Muslim page? Who is DrSocPsych? What is his real name and what are his real credentials. Conservative and Evangelical Christian attacks on non-Christian religions are not reliable sources. Sources that refer to Eckankar or any other religion with the derogatory term "cult" are not legitimate for inclusion in Wikipedia, except perhaps under the heading "Criticism". And I have had nothing to do with the writing of the criticism section. If it is disjointed that is because the critics have been disjointed. If DrSocPsych doesn't like the Criticism section, then let him rewrite it. I do agree that in order to be neutral all of that information should remain, but it should not be used to distract from the information in the other sections. Sarunfeldt (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

–––––––––––––––––––––

Wow, Sarunfeldt thinks this article is neutral! Maybe he needs to read Wikipedia policy: "Under Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, articles must present differing viewpoints on the subject matter fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive. The policy of verifiability requires attributing all viewpoints to reliable, published sources, with appropriate citations. Wikipedia's policy against original research, in addition to the NPOV requirement, forbids editors from favoring their own point of view. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons requires exercising special care in presenting negative viewpoints about living persons.

Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSocPsych (talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

——————————

DrSocPsych clearly misstates Wikipedia policy regarding articles on religions:

For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets.

DrSocPsych also misstates my position and connection to Eckankar and slanders me with the epithet "cult member". The anonymous DrSocPsych clearly has a bias on this subject and may not be capable of producing a neutral article. I have not written most of what appears in this article. I have merely been an editor. I have not deleted criticisms, but in strict accordance with Wikipedia policy, I have put criticisms into a separate criticism section. But I have not rewritten them. Perhaps DrSocPsych would like to rewrite the criticism section. Hopefully he will include both sides of any controversies. He could start by identifying his own prejudices in this discussion, as I have done.

The key to neutral reporting is not pretending that the author has no bias, but transparency and revelation of where those biases may lay. My undergraduate degrees are also in the Social Sciences (Anthropology and Psychology) from Brandeis University and my graduate work was at The Rockefeller University in Neurobiology, Genetics, and Behavioral Sciences and at Georgia State University in Comparative Psychology. I am trained as a scientist and to write objectively.

When DrSocPsych decides to adhere to Wikipedia policy regarding articles on religions, I will be more than happy to critique David Lane's biases and the faults in his analysis. Sarunfeldt (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Followers of David Lane
This page has once again been hacked by a follower of former Sant Mat member David Lane. Once again the perpetrator has tried to denigrate the religion of Eckankar under the guise of being a scholar. Unfortunately he or she fails to follow Wikipedia policy.

Philosophy, religion, or politics[edit] For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets.

[]

--Sarunfeldt (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of independent, academic, scholarly opinion on Eckankar by someone who has a clear Conflict of Interest
Dear you can't just keep removing independent, academic, scholarly opinion on Eckankar. This page cannot be allowed to become an advertisment for Eckankar with the source material about Eckankar coming from the organization itself. You also need to be careful before edit warring on this page since you have a clear conflict of interest with respect to this organization as per this diff ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:McSly&diff=prev&oldid=522601139 ) where you write that: "I have been a member of Eckankar for almost 40 years and am a member of the ECK clergy."

If you think that independent, academic, scholarly opinion on aspects of Eckankar can only be given in the 'Criticism' section and the rest of the article should simply be an advertisement for Eckankar then you are mistaken. That is not how Wikipedia works. Also, your allegation that i am indulging in vandalism is not in good faith considering you have a clear conflict of interest with the organization and considering i am only inserting sourced material from a reliable source. Soham321 (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Soham321,

According to Wikipedia guidelines on pages dealing with religion, criticisms belong in the criticism section. " Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets." It does not matter whether that criticism masquerades as "scholarly" or not. There is a section on the page for criticism and that is where the David Lane attacks on Eckankar and the integrity of its founders and leaders belong.

I refer you to the Wikipedia guidelines on criticism of religion pages []

In addition your edits today were excessive and solely focused on David Lane. David Lane is not an unbiased source. He was a follower of the Sant Mat religion and believes that any similar religion must derive from that tradition. Eckankar is not a derivative of Sant Mat. Yet your edits today were peppered throughout the Eckankar page, creating the very kind of confusion that Wikipedia warns against.

As to your accusation of my having a "conflict of interest", do you suggest to ban contributions to the Eckankar page by any members of the religion? Would you also ban Catholics from editing pages related to Catholicism or Muslims from commenting on Islam?

I do not see any clear description of who you really are or your credentials. Can I assume that you are a biased conservative theologian who goes around attacking other religions under the guise of being a "scholar"? What are your credentials?

And please stop attacking other people's religions.

--Sarunfeldt (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what is David Lane's religious or philosophical affiliation. He is a well known academic, and the content that i had inserted was from a published work of his. That is sufficient to include his views on the main article. Also, i had used one other reference (a 2015 book by Andrea Diem Lane) besides David Lane which was corroborating what David Lane says. I was going to add this second book reference to many of the places where i have cited David Lane  because this second book corroborates whatever David Lane has written. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement for Eckankar. Your claim that i am attacking other people's religion is baseless and not in good faith. I am simply adding content into the main article which is academic, scholarly opinion on Eckankar and not material that is sourced directly from Eckankar itself--which would transform the Wikipedia page into an advertisment. Soham321 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Soham321 David Lane is not a well known academic outside of the area of criticism of certain specific religions, primarily Eckankar. His published work on Eckankar is entirely critical and derogatory. Nevertheless, as specified in Wikipedia guidelines, his criticisms are included in the Criticism section.

Andrea Diem Lane is married to David Lane. Her writing on this is entirely derivative and cannot reasonably be considered confirmation of his writing. In addition to that, your shotgun approach to editing today left no opportunity to selectively remove the offending items and keep that one.

And you continue to ignore the Wikipedia rules regarding criticism on religion pages. You can put all of your criticism of Eckankar into that section. Any academic who is looking for criticism can find it there.

Please follow the Wikipedia guidelines or I will report you for spamming. I see that it won't be the first time you have violated the rules.

Sarunfeldt (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your indirect assertion that the entire article, with the exception of the Criticism section, should be an advertisement for Eckankar is not acceptable to me. Secondly, both David and Andrea Lane are academics, and Professors. The works being cited are published works. Your claim that Andrea Lane's work is a derivative work constitutes original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Your claim that David Lane's views on Eckankar are 'entirely critical and derogatory' is no good ground for not including those views in the main article particularly since you have a clear conflict of interest with this organization. You are in no position to make the kind of derogatory claims you are making about David Lane's scholarship due to your conflict of interest. I think by your actions and statements you have revealed that you deserve a topic ban on this page since otherwise you will insist on transforming this page into an advertisement for Eckankar (leaving only the 'Criticism' section for including in the page academic/scholarly opinion on this organization). Soham321 (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia guidelines on pages dealing with religion is simply untrue. The item referred to is a personal essay, not a guideline. While some essays carry substantial support - eg: WP:BRD - I have never even seen this one mentioned before. The article as a whole is a complete mess, in particular with regard to repetition, and it would clearly benefit from the input of neutral contributors. I may go further: a brief look at the history and this talk page suggest to me that Sarumfeldt quite probably should avoid editing the article itself at all, per WP:COI. - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarunfeldt, I agree with Sitush. Your repeated assertions that the essay is Wikipedia policy or guideline is completely incorrect. You also seem to have violated WP:3RR and have incorrectly called edits vandalism. Looking over your contribution history, it is clear you are a single-purpose account. Note this: Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." To move forward, I suggest additions be proposed below in a new talk page section and judged according to actual policies and guidelines. --Neil N  talk to me 12:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Worship
Regarding this information, which has been tagged as requiring a citation since 2012. Eckankar apparently had around 50,000 followers in the 1990s and unless there has been some sort of phenomenal growth since that time it seems very unlikely that the statement can be adequately verified. "Major cities" and "local areas" are subjective terms anyway but just apply a bit of common sense: with 50,000 divided between at least least a few thousand big cities in the US and then also in other parts of the world, they're getting close to being solo services. It isn't good enough. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Addition of material without giving any reference by Sarunfeldt
Sarunfeldt added the words 'former follower of Sant Mat' in describing David Christopher Lane in the Criticism section. He has done this without providing any reference/source. I ask him to provide a reliable reference for this information.Soham321 (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's sort out the issues relating to Lane before we add back any of the material you have just posted in sections above. Aside from the alleged religious affiliation, what objections might there be to considering Lane as a reliable source? And, on the other side of the coin, what makes him reliable? (I know he is an academic but I am trying to approach this with an open mind). - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This 5 minute youtube video has Lane talking about how we first got interested in writing about Eckankar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0r7hSyks6A Soham321 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am deaf - YouTube is YouSless to me, sorry, as I can't hear a word and the live subtitling facility is gibberish when it exists at all. Concentrate on his relevant academic qualifications (or lack of them), I think. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

ok, so Lane says that what got him interested in Eckankar was that as an undergraduate student he had written a term paper on Eckankar for one of his courses. In writing this term paper, Lane noticed that Twitchell was doing large scale plagiarizing from Julian Johnson's 'Path of the Masters'. He then got really into it, and his term paper ended up being 150 pages long. He then decided that Eckankar might want to take a look at his term paper and he mailed it to them.(Lane was 20 years old at this time.) Either at the end of this video, or in the next part of this video he says that Eckenkar responded to him by saying that if he published his term paper they would sue him for 2.5 million dollars. This only got him more excited and piqued his curiosity further. He was not afraid of being sued because he came from a family of lawyers. His father, brother-in-law, and sister were lawyers. Lane's term paper was later revised by him and published as a book called The Making of a Spiritual Movement. This was the first academic study done of Eckankar according to Lane.Soham321 (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the summary. I'd be somewhat dubious of a source written originally as a term paper when the student was 20 years old. It probably would help if we could show that other academics etc have since cited or reviewed that book. I'll try to do some digging around later. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And that is why i did not use that book in my edits. I used the following reference when using Lane's writings in my edits. Soham321 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Another source i used was this one: This is a book written by Andrea Diem Lane who i believe happens to be David Christopher Lane's wife. She is also an academic ( a full Professor). Soham321 (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't think we can really do any more until the block of expires or is lifted. They're entitled to rebut and there is no deadline here. If Sarunfeldt returns and continues their poor behaviour then I'd imagine that an option would be to topic ban them rather than go down the route of escalating blocks - they are, after all, clearly a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * - do you have anything to say here? - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. One question: can we include a summary of the following material, from David Christopher Lane's blog, in the Criticism section: http://dlane5.tripod.com/stev.html Soham321 (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not yet, and perhaps not at all. Blogs are dodgy sources at the best of times, and hosting it on Tripod doesn't inspire much confidence. Let's see the rebuttal (if any). Then, if Lane survives that, you can take the blog to WP:RSN for an opinion if there is continuing doubt. Personally, I'd rather just stick with books and articles published by reputable presses, regardless of the standing of an individual. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, what do you think of this: https://web.archive.org/web/20070703171210/http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/dodie.html Soham321 (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

From the Lane interview at: https://web.archive.org/web/20070703171210/http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/dodie.html

"So who do you think Rebazar Tarzs really is?"

"Probably a composite cover name for three people: Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, which was started 500 years ago; Sawan Singh, who was Kirpal Singh's guru; and Swami Premananda. Whereas Sudar Singh [another memorable character in Twitchell's cosmology] is a straight cover for Kirpal Singh." Soham321 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is no better (geocities - self-published) and, yet again, I do not see the point in pushing this until Sarunfeldt has a chance to respond. They get *one* chance off me, after which they'll get no more pussyfooting around. - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you click on the link you will notice that the geocities article contains the original version of a 1995 article published in the San Diego Reader: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/1995/jun/22/cover-hi-fubbi-this-is-gakko/ Soham321 (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Monotheistic or Pantheistic II
Seems like "Eckankar is a monotheistic religion[citation needed]" was eliminated from the article. I was involved in the religion through my teens and young adulthood, as well. The citation I think which is from Eckankar's website which would make clear their view/teachings of this question is a pdf titled "The Worlds of Eck". I don't remember if the earlier charts used the world "ruler" for each plane or not, but each one of those "rulers" is a divine being that is in charge of an entire plane of existence. Eckankar doesn't teach worship those beings, however I think any religion that acknowledged immortal beings that rule an entire plane of existence could easily be considered a God. The fact that Eckankar doesn't use this language or openly teach this doesn't change the obvious pluralism of deities.

Zerostatetechnologies (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eckankar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403073415/http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/classnotes9.htm to http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/classnotes9.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Criticism
Is it true that the only criticisms of Eckankar have to do with plagiarism? Are tere no critiques of its theology or practices?--JackBnimble10 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Money & Scientology
Why is there no mention of the fact that this religion was developed to copy the business model of L. Ron. Hubbard's Scientology? There is also no mention of the hundreds of dollars charged for each course in Eckankar. It would appear that these articles have been sanitised by Eckists.121.73.7.84 (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Content removal
, could you please explain the content removal that you did previously of cited material? I'm also pinging for a third opinion as he is an editor who works in bias and conflict of interest since you've claimed that I appear to be promoting a fundamentalist agenda here. I actually don't have any opinion on the article itself other than that removal of sourced negative information about the group should be explained and that copyrighted content should not be added. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Watching.. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * RickDavis, you removed negative content and added copyright-violating content:
 * diff, first edit, 20:56, 21 June 2017
 * diff 11:11, 22 June 2017
 * diff 15:11, 22 June 2017

You have been warned about COPYVIO and edit warring:
 * 1st copyvio warning
 * 2nd copyvio warning
 * 3RR warning

Please come and discuss your proposed changes. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What about MSIA?
MSIA & John-Rogers appears to be omitted as another direct spin-off from Eckankar and a much more well known one in some ways than Eckankar itself thanks to Ariana Huffington.

76.103.251.99 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)jbrave

Re: please use independent sources
Jytdog,

Sorry for not leaving a comment with my edit. I do not edit Wikipedia all of the time, and goofed in leaving my reasons.

You cited "please use independent sources". But my additions were regarding the practices promoted by Eckankar. So the sources cited were primary sources supporting the statements of fact that I added to the article. Many other references throughout the article are primary sources. This is standard practice in other Wikipedia articles on religion.

For example, the article on the Catholic Church opens with "The Catholic Church holds that there is one eternal God, who exists as a perichoresis ("mutual indwelling") of three hypostases, or "persons": God the Father; God the Son; and God the Holy Spirit, which together are called the "Holy Trinity".[86]" where reference 86 is to the Vatican website.

Under the Church of England we find the following passage, "The canon law of the Church of England identifies the Christian scriptures as the source of its doctrine. In addition, doctrine is also derived from the teachings of the Church Fathers and ecumenical councils (as well as the ecumenical creeds) in so far as these agree with scripture. This doctrine is expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal containing the rites for the ordination of deacons, priests, and the consecration of bishops.[27]" where reference 27 is to Canon A5. Canons of the Church of England.

Not much has been written about Eckankar that is secondary in nature other than by detractors from other narrow religious traditions, so without primary sources the entire article on Eckankar would be negative.

From Wikipedia guidelines:

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[3]

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy. Policy shortcuts: WP:ANALYSIS WP:AEIS A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.[7] Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

My edits were not opinions. They were factual statements, pertaining to Eckankar's recommended practices with references that simply support those facts.

Thanks,

Sarunfeldt (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Building an article with sources from a movement "captures" the page and makes an instrument of the movement. That is not what we do here nor what WP pages are for. Every policy and guideline says that articles should be built from independent, secondary sources.   The places where WP shines, are places where editors did what they should.  Acts of love.  There are lots of places where WP has been turned into advocacy and advertisement, where editors did what they could; acts of abuse, to benefit some entity external to Wikipedia.  Those are places where WP is dark, ugly, and distorted.
 * Where do you want to be on that spectrum? An abuser of WP or someone who makes it shine?
 * Are you here on behalf of Wikipedia and its mission or to benefit this movement? Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I find your last comment/question to be argumentative and unproductive. My goal in this edit was simply to improve the quality of the Eckankar Wikipedia page. You seem to be implying that this is a conflict with the goals of Wikipedia.

You wrote "Every policy and guideline says that articles should be built from independent, secondary sources." That is not true - not "every policy and guideline" says that. You may have more experience on Wikipedia than I, but you clearly have not read the statement above regarding primary sources. "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." They may be used.

In this case there are no secondary sources available, but the practice of Soul Travel, as defined by Eckankar, is central to any understanding of the religion. Requiring only secondary sources diminishes the article. The references I cited are books, not links to web pages. Literary references are incapable of "capturing" a page.

Will you now go through the pages for the Catholic Church, the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Buddhists, Judaism, etc. and remove all primary references?

This is unfairly discriminatory. Your obsession with secondary sources appears to be, at least in this case, counter-productive and detrimental to Wikipedia's overall mission.

Sarunfeldt (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

More on Primary Sources from Wikipedia

""Primary" does not mean "bad"

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."

...

"An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., "OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X"), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective descriptions of the organization including annual revenue, number of staff, physical location of headquarters, and status as a parent or child organization to another. It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women")."

Also see the Wikipedia guidelines on religion

"Most beliefs of religions are opinions, and hence can neither be proved nor disproved as facts. That a religion believes certain things (with reliable sources to establish that this is the case) is a fact. "

"Religion is not Fringe"

"Although a following of believers within a certain religion may not number in some cases more than the tens or hundreds, religious articles about them or their beliefs should not be relegated to the realms of fringe within Wikipedia simply based on minority status. To the believer it may be viewed as insulting or disturbing that Wikipedia take the stance of possibly belittling, or making a mockery, of a person's religious beliefs. Therefore, it is (proposed to be) the policy of Wikipedia that the policies on fringe should not be strictly applied to religious articles. Many belief systems may indeed be far-fetched when compared to other religions, but it is not the position of Wikipedia to make any claims against a belief system or to editorialize such. To balance an article that may appear to be fringe, proper sources should be located to support any claims made, and integrated into the article with appropriate references and straight-forward wording. Any statements that are not supported by reliable sources should be removed if no reliable sources can be found to support the statement."

Sarunfeldt (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * tl/dr and way too much effort to prooftext from the polices and guidelines. See WP:CLUE.  The key thing is to use independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk)

I added an abbreviated reference to clarify the concept of Soul Travel. There are no secondary sources on this topic that are not derogatory in nature, coming from attacks on Eckankar from conservative religious groups. This reference is in line with Wikipedia guidelines in that it is a "primary source for information about what the company says about itself" which is acceptable according to Wikipedia.

Sarunfeldt (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of thing is likely UNDUE if there no secondary sources mentioning it. Jytdog (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing
This article is based far too much on primary sources, connected to the movement. It needs to be revised based on independent, scholarly sources for the most part. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed, however, much of the information here revolves around what the beliefs of members of the religion are. And for that purpose primary source material is acceptable.  The availability of unbiased sources is limited.


 * The Wikipedia guidelines regarding sources say this:
 * "An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., "OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X"), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective descriptions of the organization including annual revenue, number of staff, physical location of headquarters, and status as a parent or child organization to another. It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women")." - []


 * Also, since this is a new religious movement, the discussion of how these pages may differ from other subjects is worthy of consideration. [|WikiProject_Religion/New_religious_movements_work_group/Writing_NRM_articles]
 * Sarunfeldt (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles should be based for the most part on independent, secondary sources. The movement has its own page that it can control; this page needs to be governed by Wikipedia's polices and guidelines. There is some stuff that we should talk through - I will post on your userpage and we can talk there. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Readers should understand that articles about individual religions (whether Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, ISKCON, Iglesia ni Cristo, Rajneeshism, Aum Shinrikyo, ECK, or a thousand other belief systems) are always kept under close monitoring by a specific religion's true believers who will always edit it to conform to their world view. Believers will always insist that their beliefs, myths, and history are true. Often, they will also insist that they are not subject to anyone's regulation since they have the absolute truth, God is on their side, etc. etc. Some religious groups are even willing to lie, to torture, and to kill in the name of their God. Regarding ECK in particular, its followers will always insist (regardless of evidence) that Rebazar Tarzs existed in history, that Twitchell went to India, that Twitchell was not an initiate of Kirpal Singh, that Twitchell did not copy from Julian Johnson, that ECK is not a corruption of Sant Mat, that "ECKANKAR" does not derive from "Ekankar" (the Sikh name for God written in the Guru Granth Sahib and mentioned in various Sant Mat books), that they have exclusive rights to many Indian terms (ek, mahanta, vairagi, satsang, "among others"), etc. Some ECKists even believe that Kirpal Singh copied from Twitchell. A whole lot of information has been deleted from this article. Hence, articles on particular religions will never be reliable. Readers will need to read with more than a grain of salt. Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Replaced incorrect reference
Deleted reference #22, “ For etymology of Shariya, see Sharia.” This reference is for the etymology of “Sharia” not “Shariyat” — which are two very different things. This incorrect reference has been replaced with one that is more accurate, “Klemp, Harold, 1998, Cosmic Sea of Words: The Eckankar Lexicon. Eckankar, Minneapolis.” OnePlebeian (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This is an example of the kind of ignorance which makes religion articles unreliable.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Criticism
Paul Twitchell was a massive plagiarist. David Lane has the research. I assume the modern day devotees are working hard to keep that information out of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.236.158 (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"Fubbi Quantz" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fubbi Quantz. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Leschnei (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)