Talk:International Sahaja Public School/Archive 1

Allegations & facts
We need to find a better way of handling these allegations then simply deleting and re-instating them. Is there a rebuttal to the allegations? Were they thrown out of court, or some other resolution? That would be more helpful. Also, the article is very short, so more information would be helpful too. How large is it? when was it founded? and things like that. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

There was no court hearing about the allegations, these remain pure speculation, and there are numerous witnesses who testify against these false allegations. I think we should erase the criticisms which aren't backed by documentation. This is an Encyclopedia, based on facts, and it is up to the person who makes these claims to provide proof. Shane 22:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A group of Sahaja Yogis, the so-called Sahaja Yoga Research Group (which included a self-professed 'expert' on Sahaj History that you know), carried out an investigation. Read their 'report' [some external links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] www freewebtown com/sahaja-yoga/abuse response htm here. --Simon D M 14:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting "This was the last straw..." S facets 10:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We have verifiable sources for the assertion. Can we get a rebuttal into the article? That'd be great. We can't just remove sourced material. Even widespread allegations are encyclopedic. -Willmcw 00:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by widespread? Willmcw, In the article sahaja_yoga you reffered to the NPOV document. I would like to cite a paragraph that shows that shows that some of the views held are those of an "extremely small minority" (refer to the Undue Weight section of the WP:NPOV approach to neutrality,  and should, strictly speaking, have no part in this document.

The allegations stem from a small minority. Shane 12:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How do we know how small the minority is? These charges would seem less prominent if we had more regular information about the school. We haven't even indicated how large it is. -Willmcw 21:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

PR? on the contrary, I merely placed a link to testimonials refuting certain claims... Kill Bossy, are you attempting to conceal information that would deny people the possibility of making up their own minds? For shame. Shane 23:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I checked the link and the testimonials don't refute the allegations, they just don't mention them. -Willmcw 00:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

ok, perhaps not refute them, but do offer another perspective. Also, I changed your sentence where you said the testimonials existed on the school's homepage - There is not (as yet) an official webpage for the school... Shane 02:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Since the website is an authorized website of the organization, some note should be made. I hope I've labelled it accurately. -Willmcw 02:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sfacets/Shane, you are the one who ought to be ashamed of yourself, calling obvious PR a refutation of some very serious allegations. I suggest you look up the word "refute" and try to understand its meaning. Or was it your goal all along to deceive? Kill Bossy 12:31, 2 December 2005 (EST)

---
 * Allegations - look up the word, in fact, here is a definition:


 * A statement asserting something without proof: The newspaper's charges of official wrongdoing were mere allegations.
 * Law. An assertion made by a party that must be proved or supported with evidence.

You see, I do not write anything based on groundless material. You, however, appear to be quite good at dredging up gratuitous material unconnected to any tangible or real evidence.

You are right by the way, refutal is the abnegation of factual statements. I was in error to use that word in this context. For that you have my sincerest apologies. -Shane 02:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I accept your apology, Sfacts. Thanks. Question: If you admit I was right, and that you could not refute the "factual statements" made on the page, why do you accuse me of being good at "dredging up gratuituous material," etc?  Facts don't qualify as gratuituous material.  I suggest you get yourself a good dictionary. Maybe English isn't your primary language?  Also: Suggested reading for you: htp://www.sahaja-yoga.org/ -Kill Bossy 19:52, 3 December 2005 (EST)

--- The point I made (maybe your understanding isn't good?) was that the material you present isn't factual in nature. A fact can be described as:


 * Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
 * Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.

The keywords being "real" and "demonstrated".

It is important to quote impartial and relevant sources to state any fact - this is the basis of a Universal Encyclopedia.

An example, of your obvious inability to cite impartial and/or middle-ground material is your references to unprofessionaly edited docuents (like that website you so kindly suggested), or perhaps even worse, lack of any documented proof. Shane 03:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Sahaja Yoga isn't "factual in nature," so as a supporter of the organization, you're hardly one to lecture me on facts. It's interesting that you are able to discredit a website that is indeed professionaly edited (http://www.sahaja-yoga.org/) while promoting one that bases its beliefs on the unprovable. (http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/default.asp_) BTW, Please explain what it is about the website I suggested you visit that isn't professional in terms of editing, and show me the editing errors.  Perhaps you are more of an expert than I.  Also, what does professional editing have to do with the website? If it's the truth, editing isn't an issue.


 * Has it ever occurred to you that victims of sexual abuse may not want to have their names published on the Internet? Does that mean the abuse never happened? Would having the victims' names serve as proof to you?  And yet you believe an Indian housewife is God.  Get help.  And I'm not just talking about help for your problems with English, editing, manners and professionalism. You are obviously a very hostile and disturbed person. We have nothing further to say to each other. Kill Bossy

You seem to have drifted off subject, ending up somewhere in Japan perhaps. We were talking (or at least it seemed to me that we were talking) about POV and factual references. Not about wether or not SahajaYoga is factual in nature (which contradicts the meaning of religion, really, which is based on a system of beliefs.)

By a professional source I mean one that has both factual information, and is edited by someone knowledgeable in the field, preferably someone who holds a degree. Read up on it.

You obviously have a problem respecting other people's beliefs. I have been nothing but curteous (have I ever insulted you, or your beliefs?) to you and your POV, it is for that reason that I haven't erased any of your allegations. Stating that I require help because I believe there is some foundation to the teachings of an "Indian housewife" is not only insulting and agressive, it is also prejudicial. Do you go around insulting Christians because they follow the son of a carpenter? Or the Muslims, because they follow the teachings of a tradesman?

Why make it personal? We are discussing, not fighting. I also have no problems with English, being a trained linguist.

Have you ever heard of the judicial system "innocent untill proven guilty"? It is a common factor in both national and international law.

Writing up information which is unbacked by facts is considered slander. Are you being Slanderous, Kill Bossy?

I don't consider myself a hostile person (am I the one with the word "kill" in my Username?) I am certainly not hostile towards any of your beliefs.

Peace. Shane 02:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I will remove certain content from the critic section, unless sources are provided. Please discuss. Shane 04:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you elaborate, please? Which content, and what sources are you looking for? -Willmcw 09:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Mostly the sources backing up claims to the effect that the school "provides a substandard education for its students, unhygenic conditions and supplies an inadequate amount of food for its boarders" Shane 10:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that these allegations relate to the first few years of operation of the school. Irrespective of the accuracy or otherwise of these allegations, why should these be of relevance for the school today? Sahajhist 14:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Promotional literature claims the school is under divine protection. It's under the same divine protection now as it was when the problems arose. That says something about the limits of the 'divine' protection. Simon D M (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fact not needed
Deepak Gupta - The reason I removed your tag (and I suppose why User:Sahajhist did too)was because the proposition that there are critics of the school does not need to be demonstrated. One can only provide sources if there were speculation on the nature of the criticism... Sfacets 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
Look, you can't just go and revert the entire article because you disagree with the word, "Hindu." Either edit the sentence that you don't like, and provide a better source, or leave it alone. But these blanket reverts have got to stop. --NovaSTL 05:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The source is obviously not a very reliable one, and is attempting to put everything into Hindu context. Sahaja Yoga is not part of Hinduism. You had added content which ended up being most of the article based on that one source. Sfacets 05:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then provide another credible source that says something different. Until then, the sourced information stays. --NovaSTL 05:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refer to Reliable_sources. Sfacets 05:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't just keep saying, "It's not reliable," for any source you don't like. Stop being disruptive. --NovaSTL 08:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like it because it isn't reliable. Big difference. Sfacets 08:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement
This is a blatant and obvious copyright infringment. Please do a rewrite. Sahajhist 12:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Copyright infringement of what? And if you don't like how it's written, feel free to rewrite it yourself. --NovaSTL 03:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You basically plagiarized the source from which you took the information. Sfacets 03:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Quoting a source is not plagiarism. Show me an example of what you think was improper, by quoting from the Wikipedia article, and quoting that section of the source which you believe is identical. --NovaSTL 03:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Quoting is one thing. Lifting out whole strings of words and re-arranging them in much the same manner is a whle other thing.

What made you thing the source was reliable? from the website:

THE HINDU UNIVERSE is the website for GHEN (Global Hindu Electronic Networks). GHEN is one of the many projects undertaken by HSC (Hindu Students Council).

HINDU STUDENTS COUNCIL is a voluntary run organization committed to realizing the ancient Vedanta truths such as Vasudaiva Katumbakum (The Whole World is One Family).

Notice: Students, Hindu and accompanying mission statement.

I have removed the notice and paragraph per reasons given above. Sfacets 03:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, you want to discredit all of the sources? Well in that case, there would be no valid source for this article, and it should just be merged into Sahaja Yoga.  Would you rather do that instead? --NovaSTL 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't you just use http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010421/windows/main2.htm as a source (which was obviously the original source for the source you provided) which is an actual media source. Is this another way of trying to push your POV in disfavour of Sahaja Yoga in addition to calling it a cult? Sfacets 21:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was this source ( [some external links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] www rickross com/reference/shahaja/shahaja1 html "Shri Who Must Be Obeyed") deleted? The edit summary was:
 * Again, it's not about removing criticism, rather than establishing NPOV based on RELIABLE SOURCES - As usual you are unable to justify/provide such sources..

Over at talk:Sahaja Yoga I thought we agreed that this was a relaible source. -Will Beback 11:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was this deleted a second time? Folks need to agree to some on some sources. -Will Beback 22:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Deleted because the full text of the article is not freely available at the url you gave. Sahajhist 02:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no requirememt that sources must be freely available. Most newspapers charge for their archives. -Will Beback 04:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Will that this is not a valid reason to delete the contents. Andries 22:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I maintain my view. As Will Beback knows perfectly well, the full text of the article is available on the web, so why not cite it, thus allowing readers to read and draw their own conclusions? Sahajhist 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I added both links and another editor removed one. Readers can already pay a couple of bucks to read the article. I'll note again that you previously agreed that this is an acceptable source.  -Will Beback 11:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I note for the last and final time that Will Beback wilfully and continually distorts other editors' views. I return to the real world. Sahajhist 11:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's the first time too. Do you have a policy basis for your assertion that non-free archives can't be used as a source? -Will Beback 12:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It might be in Commonsense - WikiPossum 10:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are only books that can be had for free usable as reliable sources? Are only free newspapers and give-away magazines reliable? I don't see where a claim of "common sense" applies here. -Will Beback 10:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just outside opinion: I tend to agree with Will Beback here. Source doesn't have to be free, and, although the practice of paid websites isn't always good, they may be used as a source, if they are credible. An example is Jane's, which is quite a good overview and news source, available offline and online, but not for free. However, not all such sources are reliable, and, unless well established like Jane's, I don't really trust them too much, as have seen major factual mistakes. But if this is reliable, it fits. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added an tag to the article in regards to this source. Wikipedia policy on sources stresses that news-article-based sources come from reputable news media. This is not the case with the independant, which relies on freelance contributors for it's articles. http://news.independent.co.uk/article294441.ece   There is also the question on how notable this source is. How many readers does it have? It appears to be a local London tabloid. Sfacets 09:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. See The Independent. Please remove the {unreliable} tag. -Will Beback · † · 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? Sfacets 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It silly that no source is good enough if it contains any negative information. " The paper was named National Newspaper of the Year at the 2004 British Press Awards." - Will Beback · † · 22:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's ridiculous to claim that a leading newspaper in the U.K. is unreliable. You've given no legitimate reaosn to consider it unreliable. (Merely hiring freelancers does not make a source unreliable). -Will Beback · † · 05:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It'snot a leading newspaper (an award doesn't make it a leader in thefield) it uses freelancers meaning that the authors of the article inquestion have unknown credentials. But that is irrelevant when youconsider that it is a small tabloid that circulates in London.Including it in the article gives it undue weight. Sfacets 01:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Show me a newspaper that never hires freelancers, and where in the WP:RS that requires we learn the credentials of journalists. The article in question is apparently written by a staffer who writes regularly for the paper. The award was for "national" newspapers. What proof do you have that it is only a local paper? Furthermore, while it has changed to a "compact" tabloid printing format, it is still considered a "broadsheet" as far as its editorial quality is concerned.
 * Recently, three traditionally broadsheet daily newspapers—The Independent, The Times, and The Scotsman—have switched to tabloid size, although they call it 'compact' to avoid the connotation of that word.Tabloid
 * In the UK, one major daily broadsheet is distributed nationwide, and three on a Sunday; of the four major broadsheet quality papers, two are generally on the right wing politically, and one more left wing:... The Independent on Sunday (The Independent is now a compact); broadly liberalBroadsheet
 * If you have any information that actually impugns the reliablity of the source then please provide it. Otherwise please reomve the {unreliable} tag. -Will Beback · † · 02:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless a legitimate reason for the {unreliable} tag is made and discussed, I'm gogin to remove it. -Will Beback · † · 00:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it was an oversight, I have removed the template from the Sahaja Yoga article, but didn't think about removing it here (which I have now done). You were right - it does appear to be a legitimate newspaper, and so deserves inclusion. Sfacets 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight
I have removed the one time event of a child purportedly having lice and bad grades, as this is undue weight - please also refer to WP:NOT.

S facets 01:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."
 * "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed."
 * "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information.:


 * Gee, how many times have you deleted material from this source? Didn't you say just hours ago that this issue had been resolved? We both know that there are other reports of problems at the school and with other SY schools. This is not the sole example, just the best sourced example. So it does not give "undue weight" to list it. I'm also disappointed that you'd make such an aggressive edit while you'd committed to not edit SY articles during mediation. It makes kind of a joke out of the procedure, but you've never taken it seriously anyway. -Will Beback · † · 01:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove the content because of the source, the source is fine - however the content is undue weight because it refers to one incident in the schools history. I committed to no such thing, please read carefully, I agreed "to obstain from editing Sahaja Yoga until we can come to a compromise. The mediation has been dragging on for far too long (and not going anywhere) anyway. S facets 03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The mediation is dragging on because you keep making non-replies and being "away". Let's revert this contentious edit and add it to the mediation. -Will Beback · † · 18:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit is correct and long overdue. Sahajhist 21:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted Will Beback's edits (who also seems to be on a rampage to criticize any Sahaja Yoga-related article) because no discussion/consensus was reached for those controversial edits to be made. Discuss first, edit later. S facets 23:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There was previous disuccion in the mediation, if you recall. What, exactly is the problem? withthe material? Was all of it bad? Isn't removing sourced criticism censorship? -Will Beback · † · 23:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-16 Sahaja Yoga for the other disucssion about this material. -Will Beback · † · 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See also the mediators recommendation:
 * Add all relevant sourced material back to the article. If it is sourced, and related to the article; it belongs there.
 * This material is relevant and sourced. -Will Beback · † · 23:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If there's no further discussion I'll restore the sourced, relevant info. -Will Beback · † · 05:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing the fact that there were long discussions regarding the material that you would re-include in the article. S facets 05:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The mentor advised including all sourced, relevant material. Is it your plan to ignore that advice? If so, what are your specific objections to all the material you removed? The claim of "undue weight" was addressed in mediation, and the reliablity of the Independent as a source has been settled. -Will Beback · † · 05:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure if you took the time and effort, you will notice the previous discussions, refer to them, and then come back and discuss your continued intent to add them to the article. The question of undue weight was not settled... where?? Oh and the "mentor" also suggested to "Allow a reasonable amount of time for each party to reply, until then revert it, and put it on the talk page" > did you jut not bother reading that part? S facets 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So make your reply. So far you've just said "refer to previous discussions". Tell me again what you object to about all the material you reverted. -Will Beback · † · 05:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you detail here which material you wish to add, per advice. S facets 06:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Material
The school teaches around 250 international students annually. Subjects (as followed by the ICSE curriculum) include standard courses as well as English, German, Indian Classical Music (including instruments), and Indian Classical dance (Kuchipudi, Kathak etc.) Hindu festivals are celebrated,, students are re-christened with Hindu names and become "more Hindu than Hindus themselves."

The school has an Internet-connected computer lab, science lab, library, art and craft halls, music and dance rooms, and sport facilities including a gym, skating ramp, basketball field, cricket pitch, and soccer fields.

There have been complaints by parents who claim that their children were found to be dirty, lice ridden, and wearing tattered clothing. [some external links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] Complaints about sexual abuse have also been reported. The school has an "aura of secrecy", with outsiders and even parents not allowed to enter the grounds.

Discussion
What do you object to about the above material? -Will Beback · † · 06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe we had already discussed the The Indian Express article. There is nothing wrong with the Independant as a source - except that it lends undue weight. The other two links (again) cannot be used as reliable sources. Is there any reason you are trying to bring back all these sources after they had alrready been iscussed - at length - in the past? S facets 09:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did we discuss the Indian Express article? I don't see any discussion on this page. We need to include all significant viewpoints, and material covered in a majotr newspaper is presumably significant.
 * There has been an issue of bias and non-NPOV when editing this article, in that critical links and content is systematicaly removed or hidden. Please improve the article so that it includes all significant viewpoints.
 * That sums up the problem here. -Will Beback · † · 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another way of putting it is:
 * It was reported in the media (sources provided) and as such is notable.
 * Isn't that true? -Will Beback · † · 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooooo crazy stalking... The fact is, the material is inaccurate. Childrean are not re-christened with Hindu names, and you cannot simply insert the writer's opinion that the children become "more hindu than hindus". This is definitely an exceptional claim, per WP:RS... if you can provide other sources which concur with this then the material can stay. I dislike that you would follow me around like you have repeatedly done, this is [[Wikipedia:Harassment|harassment] (wikistalking) and I have seen other instances where other editors have complained about your attitude in this regard as well. You are taking my edits completely out of context in an effort to prove yo ur point of view. Please stop. S facets 02:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The material has been published in a major newspaper. How do we know it's inaccurate? Why isn't it notable if it's been printed? And haven't we had a problem with editors removing critical links from this article? It would certianly appear so. -Will Beback · † · 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless there's further discussion I'll add the material back. -Will Beback · † · 03:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I question the accuracy of the article - if you can find another source confirming it then please add it, however just because it appears in a newspaper doesn't mean it's accurate. Please read Wikipedia:Fringe theories. S facets 04:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a reliable source. Certainly much more reliable than the website of the school itself. I don't see why this would be considered a fringe theory. Do you have a source which calls it that? -Will Beback · † · 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly isn't a majority view - do you have a source that confirms what the 1st one says? S facets 06:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, just that one, reliable source. There's no rule in Wikipedia that assertions require multiple sources. -Will Beback · † · 06:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to WP:RS - "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known - surely the writer's claim of SY being Hindu is not a widely accepted view. S facets 06:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a direct quotation of the school's director, published in major newspaper.
 * Says H. N.  Kaul, the school’s 60-year-old director, “Some of the students are Christians and Muslims, but when they come here they transcend all religions.  They become more Hindu than Hindus themselves.”
 * I have no way of knowing how widely accepted this remark is, and neither do you. There's no reliable discussion of this assertion, it isn't controversial, it hasn't been commented on or refuted in the press. Note also that it isn't an isolated quote, but part of a general description of the school which includes many Hindu cultural practices. Since the school is in India, there's nothing fringe or surprising about that. Also, since some describe SY as a "a Hindu-based world religion", it isn't at odds with the school belonging to SY. The quote itself is a little odd, seemingly asserting that Christianity and Islam are religions but Hindu transcends religion. How would you interpret it? -Will Beback · † · 07:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a fringe belief that SY is part of Hinduism, since most sources would call it an NRM or similar. I would interpret his quote as having to do with the fact that Hinduism (in essence) encompasses multiple beliefs in various forms of God. (see concept of God section in Hinduism). So interpreting the quotation made by the then-director as actually meaning that the children become Hindus is in question. S facets 08:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So anyone saying it's a "a Hindu-based world religion" is expressing a fringe idea? Hmmm. As for the quotation, we don't interpret it, we just quote it.
 * Hindu festivals are celebrated, students are re-christened with Hindu names and become "more Hindu than Hindus themselves."
 * That seems like an accurate quotation. -Will Beback · † · 21:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it a widespread idea? No. Otherwise you would be able to provide another news source. That it seems like an accurate quotation is your opinion. S facets 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a quotation in a major newspaper. Unless you have some other reliable source questioning its reliability then it should be considered reliable. Why did you delete the phrase "No visitors are allowed"? It is visible on the sign, and it's also mentioned in the "The Indian Express" article.Or are you saying that the article is untrue and that taking the sign at its face value is an "interpretation"? - Is the sign incorrect as well? Do you have any source which says visitors are allowed to contradict the two sources we have that say otherwise? -Will Beback · † · 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already given my objections to including the erroneous information. As for the sign, it is a primary source. S facets 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You objected but you didn't give any source to contradict the reliable source. The picture confirms what the article says. I'm going to restore that material while we're disucssing the rest. If you find a new source on the matter we can disucss it again. -Will Beback · † ·


 * I object, and will revert your edits - if you want to take this further, feel free to request an RFC. I don't need to give another source to contradict the source, you should be the one looking for another source confirming this one, for the sake of insuring that only reliable content is used in the article.  S facets 00:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a sign which says "No visitors allowed". There's an article in a major newspaper saying that outisders are not allowed. All you've said in response is that the article isn't accurate. You haven't said what the visiting policy of the school is, or offered any source. I've met the burden of proof. It's up to you to file an RfC if you think additional editors are needed. In the meantime, please don't delete sourced information - it does not improve the article. -Will Beback · † · 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, please restrict your use of automated revert tools for vandalism only. Tools used incorrectly may be removed. -Will Beback · † · 00:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not an automated tool. And if it were vandalism you would have a large warning template on your talk page. Ok then, I will file an RFC. S facets 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:Isps gate.jpg was released by you under the GFDL. Why did you ask for it to be deleted? Do you think that the GFDL can be rescinded? -Will Beback · † · 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think I deleted the image too hastily. I've undeleted it. Sorry, Sfacets. Bishonen | talk 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Request for comment
A dispute over possibly erroneous content in a news article.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
Sfacet's statement: I have requested that Will Beback provide additional sources to confirm the validity of some of the articles claims (red flag per WP:RS), however he has refused to do so. The article contains questionable content, and to insure that correct information enters the article, confirmation by other sources is needed. Also in question are Will Beback's interpretation of the source. S facets 01:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments
The source provided, The Indian Express, fully counts as a reliable source. In addition to that I found a photo which confirmed the information that article contains on visiting. However Sfacets, who took the pictre, just decided to delete the image, giving no reason. Considering the range of excuses given to delete material from this article, the deletions do not appear intended to promote the neutrality of the article. All properly source viewpoints should be included. -Will Beback · † · 01:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The original discussion centered around Will Beback's interpretation of quotations in the article. The article contains questionable material, which IMO is not correct. The purpose of this RFC is to determine whether or not another source should be produced to confirm the 1st article's claims, or wether the claims should be removed.


 * this is the selective material Will Beback wants to place into the article.


 * It should be noted that Will Beback rarely, if ever, contributes non-critical content to this or other related articles. (don't let the reply to that sound like something off a broken record, Will.) S facets 02:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not discusing the edits you linked to. We're discussing the material at . Please don't characterize my editing or mischaracterize my position. -Will Beback · † · 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that we've both made our comments I suggest that we leave this area for outside editors to leave their comments. -Will Beback · † · 02:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The sign at the gate is intended to keep tourists out - since the area has become quite a prolific tourist attraction. To classify the warning under the same source which you (mis)interpreted yet again to mean that parents are not allowed is just another example of your interpretation of sources to fit your POV. S facets 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you've now deleted the edit for the 3rd time today, here's the link to it, for reference. -Will Beback · † · 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the claim I've misinterpreted the source, it says:
 * Given its revolutionary activities, an aura of secrecy envelops the school and entry is strictly forbidden. Says Kaul, “We believe in a vibratory existence - in two kinds of vibrations those that are free and those that are bottled up.  So we don’t like the vibrations to be polluted by outsiders.  Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here.” That’s a tall order indeed, considering that students get just a three-month break every winter. 
 * How is it a misinterpretation to write:
 * The school has an "aura of secrecy", with outsiders and even parents not allowed to enter the grounds.
 * That seems pretty close to me. -Will Beback · † · 02:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, pretty close to you. S facets 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * The school reportedly has an "aura of secrecy", with outsiders and sometimes even parents not allowed to enter the grounds.
 * Is that better? How would you word it? -Will Beback · † · 08:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It may reduce conflict if direct quotations from reliable sources were used in the article rather than summaries or interpretations of the sources. For example, instead of saying "The existence of space aliens is proven by what happened at Area 51. " try saying: "John Doe, in his book on Area 51, says that "dozens of alien bodies were recovered.". Then the discussion may be about using Doe as a reliable source, if Doe has been quoted correctly, or if other reliable sources do not agree with Doe. Buddhipriya 19:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so how about:
 * The school reportedly has an "aura of secrecy" with no visitors allowed. According to the school's director, "...we don’t like the vibrations to be polluted by outsiders. Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here."
 * Would that be better? -Will Beback · † · 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * By inserting some quotes and leaving out other parts of the article Will Beback is basically removing them from all context (for example the quote "more Hindu than Hindus" becomes ambiguous when separated from the surrounding article, and opn to interpretation or "fitted" to suit an editor's POV.
 * Further interpreting two separate sentences "Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here" and "...with no visitors allowed" to read "The school has an "aura of secrecy", with outsiders and even parents not allowed to enter the grounds" is a good example of taking something out of context and molding it into a new one.
 * The second proposition above is slightly better, however I challenge the factual accuracy of "no visitors allowed" - this is simply untrue, which is why I was also requesting secondary sources to be provided to back it.   S facets  03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We have the director saying that outsiders pollute the vibrations, we have a sign saying visitors aren't allowed. On the other hand, we have a Wikipedia editor making an assertion based, presumably, on his first-hand knowledge. The newspaper is a secondary source, the sign is a primary source which confirms it. Do we report what the school director and the sign say, or what the WP editor says? No offense, but WP:NOR forces us to choose the former rather than the latter. As for the "more Hindu than Hindu" quote, we can give more the context: that students get Hindu names, play Hindu games, listen to Hindu music, etc. -Will Beback · † · 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

...And then we have an editor arbitrarily making connections between the different elements. The photo is a primary source, and needs a secondary source to confirm it. Not the other way around. The article does not describe the sign. Claiming that the students are Hindu is a POV gleaned from an interpretation of the source. Are you asserting that the students are Hindu? Seriously? The fact that they participate in what are described as "Hindu" cultural activities does not give you the liberty to classify them as Hindus - and as I previously mentionned, "More Hindu than Hindus" is ambiguous in it's interpretation. S facets 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it matters which way we go with it. Either we take the primary to confirm the secondary or vis a versa. 2+3=5, and 3+2=5. As for the Hindu stuff, here's the proposed text:
 * Hindu festivals are celebrated, students are re-christened with Hindu names and become "more Hindu than Hindus themselves."
 * That's derived from the source text:
 * Children aged six and above, studying in classes one to 12 are re-christened with names from Hindu mythology - you’ll find lots of Hanumanas, Mahalakshmis, Ramas, Radhas and Viruttamas. While the uniform for boys is kurta-pyjama, girls wear salwar-kameez.  Students are taught only Indian classical music and dance while Hindi is a compulsory language up to Class 8.  Says H.  N.  Kaul, the school’s 60-year-old director, “Some of the students are Christians and Muslims, but when they come here they transcend all religions.  They become more Hindu than Hindus themselves.” Apart from Independence Day, only Hindu festivals are celebrated - this includes Bhaiyya Duj, Teej and Navratri.  Celebrations are traditional and rather elaborate - for instance, on Janmashtami, a child dressed as Lord Krishna plays with other costumed children, finally clambering up to break a matka of butter.  On Dussehra, a proper Ram Lila is enacted, complete with a grotesque effigy of Ravana, which is created and then burnt by students.  On Bhaiyya Duj, girls dress up and perform aarti and puja, while special meditations and pujas, morning and evening, are carried out during the Navratras.
 * I think that's an accurate summary. We are not classifying them as "Hindus". We're directly quoting the school's director. -Will Beback · † · 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way - Primary sources can only be accepted if there is a Secondary source there to "summarise, analyse, and/or interpret" it. (see WP:RS). The only problem is that they are not re-christened, that's completely out of context - it implies that students in the school are renamed upon entry to the school, that's just ridiculous. You took the "more Hindu than Hindus" completely out of context - when put together with the rest of the text (as seen above) it takes on a whole new meaning. You are not directly quoting the director, you are attempting to fit his words into your version of reality. S facets 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How can we better summarize the visitor policy and Hinduism issues, based on these sources? -Will Beback · † · 11:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If there aren't any suggestions for better summarizing the sources then I'd assume we're doing the best we can. -Will Beback · † · 23:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how direct quotes from news sources can be objected to, as has been covered here already. The opposition to inclusion of negative press reports is unjustifiable. This unbalanced article needs a "Criticism" section. This article seriously needs some additional editors looking at it to prevent bias from either side.  Compare the highly-visible coverage of alleged child abuse in the ISKCON article.  Buddhipriya 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Will Beback, I would appreciate it if you would let the RFC run it's course. I have listed by concerns over the source and its interpretation. 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * RfCs don't have any deadline, so if folks have stoppped commenting the RfC has run its course. Also, there's another source for the visitor issue. Children in New Religions Susan J. Palmer, Charlotte Hardman, Rutgers University Press (July 1999) has extensive coverage of this and other SY schools. Included is this text:
 * ...[T]he Austrian report on the school in 1995 stated: "People dropping in at the door are - [in a] more or less unfriendly [manner]- refused. Because of that refusal of contact, the domestic and foreign popyulation nearby does not know anything about the teachers, pupils and the daily routine at the school, which is-regarding the rustic surrounding-an astonishing fact."...Access to television and radio is not allowed...Contact between the children and their parents has been limited. The children have been allowed to write home once a week and receive packages from home twice a year; parents may telephone from time to time. [Sri Mataji]'s model of childhood centers on detachment from parents and grandparents and isloationfrom the dangerous effects of contact with the outside world. 
 * So that's a third source which asserts that visitors are not allowed. Sfacets, you have expressed concern over the interpretation of the souorces, but you haven't proposed any alternate text. Again I ask, how can we best summarize the visitor policy and Hinduism issues, based on these sources? -Will Beback · † · 02:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The RFC has only been open a week. As far as I'm concerned there is no Hinduism issue - Children are not re-christened, and Simply inserting the direct quote isolates it from context. I also fail to see how the visitor issue is relevant - the school is private property - of course random people aren't allowed to pop in, let alone the fact that it is a school. However, the most neutral way you could insert mention of visitors not being allowed in using the second source would be "An Austrian report in 1995 stated that casual visitors were refused entry". If you insist on including the Hinduism thing, then According to one of the directors, the children "transcend all religions", and become "more Hindu than Hindus themselves". This puts things in context. As for the re-christening thing... S facets 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We have a reliable source saying that children are called by Hindu names, etc. So we can describe that one way or another, but unless you have a source which contradicts it we've got then we'll do the best with what we've got. If you like we could use your text as a start (though it doens't use the word "casual":
 * An Austrian report in 1995 stated that visitors were refused entry. An Indian newspaper decribes the school as having an "aura of secrecy", and a large sign at the gate warns, "Visitors are not allowed." Contact with parents is also limited. According to the school's director, "...we don’t like the vibrations to be polluted by outsiders.  Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here."
 * That covers the visitors issue in a neutral manner. -Will Beback · † · 07:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the sources includes an official statement from SY:
 * A statement made by Sahaja Yogis aboutt he school in India says that "...many women from the town come to see the children, bring them presents, and look after them. The whole village enjoys looking after these children."
 * We could summarize that by saying:
 * An official school statement says that the villagers bring presents to the students and enjoy looking after them. An Austrian report in 1995 stated that visitors were refused entry. An Indian newspaper decribes the school as having an "aura of secrecy", and a large sign at the gate warns, "Visitors are not allowed." Contact with parents is also limited. According to the school's director, "...we don’t like the vibrations to be polluted by outsiders.  Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here."
 * That's more NPOV, right? -Will Beback · † · 09:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't use the word casual, however they use the phrase "People dropping in" which would mean unexpected visitors. I also do not see the relevance of commenting on the sign - the description is POV (Still a primary source). There is a difference between someone saying "Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here" and asserting that 'Contact with parents is also limited'. The way the sentences are put together is contradictory and awkward. S facets 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK then, so how's this?
 * An official school statement says that the villagers bring presents to the students and enjoy looking after them. An Austrian report in 1995 stated that visitors "dropping in" were refused entry. An Indian newspaper decribes the school as having an "aura of secrecy", and signs at the gate read, "No admission" and "Visitors are not allowed." Contact with parents is also limited. According to the school's director, "...we don’t like the vibrations to be polluted by outsiders.  Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here."
 * As for the limited contact, two sources indicate that contact is limited with parents, including a quote from the director. Phone calls are limited, letters are limited, care packages are limited, and there's only one long vacation per year. We could list all of those things, but it's more economical to simply say, "Contact with parents is also limited". -Will Beback · † · 09:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by outside editors
News reports appearing in the popular press are clearly fair game and should be included, particularly since at present the article appears to be unbalanced in presenting all views fairly. Removal of properly sourced material of this type could be interpreted as furthering a coverup of child abuse. Buddhipriya 03:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no issue which presenting different views, as long as the sources in question are reliable(not an issue here) and not taken out of context and represented following an editor's POV (very much an issue here). S facets 03:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am commenting because it appears that there is a RfC on this page. You may not agree with my opinion, but that is my opinion. For an example of similar use of press reports to disclose controversy regarding a Hindu temple, see Siddhivinayak_temple.  In the case of that article there was a similar push-pull over inclusion of news reports as well as a proposed link to a web site attacking the temple.  As the article stands now, the news reports were judged fair game but the link to the opposing web site did not stay because it was not specifically just about the temple controversy.  Buddhipriya 03:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, why did you move my comment to a "previously involved" section? Have I previously been involved in conflict over this article? Buddhipriya 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that wasn't intentional, a copy+paste mistake from another article. I have removed the subsection, and welcome your input. S facets 03:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the use of press reports as WP:RS here is the text of the guideline: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." This was the guideline that ultimately prevailed on the other article I mentioned. Buddhipriya 03:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT clearly states media articles are reliable sources. You may not like the claim, but it was reported in the media and therefore passes the standard for inclusion of the claim. The media mention should be included, but should be presented in a neutral fashion and attributed to the source. Vassyana 10:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The dispute isn't over the reliability of the source, rather over Will Beback's interpretation of said source.  S facets  11:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, your comments that start the RFC section seem to indicate that you do take issue with the source, demanding additional sources, while his interpretation of the source is "also" a problem. Regardless, what would you like to see in the article? Would more direct quotation of the source instead of paraphrasing be acceptable? Vassyana 11:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See above for the most recently proposed text for the visitation issue. It's almost all direct quotes from either the media source or the school director. -Will Beback · † · 02:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refer to my comments above^  S facets  04:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Current situation
Why do certain editors repeatedly use old second-hand allegations to attempt to describe the current situation at this school? If any current students or staff happen to read this, please join the discussion. Thank you. Sahajhist 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. All information in this encyclopedia should be "second-hand". First-hand information (AKA "original research") is not allowed. -Will Beback · † · 07:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand very well how Wikipedia works. I have two questions for you: 1. So factual accuracy is not of concern to you? 2.You would prefer to use unsubstantiated allegations merely because they were used by a journalist in a print publication some years ago? Sahajhist 10:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We want verifiable information. If we didn't use unsubstantiated allegations made by journalists in print publications from years ago then what would we use? The unsubstantiated and unpublished allegations of anonymous Wikipedia editors? If two reliable sources say a door is red and one Wikipedia editor says it's green then we should say the door is reported to be red, not that it's green. -Will Beback · † · 11:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I maintain that the current situation should be reported. If that is not possible according to your rigorous standards, then better that paragraph be deleted. The present wording is unfair to current staff and students. Sahajhist 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We only know what the "current situation" is based on reliable sources. If we can find relaible sources which say something esle we can report that too. So far no one has provided any sources which dispute the assertions included in the reliable sources mentioned on this page. -Will Beback · † · 06:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Signs
I've removed a {fact} tag placed by Sfacets asking for a citation for the signs shown in the photograph. It is disingenuous to deny that the photograph exists, or that it verified the presence of the signs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that a photo of the gate exists, I'm asking for verification that the sign is still up. S facets 20:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I have restored the citation rqst. S facets 20:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've changed the tense so it doesn't read as an assertion that the signs are still there. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the cite request again. What nneeds citing? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How is the fact that signs may have been posted on the gate relevant on the scale of things? Also it still reads like an assertion, and will continue to read like an assertion. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - source? S facets 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The school has a reputation for being unwelcoming to visitors. The signs are a part of that. We can verify that the signs were up at one time because we have a photograph showing the signs. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not have a reputation for being unwelcoming to visitors. Also we do not have a photograph showing the signs. Verifiability. S facets 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I can post a fair use photograph showing the signs. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Explain how that would be fair use? S facets 23:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Commentary on the image. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Where in Wikipedia policy does it say you can upload an image to comment on it, and that the image is fair-use? S facets 23:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Non-free content. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific and quote the applicable policy? S facets 23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No need, it's covered. If we need to review it once it's up then there's aprocess for that. Will the photo meet your requirements for verification if we include t in the article?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Discuss first before you upload possibly copyrighted images. Waiting for your justification - where in Non-free content doe it back uploading a copyrighted image? There are many rasons not to, such as "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia" and "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image" for example. S facets 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, that can be figured out via the PUI process. Will a photo of the signs be sufficient verification for their existence? (Now that I think about it, I seem to recall that I may have taken the photo myself, in which case there won't be any copyright or fair use issues.) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been to the school? Awesome! I fail to see how it can be figured out via the PUI process. S facets 02:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PUI is where we deal with questions about the licensing of images. I still can't quite recall whether or not I took the picture, but if I do recall that I took it I guess we'll just have to assume good faith and agree that I did. Is there any way of proving that I didn't? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly. S facets 07:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can verify that there are signs on the gate I will remove the OR sentence. S facets 08:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I already changed the text to indicate that the signs may not still be up. Are you asserting that the photo doesn't exist, and that I am making up the existence of the signs? You previously acknowledged that the sign exists, so I don't understand your problem. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about me, it is about having verifiable content in the article. S facets 09:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're the one pursuing it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence until you can provide a source. S facets 22:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The source is Image:Isps gate.jpg. Would you like me to undelete it so you can verify the assertion? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read up on primary sources, and the need for secondary sources to interpret them. Undeleting the image after it consensus was reached on WP:IFD would be an abuse of your admin privileges. Don't ask any of your admin buddies for help either. As it stands, you have yet to 1)provide a source 2)Allow citation requests to be posted so others can find a source. There is OR in the article, but obviously, given your COI, that doesn't matter. S facets 22:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We already have secondary sources asserting that visitors are not allowed. The photograph of the signs is a primary source that confirms what secondary sources alerday say. There is no original research involved in repeating what is clearly visible in a photograph. You are well aware of the photograph, so your demand for it to be re-uploaded is disingenuous. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

OR is exactly what it is, you are suggesting undeleting an image to comment on it. The sources say nothing about any signs. I didn't ask for the image to be re-uploaded (that would be copyright infringement) that was all you. S facets 23:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, typing out what is visible on a sign in a photograph is not original research, especially not when it agrees with what is already reported in reliable secondary souorces. Do you deny that Image:Isps gate.jpg shows signs that say "Visitors are not allowed" and "No admission without permission"?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The secondary sources say nothing about signs. Even if the photo does show signs, commenting on them is Original research without secondary sources. Please read this and this. S facets 23:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this sign still at the school gate? Now, in November 2007? Sahajhist 00:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Describing is not commenting. Saying "the building has a green door" is not commentary, it's description. As for the continued presence of the signs, it's hard to say that any particular thing that existed in the recent past exists at this moment. The usual assumption is that thinkgs continue unless changed, but the last text in the article was that there "had been" signs as that does not presume that the signs still exist. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Description is a commentary. You have added original content into the article, and I am requesting valid secondary sources to back your claim. If you cannot provide these sources, then the sentence needs to go. S facets 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Describing the contents of a primary source in a neutral manner is not commentary. I'd remind you that most of "Sahaja Yoga and related articles, including this one, are based on primary sources. For example, "The school has an Internet-connected computer lab, science lab, library, art and craft halls, music and dance rooms, and sport facilities including a gym, skating ramp, basketball field, cricket pitch, and soccer fields" is sourced to the school's website, a primary source. All of the SY websites are primary sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The content is attributed to the movement/websites - if it isn't it should be. S facets 01:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Attribution doesn't make a primary source into a secondary source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mystery 2nd Indian School
They are realised souls, there is God who is looking after them, why are you so much worried about them? Leave them alone! Send them to the Indian school. Then the mothers are sitting there, teachers don't like it, no one likes it. They are just gone there. The mothers. No school allows such nonsense! But in Sahaja Yoga they think they have the right. What right have they got? Have they paid for the school? Have they done anything for the school? What right have they got to go and sit in the school? So the discretion should be, we have to bring up our children according to Sahaj culture. The first of the principles of Sahaja Yoga is fortitude. Sahaja Yoga is not meant for such .... dainty darlings. You have to be soldiers of Sahaja Yoga. Sfacets, you have removed this twice claiming that it is not necessarily the same school, even though 'the Indian school' is referred to, there has never been any mention of another SY school in India in 1991, and the same issue of parents visiting is being dealt with. Now do you have any evidence of a 2nd SY India school or is this just another "2nd Bohdan" type complaint? --Simon D M (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Stay Civil Simon. The burden of evidence is with the editor seeking to add content. S facets 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If there's only one "Indian school" then it's apparent that it is the school being referenced. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing to suggest that there aren't more schools...  S facets  21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How many Indian schools were there in SY at the time of that quotation, 1991? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Beats me... Again, burden of evidence. Ask Simon.  S facets  22:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Since Srivastava says "the Indian school" it's apparent there's only one. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

...or perhaps her words are taken out of context and she is referring to another school without naming it. S facets 06:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have any evidence to support that then please provide it. Otherwise the clear meaning is that she was referring to the one school SY had in India in 1991, ISPS. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Burden. Of. Evidence.  S facets  06:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Right So what evidence do you have for the existence of two SY schools in India in 1991? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you fail to read what I just wrote?  S facets  07:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You said there is a burden of evidence. So where is your evidence of two or more schools? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read the section on burden of evidence?  S facets  08:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're the one making the assertion that there were multiple SY schools in Inidia in 1991. Is there any evidene to support that assertion? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeking to add anything to the article, and I'm not asserting anything.  S facets  08:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the same line of reasoning as your similar claim that there is more than one "Dr. Bohdan Shehovych" in the Australisn SY. And I'll remind you again that the same reasoning can be applied to every assertion. There's no evidence that there is only one "International Sahaja Public School", or that there is only one "Shri Mataji". If you demand proof in one case then we should all demand similar proof in the other cases. However the whole thing smacks of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Please stop being disruptive and asking for impossible proof. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All you need to do is establish proper context for the speech.  S facets  08:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation provides the context. It was said during a puja in NYC in 1991. That's the context.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The context for the quote on the school in India. S facets 12:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Simon D M (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.sahajayoga.org/questionsandanswers/#children only mentions 1 school for children in India. --Simon D M (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Coney also refers to there having been only one SY school for kids in India on page 159 of her 1999 book. Case closed. --Simon D M (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote? S facets 23:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you removing the quotation from Coney about the school? Your edit summary said that you're waiting for a quote, but the quote request above appears to be on an unrelated issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to see the context that the quotation was lifted from...  S facets  01:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven't yet asked about the context of this quotation, you asked about the context of another quote, one from Shri Mataji. Also, lack of context is not a reason to delete a properly sourced quotation. Lastly, the book is mostly online. See here for the context:  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

True, I did mix up the two... the edit summaries were misleading. But the reason is the same - I would request the context surrounding the quotations, since the pages (and surrounding pages) cited are not in the online preview of the book. S facets 02:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And what policy allows sourced material to be removed because an editor wants to read what was in the source on the page before citation? I'm not aware of any such policy, and if there were it would nlead to gridlock as a disruptive editor could always ask to see one more page. The reference is available online. It is disruptive to ask for material that isn't part of the citation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The reference isn't available online. It needs to be verified. S facets 02:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean it isn't available? I provided the link to the reference. Are you unable to acces the internet? If you want to read other parts of the book then I suggest you find the book in a library. There's no requirement that sources have to be online, and the other parts of the book are not being used as a reference here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't available in libraries around where I live - I have checked. Yes, I cannot access the internet, too many buttons. Did you not read what I wrote above? The content I requested is not available online. I am simply requesting surrounding paragraphs to be submitted here, to establish context - it isn't a big deal, but it is necessary, since Simon's edits have displayed a tendency for taking things out of context. Please remember to remain civil. S facets 07:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sfacets, you can view the page on Google books, just search for 'school'. If you want the whole book and you don't want to pay, get it on interlibrary loan, I'm not typing out the whole book for you. Your refusal to obtain one of the most important academic sources on SY is no reason for removing sourced material. --Simon D M (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again I cannot view the page on google books. I'm not asking for the whole book, just passages to ascertain/verify the context, which is necessary given the history of your edits. S facets 08:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The "content requested" is irrelevant, as it is not part of the material used as a citation. Lack of "context" is not a cause for removing legitimate material. If Sfactes can prove that the quotation is taken out of context in such a way to distort it's meaning, then he should do so. But until then please don't remove source material. If Sfacets has complaints about another editor's edits he should take it to the proper forum. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What I'm asking for here is 1)The quotation from JC showing that there was only one school in India in 1999, and 2)Material showing the context from which the citations were taken, ie p159, 166. It isn't a difficult thing to provide. Also I notice that you are throwing the word disruptive around a lot (as you often do whenever you are unable to provide a valid argument to back your point) - I will ask you yet again to please stop misrepresenting my position as an editor. I am not disrupting, I am simply attempting to get some context, given that many previous edits containing quotations were taken out of context. S facets 08:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's address one thing at a time. The quotation from Coney is on the middle of page 166. Page 165 has nothing to do with it. There no "context policy". If you don't have a legitimate objection please stop reverting the addition of neutral, sourced material. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a verification policy however. I am seeking to verify that the context is preserved. S facets 09:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sfacets, considering how much time you spend sanitising references to SY in WP, I can't understand why you don't just buy a copy. Incidentally, you can search inside via amazon.com as well. If you want to buy, amazon.co.uk may well be cheaper. Please don't ask me to buy it for you for Christmas :-) --Simon D M (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sfacets, I see you continue to remove the quote although you've been given sources which are available to you. Please direct us to the passage in WP:VER that supports your position. --Simon D M (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon has still to produce the quotation backing his claim. It should be fairly easy, given that it is limited to one page, and is probably a matter of words (enough to ascertain that there was only 1 school). What's the problem? Does or doesn't she verify that there was only one school? S facets 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Turning now to full-time education in the movement, there have been two Sahaja Yoga schools to which followers from all over the world have sent their children. The school in Rome has accepted boarding infants from the age of two as well as offering summer courses. The school in India has accepted children from the age of four. Thus, often very young children are separated from their natural parents for prolonged periods, as they usually stay in India for nine months, returning home for the other three months of the year." You asked for a few words, you got the whole paragraph from p159. It would be far easier for all if you just assumed good faith. Now that you have the context you asked for, please restore the relevant sourced text you have so often deleted. --Simon D M (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't show that there was only one school in India. Your previous statement "Coney also refers to there having been only one SY school for kids in India" is misleading. S facets 11:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Also I notice that here you not only demand sources, but backup with context, and then refuse to accept it - yet here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sahaja_Yoga#Reorganising_the_Page you refuse to give sources saying that arguing your point is enough. Your position is looking more and more ridiculous. --Simon D M (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Again with your Copy+paste... it's getting old. I demanded quotations of the sources for verification. The quote you gave did not verify your claim. Apparently you need to get the point. S facets 12:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The resolution of this issue with Coney's quote is clear as long as you understand that 2 - 1 = 1. But maybe you would like to dipute that as unproven, ask for sources, then context, etc. (PA removed) --Simon D M (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am growing tired of your incivility Simon. Curb it down. I did what you suggested - now we just need a page number. S facets 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you mean for the Coney quote, I've already given it twice, p159. If not, be clear what you do mean. I also don't know what you mean about you having done what I suggested. Regarding lack of civility, observe the plank in thine own eye before pointing out the splinter in that of another. --Simon D M (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's impossible to prove there's only one school in India, just as it's impossible to prove there's only one person named "Shri Mataji". However, until it's proven that there are more than one we should assume there is one one. If we fail to make that simple assumption then all of the SY articles will be in jeopardy as we won't be able to assume that the people and places mentioned in sources are the same ones we're thinking of.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sfacets, why are you continuing to delete this while at the same time complaining that non-SY views are getting undue weight?--Simon D M (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Austrian report
This was deleted with the edit summary: "sentence deleted due to imprecise supporting reference" How much more precise does the reference need to be? Also, it'd be better to comment on these without deleting the material. If someone wants a page number they can ask for it without disturbing the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * An Austrian report in 1995 stated that uninvited visitors "dropping in" were refused entry.[ref]Children in New Religions Susan J. Palmer, Charlotte Hardman, Rutgers University Press (July 1999)


 * this is a collection of essays. So author and title of essay are surely required, plus page number. I suggest also that we need details of the "Austrian report" being cited. Sahajhist  23:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's an essay I agree we should have the author and essay title, though that's not a reason to delete the material. Since it's a secondary source we don't need to know what the primary source said. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added the essay title and author, and the page number, and restored the material. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

...So in fact all the Austrian report is doing is citing Judith Coney? S facets 23:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read the Austrian report? Can you provide a citation for the assertion?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since that part is unsourced, and since unsourced material isn't allowed to stay in this article, I'm going to remove that addition until we can find the source for it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The ref you provided reads "'Growing Up As Mother's Children: Socializing a Second Generation in Sahaj Yoga' by Judith Coney in Children in New Religions Susan J. Palmer, Charlotte Hardman, Rutgers University Press (July 1999) p.117"

You listed a citation (by J COney) allegedly found in the austrian report. You are not actually referencing anything. Either attribut the ref to Coney or provide a correct citation. S facets 05:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're saying about the Austrian report. The citation is an essay found in a book called Children in New Religions.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So why even mention the report? We don't reference every book which uses other author's citations...  S facets  10:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand your complaint. Let's get back to my earlier question - can you provide a citation for your assertion that the Austrian report quotes Coney? As far as I can tell it's the other way around: Coney is quoting the report. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My complaint: You aren't referencing the Austrian report, you are referencing Judith Coney. I don't need to provide a quote, you already did that: read it. "Growing Up As Mother's Children: Socializing a Second Generation in Sahaj Yoga" by Judith Coney" in "Children in New Religions Susan J. Palmer, Charlotte Hardman, Rutgers University Press (July 1999) p.117" You are using a citation found within a source. Why mention the middle man at all? If the Austrian report quotes Coney, then 1) Let's have the quote and 2) Why on earth are you attributing one author's work to another's?  S facets  21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Children in New Religions is a collection of articles/essays. "Growing Up As Mother's Children: Socializing a Second Generation in Sahaj Yoga" is one of the articles in that book. The "Austrian report" is quoted in that article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is Sfacets deleting half of the citation? He says to see the talk page, but I don't see any explanation here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

^Read above. Your reference is passing through an intermediary source (the Austrian report) to cite a quotation that may or may not have been written by Judith Coney. S facets 00:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Above where? Anything "may" have happened. What we know has actualy happened is that Coney's artilce was published in a book, which is what we're using for our citation. I can't see any logical reason for deleting the name of the book or the page number. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your latest change makes a lot more sense. Thank you. S facets 00:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the {citequote} for? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the exact quote from Judith Coney's article? S facets 08:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the problem with it? It's accessible online. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. Can you provide a link? S facets 09:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Was that so hard? Thank you. S facets 10:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Schools
I gather that there is now more than one Sahaja Yoga school. It might be worth adding a paragraph or at least a sentence mentioning the other schools and whatever is verifiably known about them. For starters I gather there is now a school in Italy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See the quote I put into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Sahaja_Public_School#The_Mystery_2nd_Indian_School

There was a School in Rome where Guido Lanza was headmaster, but it moved to Cabella after the trouble with Guido. There is also a school for kids in the US and a music school for adults in India. There were plans for a SY University, but they haven't come off yet.--Simon D M (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'music school for adults' mentioned above presumably is the Shri P. K. Salve Kala Pratishthan [], an academy refered to in Sahaja Yoga. There are schools in at least three European countries, also one in USA, and several in major cities in India. Sahajhist 15:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any websites or other sources that list the schools? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * not that I'm aware of. Some of the schools have websites, but all are password-protected, so no point in listing them here. Sahajhist  21:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I found sources for four schools: one in the U.S., two in Europe, and the music academny in India. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sourced Material from Austrian Ministry of Justice and Judith Coney's book
Sfacets, I think these 2 sources are some of the most reliable sources we could ever get on the subject at hand, and they are better placed than you with respect to COI to give a view on what is notable. Why do you keep deleting material from these sources?--Simon D M (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because they are reliable sources doesn't mean you should add everything they say on the matter. S facets 13:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Very little has been put in from the Austrian report. Regarding Coney, the comments were notable enough to be put into a book about Sahaja Yoga as a whole (yes the NRM), not just the ISPS. You edit summary mentions undue weight, but among low COI highly reliable sources these are all that I am aware of. Feel free to let us know of others. --Simon D M (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The report adds nothing to Coney's 'findings' - because... it is a report. You are taking things out of context again with your biased selection of quotations, even if it means adding totally irrelevant information to the article, such as the colour of the student's skin. S facets 13:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why being a 'report' means it adds nothing. The implication of the reference to skin tone was obvious. Also why did you remove the reference to the School in Rome? --Simon D M (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it reports findings, doesn't produce them. That is the definition of a report. S facets 13:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel for obfuscatory arguments now. Do you think the findings of a report reported by the Austrian Ministry of Justice come out of thin air? "a report is a document characterized by information or other content reflective of inquiry or investigation". --Simon D M (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not out of thin air... from findings by author's like J. Coney. Think about it. This is a state report. S facets 14:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that the Austrian ministry's report came out 4 years before Coney's book, that's not very likely. Think about it. You're going to need reliable sources to discredit the report, the mere fact that it is a 'state' report is not enough. Again it's a case of you having to provide sources, not just POV. Also why did you remove the reference to the School in Rome? --Simon D M (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Which report is this Austrian report? You need to discuss your edits here before you insert them in the article - you are going way off subject. S facets 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The report was fully identified in the material that you have removed: Report on the Sahaja Yoga School, Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Austria, May 1995. One does not need to discuss before inserting sourced material: BOLD, revert, discuss. You recommend a more cautious practice than that but practise more recklessly yourself, can you not see the hypocrisy of this? Also how is the the beating of children in the SY School and the allegation that mentions, en passant, that attendance at SY schools has not necessarily been only on a voluntary basis, way off subject? --Simon D M (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's amusing that Sfacets removed the Controvery heading from inside the article, when he is the one doing his level best to delete all the sourced controversial information. Sfacets, you need to explain why you are removing this notable on controversial information that comes from the most reliable sources we have. I append some of that content.--Simon D M 13:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Austrian Ministry of Justice's 1995 Report on the Sahaja Yoga school comments that "Despite the altitude, eight months of sunshine a year and outdoor activities and sports in the open, the European children appeared pale which was unexplainable to the visitor".

Coney also reports that another child arrived home having lost a stone in weight, and so changed in appearance that his mother could not recognise him, although the school had consistently reported that he was 'doing fine'. Coney also reports that there have been 'instances of children having been beaten' leading to the temporary dismissal of the Headmaster. Nirmala Srivastava herself had the following to say on corporal punishment:

Bhoots can sometimes only go away with slapping. I have seen especially with children it happens. Two slaps on the face and they're alright. Because they're bhoots you see and they have to go away.

Judith Coney reported that there was a school in Rome that has accepted boarding infants from the age of 2. A 1988 Italian television program surreptitiously filmed children sleeping 6 to a bed and there has been negative press coverage in Le Figaro, 16/5/91; Paris Match, 30/1/91 and Marie France, February 1992. Coney also reported the allegation that "when Swiss parents protested to Sri Mataji about their children going away from the age of three, thinking that the command to send their offspring came from the national leader rather than her, she personally reinforced his orders and, moreover, ordered them to have no contact with their children for at least a year."

Please read Wikipedia policy on over representing minority viewpoints. The quote of Nirmala Srivastava (taken out of context by Simon's careful ministrations, the usual) doesn't have anything to do with the school. Also realise that Coney "reported" on a period in the school's history, and that some of her "information" is no longer relevant. S facets 13:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you would like the article balanced with other reliable, COI-free sources, please cite them. The quote from Mataji shows that the beatings of the pupils, reported by Coney, were not necessarily diametrically opposed to SY ideology, hence the reappointment of the Headmaster. I can provide context for the quote below. --Simon D M 14:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've definitely got better understanding and maturity as far as my knowledge about human beings is concerned because they are - when I was born they were strangers to me - just strangers, imagine that Adi Shakti should say this, but it's true! Despite I have created you, I was absolutely a stranger. But now, I've grown, I've understood you very well, I know you are my children, I know how much you love me and how much you are close to me.

("Why is he crying so much?"... "He wants to go to the toilet". Let him go". "He wants me to go with him". "He should go himself." Let him go, this is the thing you see, these children are very obstinate. Its bhootish isn't it? Let him go. He won't listen. Better go See. Alright take him down. What to do, you see, very obstinate. They're bhoots. Such a big boy can't go to the toilet. Just to disturb, that's all.)

You must really slap him now, if you give him two slaps now, his bhoot will go away. Two slaps and next time he won't do it. You see at this time you must slap, not very hard but let him know that you don't like it. Bhoots can sometimes only go away with slapping. I have seen especially with children it happens. Two slaps on the face and they're alright. Because they're bhoots you see and they have to go away.

Now whatever I have said to you yesterday about children be careful. You have to make your children assets and not liabilities, on Sahaja Yoga. So try to train them up properly.

Attaching this quote to something Coney wrote is your Original Research. The quote mentions nothing about the school. S facets 14:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No but it gives context to the beatings. BTW, still waiting for the other reliable, COI-free sources and/or other reasons to suppress Coney's findings about the schools. --Simon D M 14:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't - it is completely separate and as usual you are taking things out of context to fit in with your POV.  S facets  14:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What POV is that? As far as I'm concerned all that's being said is that Coney reports beatings have occurred and there is clear evidence that Mataji has recommneded corporal punishmnet to exorcise kids of bhoots (possessing spirits). As the school is supposed to practise Mataji's ideas on education, it is very relevant and puts the headmaster's actions in context. The whole issue of beating/exorcising kids is certainly notable. --Simon D M 14:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It is your POV/OR that the two are connected. S facets 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Mataji who has declared herself to be the omniscient Adi Shakti, who has claimed that her every word is a mantra, recommends that SYogis should hit children. A SYogi, who is the headmaster of the SYogi school, which is based on Mataji's ideas of education, hits children. And Sfacets, who has serious COI issues, says he can't see a connection. --Simon D M 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that you are the one wih COI issues - to the point of making baseless and arbitrary connections between two different things. You are trying to turn this article into an attack article. S facets 22:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So there's no connection between Mataji's advice and practice in the School? Then why are the extracts from Education Enlightened linked? Why does the school site proclaim: "Based on the teachings of Her Supreme Holiness Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, Sahaja Education"? --Simon D M 08:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"rvt OR"
This material was deleted with the edit summary, "rvt OR". How is this original research? It is cited and attributed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Coney also reports that there have been 'instances of children having been beaten' leading to the temporary dismissal of the Headmaster (ref)Judith Coney, Sahaja Yoga: Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement (1999) p164(/ref).


 * My bad.  S facets  00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this the reason you've left an unexplained warning on my talk page about OR? --Simon D M 08:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No.  S facets  10:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the reason then? I've asked you there but you haven't replied. --Simon D M 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction or not?
Sfacets, now you are repeatedly inserting a statement that Coney's report that children have been taken as young as 4 is contradicted by the newspaper article saying that children were being taken from 6. From the tenses used it is clear that the former referred to the period of time up until Coney's study, the latter referred to the situation in 2000. They do no contradict because they refer to different periods of time. Consider these statements: 1) "people have been hanged for murder in the UK" 2) "people are not hanged for murder in the UK". They are both true and there is no contradiction. --Simon D M 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should specify the dates... S facets 13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should remove your inaccurate references to a contradiction. I see no need to unnecessarily burden the article with info on dates, but you can do so if you really think it is worthwhile. --Simon D M 14:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed it myself but you are still re-inserting it. Is there any chance of an explanation or is it just another of case of you carrying on your merry way without regard for either the facts or the talk page. --Simon D M 10:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight, minority viewpoint
I would encourage Simon D M to read the relevant WIkipedia policies concerning over expressing minority viewpoints in an article. The article should be composed the ratio the different viewpoints hold. S facets 09:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated above, Coney (1999) and the Austrian Ministry of Justice report are the 2 most reliable sources we have. They are not flat earthers. The view that 9 months is a long time for a 4 or 6 year old to spend away from their parents is not a minority view. On the other hand you are inserting POV wording like that 'vibratory awareness' "enables practitioners to detect and treat subtle imbalances in themselves and others" - now that is a minority view, like the view that the Earth is flat. --Simon D M 10:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources - maybe. Minority viewpoints? Definitely. S facets 10:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Back to the bare assertions. --Simon D M 13:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile I note your lack of argumentation - and that, as usual, you fall back on insulting me or my religious practice. S facets 13:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the last to contribute constructively, the onus is now on you. --Simon D M 13:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The references to anything written by Judith Coney, I believe should be excluded since, according to sources online, she is largely influenced, if not mentored by Simon Dicon Montford. So by referring to this author, he is pushing his own barrow. As is widely known, since being asked to leave Sahaja Yoga, Montford has a personal vendetta against Sahaja Yoga. Sources available online say that Coney was never genuine in her investigations of the movement and only wrote the books for academic kudos.

I quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OR "Our original major content policy, neutral point of view (NPOV) encourages editors to add undisputed facts, including unbiased accounts of various people's views. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles, and demands that Wikipedia balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field." Note the terms "undisputed facts" and "unbiased accounts". This means the editors must agree on the validity of the references. I dispute the validity of using Judith Coney because of her close relationship with Simon Montford. By using her reference, Montford is distorting the article by inserting his own views.

For the record I have removed the allegations contained in the additional schools section because of the undue prominence of allegations in this article.Try-the-vibe 14:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Try-The-Vibe, welcome to the talk page. Judith Coney's mentor was, if anybody, Eileen Barker. What sources are you relying on? Not all sources are equally reliable. See WP:RS. There is nobody more prominent in the study of this particular new religious movement than Judith Coney. --Simon D M 15:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the weight due to various viewpoints, it appears that Coney's view of the school is shared by articles printed in major newspapers and a neutral report by a government agency. Coney's work mentioning the school has been published in several reliable publications. Of course the whole article shouldn't be about the viewpoints of Coney, the newspapers or the Austrian government. But those viewpoints do appear to be the most widely-held and should be given the most weight. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Judith Fox (nee Coney) is no longer in academia and no longer involved with the study of new religious movements. She conducted her sociology research into Sahaja Yoga in England in the early 1990s as a student of Professor Eileen Barker (University of London), completing her thesis in 1996, and turning the thesis into the book cited here and published in 1999. Sahajhist 21:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what her maiden name has to do with anything, but I don't see anything in her bio that would discredit her as a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * her published writings on new religious movements were before her marriage, and therefore under her maiden name. Sahajhist  23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Coney might have been a name from a previous marriage, rather than a maiden name. Not that it matters. --Simon D M (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah... so you do not deny that Coney is at least largely influenced by you, Simon. For sources I am relying on reviews of her book and a website which details your very dodgy past and current anti-Sahaja Yoga agenda. I'm sure you can Google it.

I found out that Simon Montford appointed Judith Coney as the administrator for one of his anti-Sahaja Yoga blog sites. Apparently she polices opinions aired on it and deletes comments by people who mention Montford's questionable past.

Montford and Coney have a close relationship and this is a Conflict Of Interest (COI) in him using her as a reference. The fact that Simon's nose is out of joint for having been asked to leave the movement is another COI for him. Through his websites and influence, Montford has created a virtual "mud raking machine". To put it simply, he does not do objective research.

It is not a question of whether or not something has been printed, or as you say - reprinted in different places. What I am questioning is the value of trawling for references which reflect negatively on the movement, instead of trying to provide an objective article. To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OR again, editors are supposed to "balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field.".

Eileen Barker is a Professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics, the same school that Simon Dicon Montford works for. Isn't that a coincidence.

Eileen Barker has stated that "Social scientists focus on information that can be empirically tested. Qua social scientists, they cannot judge the truth or falsity of theological statements." This is another argument against Coney being used as an authority on the movement. She has completely ignored the validity of the religious experience available through Sahaja Yoga meditation, which can be proven through personal experience. One of the preconditions for attaining this experience is sincerity and Coney has been criticised for not having this quality.

To summarise, Judith Coney is not a good authority on the subject of Sahaja Yoga, having not done an honest job of the research. And she has a close relationship with Simon Montford, an avowed vilifier of the movement.

Montford's motivation for making edits to this page can also be a topic for further discussion.

Try-the-vibe (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the motivations of editors is not a legitimate topic of discussion. The posting above contains what appear to be aither unsourced derogatory material on a living person that violate BLP, or personal attacks on an editor that violate NPA. Either way if they are repeated the editor who posts them may be blocked. Please focus on the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not an attack, it is a legitimate discussion about Conflict Of Interest. The material I have sourced is not derogatory, it is historical documentation. Other discussions have been made about living persons suspected of having a COI, why not an editor of Wikipedia?

A certain editor is not being objective and this is an issue which affects the quality of this article. While each edit may be referenced, there is a consistent attempt to present a strongly negative point of view.

Please do not dismiss all the points I have made in my last post. Calling this a personal attack is just a cheap diversion.

Try-the-vibe (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This article talk page exists to discuss the article, not the editors. As for accusations of COI, it appears that several editors here may have some interest in SY outside this project. Rather than delving into the COIs of each editor, I think we'd spend our time more wisely in discussing the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, not that it really matters, ttv is referring to info from a page on a site that is even condemned by official Sahaja Yoga. When JC wrote her thesis on which her book was based, I had no contact with her whatsoever. I did suggest JC as a neutral party who might be willing to act as administrator for the old sahaja-yoga yahoogroup, but I was in no position to appoint her. I've never had a close relationship with JC, never even met her, I've never worked for LSE and I don't have any websites. At the time JC's book came out, the only criticism I heard from Sahaja Yogis was that she'd been 'too objective' which had stopped her from coming round to their way of thinking. There'd been a similar disappointment many years before with Phillipa Pullar's book. --Simon D M (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Further for the record, I've just been reminded that when acting as moderator of the old SY yahoogroup, JC made one or more Sahaja Yogis temporary moderators giving them access to areas of the yahoogroup they shouldn't have had access to including private information on the members. No doubt she thought she was doing no harm, but it shows that she was very far from doing my bidding and was sympathetic to SYogis. After several abuses by Sahaja Yogis, she encouraged the ex-SYs to accept a new Sahaja Yogi moderator, who went on to vandalise the yahoogroup irretrievably. SahajHist can confirm all this. I suspect you've never read JC's book, you should get hold of a copy. It really goes out of its way to be non-judgemental about SYoga. --Simon D M (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am only drawn to question the motives of a certain editor because of the highly selective references taken from articles and deliberate emphasis on exclusively negative points. In short, a certain editor's agenda needs to be questioned because of the one sidedness of his prolific contributions resulting in a thoroughly one sided article. Try-the-vibe (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again I insist you stop debating motivations and agendas. That is inappropriate and doesn't improve the article. Let's move on to discussing the changes in the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright WBB, let's discuss some changes. On the basis of certain references which have been highly selective with a deliberate emphasis on exclusively negative points, I request that all further edits be discussed here on the talk page first. Try-the-vibe (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight on something that Simon brought up.

Simon says he doesn't have any websites. And yet I found the following on Whois.net:

Registrant Name:SD Montford Registrant Organization:Sahaja Yoga Ex-Members Network

In the past, Simon Montford has claimed to be a lecturer at the London School of Economics in order to make his assertions against Sahaja Yoga appear credible. Yet, at the time of the allegations he was in no way, shape or form part of the academic staff of that institution. The Edinburgh University website currently lists Simon Montford as a "visiting worker".

For someone who likes to take the moral high ground against a movement he opposes, this kind of deceptive behaviour is disappointing. Try-the-vibe (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ttv, as I've explained many times, a domain name is not the same as a website. I've never claimed to have ever worked at LSE in any capacity, although I did give an unpaid talk at INFORM once. Nor have I ever worked for Edinburgh Uni in any capacity. Your complaints against 'unfair accusations' ring a bit hollow after your tirade of completely unfounded accusations. --Simon D M (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you expect anyone to take you seriously now. You've been exposed as a liar and you say "business as usual".Try-the-vibe (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My statements above are clear, produce reliable sources to the contrary if you can, otherwise lay off the personal attacks which are off-topic. --Simon D M (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Coming back to the main issue, the problem is that Coney is the only RS we really have. The article cannot be based primarily on questionable sources such as a self-published website that is promotional in nature. --Simon D M (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So now you're claiming not to be working at Edinburgh Uni either! Have you checked their site? Your name is there. The argument that a domain name is different from a website is really splitting hairs. The fact that you registered the domain indicates that you are the founder of the anti-Sahaja-yoga website. In any case, this is common knowledge.


 * Having touched on your emotional reasons for having a vendetta, it is clear that your presence as an editor here on Wikipedia can only be viewed as your own personal attack on the movement. Personal attack - get it? You are attacking the movement for personal reasons! Mentioning this is right on topic of addressing the quality of this article. I'll lay off when you lay off.


 * Regarding JConey, it is very convenient for you to call her investigations objective since they completely coincide with your POV. However, if they really are objective, she would have described her own verification of the experience of self realisation, thoughtless awareness and flow of vibrations. As a student in sociology her analysis was blinkered and this is what other people have criticised her for.


 * Take a look at the history of your posts, Simon and you can see that the statements above are completely consistent with the way you operate on Wikipedia. I refer to the listing of references which have been deliberately sourced to back up your POV, taking sentences out of context from references in order to express your POV, and the use of insinuation. You like to pile up negative references into a paragraph and link them together in order to express your anti Sahaja Yoga point. And if anyone else creates an effective paragraph which may be well referenced, I've seen you deconstruct the point by re-arranging the sentences into other parts of the article. What you do is sneaky, underhanded and absolutely un-objective.


 * Try-the-vibe (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Shock! Horror! Another person with my name! Don't confuse the moon with the finger pointing to it. 'Common knowledge' among Sahaja Yogis covers a lot of things for which there is no evidence. Here in WP, evidence matters, and things like (PA removed) --Simon D M (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

By common knowledge I mean amongst anyone who has an interest in Sahaja Yoga, positive or negative. Your many aliases on the Internet are also widely known. Try-the-vibe (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverts 2
This edit: removed 4,500 bytes from the article. Please explain those deletions. Some of the deleted material has been in the article for a long time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of that material has been there for less than one week, and does not reflect a consensus. The removal of allegations from the list of other schools has already been explained. There is undue weight given throughout the article to allegations and material specifically selected with malicious intentions. Try-the-vibe (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The intent doesn't matter, just the outcome. Please bring the specific deletions you want to make to this page. I'll restore any deletioons of sourced material that haven't been. That's most of them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've restored the material except for the list of other schools. Now which specific items are involved in the undue weight problem? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In the above cases, deception is the intent and misrepresentation is the outcome. I've taken off the material which was not agreed to by consensus. Just because it is referenced does not automatically mean it is OK to add. There are the considerations of undue weight and context, which must be discussed. The list of schools is there for reference. It is not a list of schools with any mud that can be raked up added as a summary about that school. This is a misrepresentation.  Try-the-vibe (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * PLease don't make changes without discusing them first. You said yourself: "I request that all further edits be discussed here on the talk page first." Well then, please discus them first. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, why do you keep replacing all the edits which were put there in the last week without consensus? They are the ones that need to be removed. Do I need to ask you to do it for me?  Try-the-vibe (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * TTV, it is perfectly acceptable to add material without 1st getting consensus, see WP:BOLD. After it was removed there has been discussion on this page along various lines, eg Sfacets suggested that the Austrian Ministry of Justice's report was inadmissable because it was a 'report' and because it was produced by the Austrian state (go figure). We have heard various accusations against JC which are all unfounded, unsourced and unworthy of repetition. The most sensible objection has been 'undue weight', but it was based on an incorrect idea of the meaning of 'majority' and 'minority'. All this unflattering material is from reliable sources so I think you are going to have to live with it. If you want to balance it out with more positive material from reliable, or even self-published, sources, you are welcome to do so. --Simon D M (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson Monty. So let me see if I've got this straight. It's OK for you to add anything you like and argue the point afterwards, reverting my balancing edits. But it's not OK for me to revert what you do without prior discussion? That sounds a bit one sided.

How about what you did on the main Sahaj page - revert everything that two other editors did and then immediately call for a moderator to freeze the page how you like it. Very sly Simon.

Consensus is bunk then and you advocate an edit war.

I advocate the following. If the Austrian report is unobtainable and therefore impossible to reference, no one else can check the context of the quotes you take or even check if you are just making up new ones.

Question about Judith Coney: what has she written about the experience of meditation in SY? If she was truly objective she should have at least tried to experience it. The reason you quote her so much is because she has the same POV as you, and as everyone knows, you only like to express your POV.

So, I need to make a decision now. I need guidance from an experienced editor. Hmmm... what would Simon do? I know - revert everything I don't like and ignore everything anyone else says! Try-the-vibe (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the material I've added has been under discussion for a long time without any credible argument being made against it. Actually it was Sfacets who reverted the Sahaja Yoga page and then asked for a freeze, so you can take up the issue of slyness with him. Citing reliable sources cited in other reliable sources is standard academic practice. As I understand it JC did throw herself into SY to a large extent and had to take measures to ensure this didn't go too far, see her book for details. The POV expressed in JC's book is neutral, not the same as the POV I express because I am willing to openly say that I think SY is mistaken in its fundamental beliefs and that this leads to various untoward consequences. However, I have not pushed this POV at all on WP, I've only sought that a fuller picture of SY is represented including its religious aspects and some of the less flattering aspects. I too would appreciate advice from more experienced neutral editors and I have sought it via RfCs etc. --Simon D M (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because no one answers you within 24 hours, does not give you the right to just keep on adding quotes from your favourite source willy-nilly. The history of Sahaja Yoga page is there for all to see and you were the one who reverted it just before you requested the moderation, which resulted in the freeze. Your pants must be on fire! Try-the-vibe (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the facts are publicly available: Sfacets reverted at 14:04, Sfacets requested block at 15:12, Simon D M reverted at 16:01, Nishkid64 blocked at 18:00. Sfacets said he was requesting the block so that discussion could proceed, but since the block went into effect he's made little effort in that direction, and that's not solely due to the fact that he's been blocked twice himself due to unacceptable behaviour. Go figure. --Simon D M (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You called the moderator immediately after you reverted the page. How many times have you been blocked from Wikipedia yourself? Only just last week you were banned! Try-the-vibe (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the evidence? Blocked once, over 3 weeks ago, for reverting the removal of notable material from reliable sources. --Simon D M (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tell it to the judge, simon. Try-the-vibe (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Rome School
There has been a Sahaja Yoga school in Rome that, according to Judith Coney, has accepted boarding infants from the age of 2. A 1988 Italian television program surreptitiously filmed children sleeping 6 to a bed and there has been negative press coverage in Le Figaro, 16/5/91; Paris Match, 30/1/91 and Marie France, February 1992. Coney also reported the allegation that "when Swiss parents protested to Sri Mataji about their children going away from the age of three, thinking that the command to send their offspring came from the national leader rather than her, she personally reinforced his orders and, moreover, ordered them to have no contact with their children for at least a year."

The above, highly notable and well-sourced, information has been almost completely removed from the aritcle. I would be interested in hearing the reasons for doing so. --Simon D M (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * it closed several years ago. MonitorMan (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you produce a source for this? Perhaps an announcement on the official website with an explanation of why. --Simon D M (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * and this article is about the ISPS in India. MonitorMan (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but the section was about other SY schools. Maybe the page should be about the bigger topic of SY and Education or SY and Children. --Simon D M (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just add the whole book Simon?Try-the-vibe (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not all relavant and it would be a copyright violation. --Simon D M (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * you mean like the copyright violations on your SYRC website? MonitorMan (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You've got me there, although I've always found it a bit strange that God should want to hold copyright and receive royalties. --Simon D M (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sahaja Yoga is provided free of charge. Money is raised from donations and tapes.
 * Of course, you may know better how God should and should not operate. (personal attack removed)
 * Try-the-vibe (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See the Money page at www.sahaja-yoga.org --Simon D M (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum. S facets 12:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Simon, that URL has been created to misrepresent Sahaja Yoga. The owner of the domain is cyber-squatting on the name because it is similar to the official one. The content is full of insinuation and inaccuracies. It is the website of one person who attacks the movement for personal reasons. The owner of the domain is acting out of revenge for being rejected from the movement because of his own misdeeds. He typically likes to use the Internet to remain anonymous in his cowardly claims, and has (PA removed). It hardly needs to be said that the contents of that website can not be used to back up any claims for this article. The owner of that domain (PA removed). Try-the-vibe (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WIPO disagreed with you about the cyber-squatting. The webmaster would be interested in hearing about any inaccuracies. Many have contributed to the site, that I can tell you. Regarding anonymity, I'm about the only person here who isn't anonymous. --Simon D M (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no argument on the similarity of the domain name. Regarding your name, Simon D M is just one of your aliases. Might not even be your real name. Try-the-vibe (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Similar domain name reflects similar subject matter. --Simon D M (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this criticism to the Criticism section of the Sahaja Yoga article. Maybe the list of schools could go to the Organisation section of the Sahaja Yoga article. --Simon D M (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As your summary said, moving the other schools to the main SY article may be better. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Other Schools section has now been moved. --Simon D M (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight by minority viewpoints
I have removed the header, since it is misleading regarding the content placed beneath it. What is the name of the AUstrian report? I doubt it is "Report on the Sahaja Yoga school". The article is extremely unbalanced at the moment, and over-represents minority viewpoints - critical or not (although Simon apparently would like to categorize them all as critical). Please stop re-inserting your edits without obtaining consensus here. S facets 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how we can call any viewpoint about this subject the "minority" viewpoint. An overview of all the reliable, 3rd party sources about this subject shows that all of them are critical. If there are other 3rd-party sources that we aren't using then please let's include them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sfacets, I've got no problem with you removing the 'Controversy' heading, I just think there needs to be some heading other than 'Overview' to cover issues like the beatings. I'll replace it with 'Concerns' until we can agree a better heading. --Simon D M (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, there's no heading there now so pick one we can agree on. And it's plain bad manners to ask for a citation request, then, when it is fulfilled, delete the labouriously typed text and restore the citation request (along with the usual deletion of notable material from the only RS available). --Simon D M (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see there can be no heading - you have included too many differing viewpoints. If you want to add a citation, then don't use that as an excuse to restore unconsensed material. S facets 02:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I thought "Critics clutching at straws" was pretty good. Try-the-vibe (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that it's currently under 'Overview'. I can't believe you're happy with that but it's no big deal. --Simon D M (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm prepared to compromise. How about "Overview of critical references prepared by a rejected ex-member" Try-the-vibe (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"(rmv questionable source - see discussion)"``
A large amount of sourced information was removed with this summary. But I don't see any discussion that led to a consensus to remove any sourced material. Without a consensus we should not be delting sourced material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions have been brought forward, (both here and elsewhere) on the relevance and reliability of material using J Coney as a source. S facets 10:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any proof. If bringing forth questions is sufficient to negate sources then any user could just ask questions and delete sourced material. There's no consensus that Coney is a biased or unreliable source. She is well-credentialed and her books are published by highly respected publishers. Until there's a consensus here or on the reliable sources notice board then the material should stay in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

She is also (PA removed). On the contrary, until it is established that her work is reliable, her sources should not be used in the article. Wikipedia is about verifiability, so if no other author shares her opinions, Coney is a minority viewpoint, and should be used sparingly, if at all, and only in conjuncture with otherwise verifiable facts. S facets 10:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You keep saying that, but you haven't shown a single posting or action of hers that shows bias. There's no evidence, just your statement. That's not enough to disqualify a peer-reviewed source that meets the highest standards of scholarship. If sources disagree we should include both views, not throw them both out. The only charge of hers that I've seen a dispute about is whether a parent said her child came home dirty, which is rebutted by another parent saying her own child was clean. Where are the sources that dispute what Coney says? I don't see any. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not a rebuttal. Different child, possibly a different year, possibly a different section of the school, possibly a different standard of cleanliness, etc. --Simon D M (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What? Have you even read WP:BLP?  S facets  20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read BLP. Where are the sources that say Coney is biased or unrelaible? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By comparison, I note that "questions have been brought forward" about the reliability and neutrality of Dr. Manocha. His appears to be a minority viewpoint, and without corroboration from neutral scientists perhaps his work shouldn't be used. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a slightly different case because evidence has been brought forward of Manocha's COI and he makes no disclosure of it. On the other hand there is no evidence of Coney's COI and Coney goes into detail in her book about the nature of her stance toward her subject matter. There is a public archive of Coney's activities on the vandalised yahoogroup, it's all out in the open. Sfacets' attacks on Coney are in contravention of WP:BLP and he should remove them. --Simon D M (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be consensus on the value of a reference. As has been discussed further above, Coney has not provided an objective analysis of Sahaja Yoga. Check the reviews of her book on Amazon, most feedback points out that her analysis is very superficial. As has been mentioned, she is also an associate of Montford who has a demonstrably one-sided opinion and only uses her reference to support his bias. Try-the-vibe (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * as Judith has herself noted (in an email to myself), her research was conducted in the early 1990s, and in England. Sahajhist  07:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone needs to remember that WP:BLP applies to article talk pages and to all living people. Amazon reviews are not reliable sources. I still haven't seen any proof of this alleged association either. None of this is sufficient to impeach an otherwise respectable source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Willbeback, will you comment on what I have said. SDMontford is consistently selecting references which create a strongly negative slant. Is this something you approve of? Try-the-vibe (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I have protected this article due to the edit warring. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(legal threat by blocked user removed) R. Baley (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * censorship? Yogiwallah (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Standard WP practice. See WP:LEGAL. WP requires those taking legal action "do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." --Simon D M (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external links to allegations of sexual abuse
[external links edited for Wikipedia spam filter]
 * www freewebtown com/sahaja-yoga/test12 htm Testimonial from an anonymous alumnus (mixed/neutral)
 * www freewebtown com/sahaja-yoga/childabuse htm Testimonials from anonymous alumni concerning alleged cases of sexual abuse in 1994

The above 2 links have been repeatedly removed. Could whoever is deleting them please justify why they believe these contravene WP:EL? If they think they are personal web pages, could they please explain why. --Simon D M (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The domain is known for hosting personal websites, Is there any evidence that they aren't personal webpages? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm talking about. These have been removed countless times before for the same reason but Simon D M repeatedly puts them back. Freelion (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The WP article on personal web pages defines them as: "World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature. The content can be about that person or about something he or she is interested in." I personally know a number of people who were involved in creating the site. The website's welcome page also refers to "The authors of this web site". In short, the site was not created by an individual is therefore is not a personal website. I would now like to hear the evidence and rationale for the claim that it is a personal website. --Simon D M (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, [some external links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] freewebtown dot com is also the home of the www freewebtown com/ovp/index html Office of the Vice President of the Phillipines and the www freewebtown com/democraticleft/s001 htm Democratic Left Movement. In the past is has even been mypetjawa mu nu/archives/192239 php used by the Taliban. More to the point, just because a group has no money, or does not want to involve itself in money, and therefore turns to cheap webhosting which is largely utilised by personal web sites, it should not find its site barred from Wikipedia - this would be guilt by association. --Simon D M (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL states that links to be avoided include: • Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. • Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. • Links mainly intended to promote a website. Freelion (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And how do those categories apply in this case? --Simon D M (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's self evident. Read them again and think about it. Freelion (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Have read many times. I'm not aware of any factually inaccurate info, the site is not a blog and the content is very relevant so not just a case of promoting a website. Still waiting for you to move beyond bare assertion into the realm of evidence and reasoning. --Simon D M (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There seems to be no further objection, so I will restore the links. --Simon D M (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought this topic was finished. The site you are attempting to link to contains many disputable claims and the serious allegation is unverifiable. The site is not representing a recognized authority and I believe the reference is mainly intended to promote the site. Freelion (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of this page
This page is simply mirror of Sahaja yoga organization, school is not notable enough to have an article on wikipedia, organization already has one, this page is not needed. Delete --Cult Free 07:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The school has been commented on by an Austrian Ministry of Justice report, by Coney in her book and in a number of other academic books. There was also a notable court case concerning a child being sent to the school which is not yet covered in the article. --Simon D M (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't think the article should be deleted you may remove the PROD tag. Do you have any information about the "notable court case"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added some material. There's more in Coney's book. --Simon D M (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this the source you used: "Brigitte Schinkele, Rechtsprechung in Österreichisches Archiv für Kirchenrecht 45 [1998], ibid., pp. 306-317"? Is that a court record? If so it isn't suitable for as a source without a secondary source to confirm it. Court records are a very problematic type of primary source. Also, obscure foreign-language works are problematic because they are so hard to verify. A Coney reference, on the other hand, is much better. It's a reliable secondary source in English that is easily available. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This will help. I found a scholarly paper that cites the book.
 * In another Austrian case, the mother's guardianship was partly substituted (after legal intervention of the grandmother), as she was not willing to take her boy out of a Sahaja Yoga boarding-school in India in order to grant schooling in Austria (cf. Brigitte Schinkele, Rechtsprechung in Österreichisches Archiv für Kirchenrecht 45 [1998], ibid., pp. 306-317). http://www.jsri.ro/old/html%20version/index/no_3/eva_synek-articol.htm
 * On the basis of that citation, the reference appears correct and verifiable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've update the ref and added a case mentioned in Coney's book. --Simon D M (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What about doing some research into the high ideals and noble aims of the school? Freelion (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there any 3rd-party sources on those topics? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the article already documents the ideals and aims of the School, based largely of self-published promotional material. --Simon D M (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This was exactly the reason as why i had put that tag there.. its promotional work, that’s all!! --talk-to-me! (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While the article does report promotional claims from self-published material, I don't think that in it's current state the article as a whole could be deemed promotional. --Simon D M (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy: "a public discussion or argument"
There is no actual "controversy surrounding" the school. The previous controversy section contains a number of mixed views from sources which contain both critical statements and praise for the school. Even the court cases do not constitute a controversy. So I have renamed this section to "Mixed views". Freelion (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)