Talk:Maitreya Project/Archive 1

Comments
Dear Simmonstony, re Maitreya Project, please read Neutral point of view. I appreciate the importance of this project to many people, never-the-less, the cause of this Noble project is not being served in Wikipedia by the lack of NPOV, if continued this would tend to lead to conflict over the editing of this page. Please bring a NPOV to this article, or allow others to add it.David Woodward 11:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear 203.158.61.165, "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
 * Please read Verifiability
 * Please read Criticism In an attempt to bring the article into line with the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) policy, i have added the criticism section.
 * Please read WP:REVERT. There is a lot of disagreement about this issue at the moment, a news thread on a popular topical bulletin board has been shutdown. I hope we can resolve this issue. David Woodward 12:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear 203.158.61.165,

re: "... women's chapter of a local Save Our Land organization". changed to "... women's chapter of a local Save the Land Movement" is a change of quoted text, so this is no longer a quote from the article. & also "who has been misquoted in the press by journalists Daniel Pepper and Di Cousens as stating" please note that you have altered a blockquote, so this is no longer a quote from the article. Please take care when editing to ensure WP:Verifiability. David Woodward 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear 203.158.61.165, please note that i wish to avoid an edit war. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy and use substantiated, properly referenced material; please refrain from removing references. The next step for me to take would involve asking for help from more senior Wikipedia editors. David Woodward 23:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism suggestion and POV
I'm all for having a Criticism section in this article, but as it stands this section is too long and confusing. I would suggest removing the unsourced para about FPMT affiliation, as it is not clear how this is criticism, and copyediting the rest, removing unnecessary info where possible. Maybe initially aim for two paras, one about criticism, and one dealing with Kedge's responses. Johnfos 22:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added a Criticism section under WP:Criticism, "Reasons to create a separate "Criticism" section include using a source which only criticizes the topic or only describes criticisms of it." is the case as every newspaper and blog report i have accessed about this project (apart from activity close to trolling by officials of the Maitreya Project) is negative about the project. The para about FPMT affiliation was originally sourced by me, with a Maitreyaproject.org ref and a FPMT.org ref . The para was edited by an anon editor and both refs removed. I am not inclined to simply revert in this case as I am following the recommended steps in Dispute resolution. David Woodward 23:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, David, but I'm not exactly clear what you are trying to say. I get the feeling that you are very caught up in the whole issue being discussed. Is it possible for you to step back a bit and get some perspective on things?

I'm adding a POV tag for now, as the Criticism section is too long and it dominates the whole article, and relevant responses are not being presented. Johnfos 00:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Johnfos, thanks for your interest, i had done a couple of edits before reading this, but i will now step back from the issue. I appreciate your POV tagging. "Maitreya Project, Latest Update, September 2007", http://www.maitreyaproject.org/en/updates/ is referenced at the end of the para "Peter Kedge, Director and CEO of Maitreya Project International has replied..." currently ref 8. David Woodward 01:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear 203.158.61.165, re # 07:38, 2 November 2007. Subtle edit, but considering that paragraph had been previously edited with unsubstantiated material and had references removed and now moved out of the crit section. -- and there is currently a dispute over NPOV, i consider this a further breach of NPOV. David Woodward 02:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Dear David Woodward.

I have replaced the POV box for the article with a POV-section box for the criticism section. I feel this is more appropriate as the entire article is not in dispute, merely the criticism section.

I don't think anyone wants an edit war over this issue. I have reverted the 2 quotes mentioned to the original text. Regarding the removed reference to an old Maitreya Project entity in UK, this was removed as it was totally irrelevant (and also not a criticism). Maitreya Project have many legal entities worldwide and the closing of one of them was simply normal course of business, as is the case with any large organisation.

Regarding the quotes and references to Bodhgaya News, I have moved these entirely to the talk page, below, as they are in breach of Wikipedia policy regarding questionable source Verifiability.

The policy states that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." and further... "Self-published sources (online and paper)... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

The Bodhgaya News is a personal website which contains much misinformation and poorly researched articles. The article by Di Cousins is one example, being full of misinformation and misquotes. As such it should not be referenced according to Wikipedia policy.

The criticism section should thus be rewritten with reliable sources quoted. If you like, I am more than happy to work on this with you so that a neutral and factual criticism section can be developed. If you would like to contact me by email, or phone, please let me know and I will make my details available.

Please state in clear terms what exactly you wish to do to resolve any dispute.

Simmonstony 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
Note: This section has been moved to the talk page pending dispute over the reliability of its sources. Simmonstony 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms against the project date from at least 1999 as reported in the Bodhgaya News, an English language news website published by Dr Peter G. Friedlander, an Asian Studies academic. The report is about a letter "from the Bodh Gaya Forum of Village Republics (Gram Ganrajya Manch in Hindi)... to the 11 members of the Maitreya Project International Board of Directors." Bodhgaya News has continued to report on the issue with a number of articles including one dated October 3, 2007. Protest by a local organisation opposed to the Government land acquisition has included a road blockage, occasional demonstrations, legal action against the State Government (which has been rejected by the High Court), and a relay hunger strike where locals take turns so sit in protest and fast for a day. The third such relay hunger strike "entered its 60th day" on August 25, 2007. Opposition has also been stated by "Kalami Devi, the demure, bespectacled head of the women's chapter of a local Save Our Land Movement".

NAPM (National Alliance for People's Movement) organised a state level meeting in Village Siswa Mahanth, 3 km from Kasaya in Kushinagar district in support of local people.

"'On paper, the state government has already taken the land,' says P.P. Upadhyay, a district land acquisition officer, who adds that seven villages and between 15,000 and 20,000 people will be displaced."

Given that the entire population of Kushinagar is recorded at less than 20,000 this would be impossible. Further, Mr. Upadhyay has written to Maitreya Project to say he never gave such a obviously incorrect statement to Mr Pepper.

The official records show that a total of 660.57 acres in Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, India are being purchased, by the Government of UP, from 1,114 landowners. These figures include 48 households in 7 villages who will be displaced and therefore require a relocation package.

Peter Kedge, Director and CEO of Maitreya Project International has replied to public criticism on the official website, where he addresses a list of eight questions mostly about the acquisition of some of the land for the 750 acre project site.

Adding POV tag again
On 31/10 I added a POV tag to the top of this article and this is what I said at the time:


 * I'm adding a POV tag for now, as the Criticism section is too long and it dominates the whole article, and relevant responses are not being presented. Johnfos 00:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That POV tag has disappeared and so I'm adding it again, because now things have gone in the other direction and all the criticism has been removed from the article and there is no questioning of the project at all. Therefore the article is not neutral and not balanced.

There is also a clear need for many more citations to support what is being said in this article and I'm adding a tag about that too.

These tags will alert readers to the fact that all is not well with this article. Johnfos 09:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing POV tag again
I completely disagree. Just because an article has no criticism does not mean the entire article is unbalanced or not from a NPOV. For this reason, we seem to have a problem because unless you can tell me what is unbalanced or not neutral in the text that does appear in the article, I will keep removing the POV tag. If you feel inclined, please explain in detail what text exactly you feel is not neutral.

I agree that a criticism section may be warranted as there has been some criticism (though in the press, only from 3 individuals). This section, however, requires writing from a NPOV also. The lack of length of a criticism section does not put the rest of the article in question. That is plain logic.

If the neutrality of the text in the sections that appear in the article is not neutral in your opinion, please tell me why.

Cheers Simmonstony 03:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding POV tag again
I am adding the POV tag and "more citations needed" tag to the top of the article again. Before we deal with citation and POV issues, I would suggest that the copyvio issues be dealt with. Johnfos 04:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio
I picked two paras at random and found that they appeared to be copyright violations. This para...


 * No fees are charged and the school provides uniforms, books, meals and health care. The school also provides residential accommodation for a small number of children who either need special care and attention or may not otherwise be able to attend school.

appeared to be a copyvio of this source: This para...


 * The Project will build a teaching hospital of international standard in Kushinagar as the focus of its healthcare activities. This will offer treatments based on Ayurvedic, Tibetan, and Western medical systems. The hospital will provide first-rate medical care in surgery and other modern procedures.

appeared to be a copyvio of this source: The easiest way to deal with copyvio is to remove the offending text. Johnfos 04:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Future
I'm also adding a "future infrastructure" tag at the top of the article, as it is easy to get the impression (eg., from the image and caption) that the statue has already been built. This tag will help to clarify things for readers. Johnfos 04:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright
Maitreya Project has given its full consent to use text verbatim from its website and materials on Wikipedia. I have added a note to this extent in the article.

I am removing the POV and Citation tags again and will continue to do so until you clarify

Best wishes Simmonstony 04:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
The copyvio issues appear to involve multiple sources, not just the Maitreya project site. In any case much of the material that is coming from the Maitreya site seems overly promotional and not particularly suited to an encylopedia article. This is partly why the article is POV and needs a POV tag. The other reason is that reliable sources suggest that considerable criticism and questioning of the project has occurred but this has been cut from the article, and so the page is not neutral. In terms of citations please see WP:When to cite. I would suggest that a controversial article such as this requires at least one citation per paragraph, so I'm adding the "more citations needed" tag again. Please don't be concerned about these tags being there -- they alert other editors to the fact that there is a dispute here, so hopefully they can come and assist. Hope this helps... Johnfos 04:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Requested
1) There is no text which violates copyright. If there is, then please highlight exactly what it is.

2) Citations

Wikipedia policy states...


 * Quotations – When quoting published material, the quote should be attributed in the text and a citation placed after it.
 * Data and statistics – Data and statistics need sources.
 * Counter-intuitive statements – Statements likely to surprise the reader should be cited.
 * Opinions – Opinions should be cited and attributed in the text.
 * Contentious statements about living people

I believe that none of these apply, so I am removing the citations tag again.

3) POV

Yes, much information comes from the Maitreya Project website. As this is an article about the Maitreya Project, and the project is in planning stages, then there really is no other place to gain information about the project. Please let me know if I am wrong about this. If so, supply a reliable source and I will add content as applicable.

The project criticism stems around one issue, as far as I can see.. That the UP government is acquiring land and plans to lease it to the Maitreya Project.

Thus, this particular criticism is against the UP Government and not the Maitreya Project. One cannot print criticism of the Maitreya Project for actions taken by another entity.

The criticism that was previously present in the criticism section was not from a reliable source, and contained blatant misinformation and misquotes which have been refuted in writing by the person quoted. Thus they cannot be linked to from Wikipedia.

Thus, again, I remove the POV tag until you are specific.

I will keep removing these tags, as long as you keep reinstating them. I would therefore request formal dispute resolution if you wish to continue like this.

Best wishes

Simmonstony 05:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it is best to seek some sort of dispute resolution, so please go ahead with this... Johnfos 05:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
As some of you may know, there has been a mediation request filed. You can see it here. I will be the Medcab mediator. I hope that I will be able to help get this dispute over with ASAP. Cheers!--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 14:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Simmonstony, thank you very much for your offer for me to edit the draft. I think it is probably best for me to continue to be "hands off", since i don't know how well i would be able to maintain NPOV. I would be happy to help out if nobody else is available. (is this the right place to put this reply? probably shouldn't go under "Advertisement Tag"?) David Woodward 13:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement Tag
I have reworded much of the material and added more references. This rewording may be seen as subtle, however it has added that the stated plans of the project are just that.. plans. Please note that this is a project in the planning and conceptual stages (with the exception of the Bodhgaya School. The bulk of information about the project stating the project's intention. These intentions have been stated clearly and labelled as such.. intentions or plans. Thus, I do not believe that the article currently reads like an advertisement.

To be honest, its fine for Wikipedia Editors and Admins to flag concerns, however wouldn't it be better if they gave specific references to what those concerns were, rather than simply stating NPOV or Advertisement? Simmonstony 00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The user of the account, which seems to have been registered for the sole purpose of adding the Maitreya Project to Wikipedia, removed the advert tag.


 * It is an interesting project and clearly notable enough to merit inclusion in this encyclopedia. The article about it, however, still reads very much more like promotion than an encyclopedia entry, so I will restore the tag.  It should not be removed by a non-neutral editor.


 * A single-purpose account is not often found in the best position vis-à-vis the neutral point of view policy. I don't know what your position is, exactly, but the conflict of interest guideline, and this essay about compliance with it, might clarify the situation for you.  — Athaenara  ✉  06:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do have a connection with this project however do not feel that this constitutes a conflict of interest. I would ask again, what exactly about the article you feel constitutes it reading like an advertisement?


 * I have edited the article again to remove more material that could be considered to highlight anything beneficial about the project. What I would say to you, Athaenara is that I would like to also request mediation then arbitration with you on this issue if you cant state your case clearly. Your inability to state a case clearly makes one wonder if there is a hidden religious agenda afoot.


 * As I consider myself a neutral editor, thus I feel that I am entitled to remove this tag again as the article has been further edited. Simmonstony 07:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the appropriate template a third time. Please read the three-revert rule policy page if you are tempted to persist in removing the template.

You are welcome to post your views on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉  08:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have posted a Rewrite of the Maitreya Project Page on a subpage of my user page. In the interests of agreement between editors, can Athaenara, SJP, Addhoc, Johnfos, David Woodward and anyone else who is interested please read it. Please feel free to edit at will, or post constructive remarks or comments on my user page for now. Simmonstony 11:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Simmonstony, please do not accuse people of having some sort of agenda, as you have with Athaenara. Please follow WP:Assume Good Faith. By making accusations that people have an agenda in a dispute is...not very good. Athaenara, that is directed towards you as well. Even if you have a reason to believe bad faith you do not have to share that. What will you accomplish by doing that? Nothing positive. All you will be doing is pouring oil on a fire. Thanks for your time.--SJP 17:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)