Talk:School of Philosophy and Economic Science/Archive 2

Financial report for the year 2014
Lots of data here such as UK membership of 2300 in London and ~50 regional locations in the country, and that 55,000 have attended courses in London alone since 1937. Some noteworthy quotes:

The School’s courses treat philosophy as a personal and practical attitude to life and its opportunities, enabling people to deepen and develop an understanding of life and of themselves. They are not academic courses such as would be followed in a university, but aim to be as practical and experiential as possible. The School has found that exploring the inner life and making it practical for daily living requires a method of cultivating inner stillness and peace, and for this purpose students are offered an introduction to the practice of meditation after a few terms' study of philosophy. Thereafter, regular practice of meditation is central to the study and practice of philosophy.

Attracting new students to the School is a high priority... Advertising and its effectiveness is kept under constant review by the Advertising and Communications Sub-Committee... In London the primary forms of advertising are personal referrals and cross track posters on the London Underground supplemented by search engine 'pay per click' advertising and the maintenance of a website providing comprehensive information about the School and its activities. Advertising particularly in London is a significant cost and the Advertising and Communications Sub-Committee seeks to maximise personal referrals and promote the School’s reputation in order to reduce the costs of new student acquisition.

At its final meeting of the accounting period it was decided to offer the Part One Philosophy and Economics courses free of charge (except for a modest administration charge) for the first term of 2015. It is anticipated that this will result in much higher enrolments for the courses making the work of the Fellowship available to a larger group of people.

The School is committed to an ethic of lifelong learning and development, and many students continue to attend classes throughout their adult life, also providing the volunteer service upon which the School depends. Additionally, its educational aims and the study opportunities that it provides cover a broad spectrum, all based on the fundamental philosophy that humanity is united in a common conscious essence and that natural laws offer the possibility that human beings can live freely and prosperously without exploitation or misuse of Nature.

The Charity’s trustees are extremely grateful to all those who make voluntary donations to the Fellowship by way of legacies or otherwise.

At 31 December 2014 unrestricted group reserves were £20.7 million.

The School is not a public fundraising charity... Steps continue to be taken to find alternative sources of income, and to safeguard the value of the Charity’s assets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthall7 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

In December 2010, acting upon the advice and recommendations of the Investment SubCommittee, the Executive Committee placed funds to the value of £4,000,000 with two investment fund managers... One of those fund managers is Heartwood Investments. Mr Clive Meek is an employee of Heartwood Wealth Management and upon his joining the Executive Committee as a co-opted member it was felt that he should no longer continue as a member of the Investment Committee to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest.

...the Charity agreed to provide a pension to an ex employee. Pension contributions had not been made over the full course of the employment, which has resulted in some income deficiency, which will be rectified by the provision... The provision (£392k) has contributed to the higher than usual deficit in 2014.

-Roberthall7 (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with using primary sources like this is that unless we quote verbatim, we are effectively inserting our own opinions, and if we quite verbatim, we are cherry-picking. It is better to use secondary sources where we attribute views to identifiable authors, rather than random Wikipedians. --Pete (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Robert, please go ahead and make uncontroversial edits to the page, for example the number of members. There is no need to copy and paste large amounts of text. Pete/Skyring has a long history with Wikipedia, however he has a COI issue on the noticeboard to resolve in this case. Unfortunately, COI management on Wikipedia are having their own issues at the moment. Nevertheless, he is not supposed edit the page, but do respond to any comment made on the talk page, and keep things focused and calm. Travelmite (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Looking at the article, I notice a number of less than reliable sources. Wordpress blogs, for example. I think we should steer clear of such sources. --Pete (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You've put a citation tag, on something because it's a broadcast. There's no rule that says news broadcast material cannot be a reliable source, and there is likely to be a transcript. Disruptive editing by a member of the organisation, tarnishes the reputation of that organisation. Travelmite (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the Sarah Salaman book with regards to reliable sources. It seems that her book was a fiction work based on real life experiences. In interviews she deliberately did not disclose the name of the school. I listened to the radio NZ interview - she mentions her father was interviewed by The Times. I could not find that, or any reliable source connecting the school with the book. Without that connection, the whole reference to Sara Salaman does not belong in this article. If news organisations are respecting her decision, then Wikipedia should too. Travelmite (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. The Guardian made the explicit link between her book and the SES, we had the citation for it in the article. Afair that citation was removed during disruptive editing. In the meantime I think it has expired or moved, from here -Roberthall7 (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * For what its worth, that peer-reviewed paper about SES cites the book as a reference. If that can be got hold of, the verifiable connection might be there.-Roberthall7 (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That removed Guardian source mentioned elsewhere, fwiw... "The Guardian bookshop states that the novel is based on her own experiences growing up at the secretive St James School of The School of Economic Science." -Roberthall7 (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As a neutral person, the more I think about it, the Salaman story may have too many hurdles to overcome. It could be like dealing with a witness (primary source), but Salaman hasn't come forward in any official investigation. The book is fictionalised to avoid scrutiny. We cannot assume she is neutral and her family life must be an impact on her recollections. Even if another source says she went to the school, she still doesn't state the organisation is the SES. The fact she won't come out and say that, must be taken into consideration. Crappy things happen at regular schools too. Maybe that other source would be far more helpful than the Salaman story. Anyway, have a think about it. Travelmite (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your point and I think it is a good one. She certainly appears to be pushing an agenda at least as strongly as Dr. Vecchio, Jeremy Sinclair, Hugh Jackman or the primary, self-published, SES website, all of which we cite. Going on Wikipedia policy, this is about (i) verifiability and (ii) how the source is handled in the article. On (i), it was verifiable that the connection between the book and the SES was drawn by the Guardian at least, so it crossed the threshold for inclusion. Now that the link is dead we ought to find a replacement and that richestcelebrities.org one is a start, but not ideal. On (ii), satirical material (which by definition has a distinct POV) has a vital place in articles that touch on history and culture so long as it is flagged as fiction and is a notable part of public discourse about the topic. I think policies WP:V and NPOV will be more decisive here than our attempts to work out why the said author says she will face prosecution if she names the target of her satire, or what point of view she may be pushing. Other, more influential satirical novelists are already treated that way in Wikipedia, it seems. Thank you, I will give it some more thought: interesting stuff, and possibly one for a noticeboard discussion. -Roberthall7 (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The richestcelebrities only references the Guardian Bookshop. I have no reason to say Ms Salaman has an agenda or that she wrote a satire (highly-doubtful). Nor can you say she is being persecuted (a major assumption). The book is a fiction, and the interviews are real life - separate sources of information. Her "agenda" with both unclear. The Guardian discusses the book which says "based on", so the book cannot be used as a documentary account of SES. Salaman's interview is directly on her real life, and the more important story, because its not fiction. But these interviews are separate from the book, and the Guardian does not say her non-fiction accounts are about the SES. Salaman herself says she is not providing that detail. Quite different from the other sources (eg Jackman) regardless of bias. Combining the book and interviews, could be WP:SYNTH: "do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". This is clearly a special case, but what also strikes me is that the interviewers comply with the idea of not naming the organisation, and Wikipedia would match this standard via WP:BLP: "with regard for the subject's privacy". Emma Watson interviews are far more useful, because she clearly states the school and what she experienced as a student. Travelmite (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to put this to a sourcing noticeboard to get more opinions on it. Simply put: (i) I agree this is not a documentary account (and that must not be implied by our article), and that Salaman's motives (both in the book and in her subsequent interviews) are irrelevant (ii) I agree there may be a risk of WP:SYNTH here but (iii) the reason why it may not be SYNTH is that there is what Wikipedia calls 'a generally accepted understanding' with absolutely no public dispute or doubt about what Salaman is talking about, moreover a verifiable source has drawn a link between the book plus its author and the subject of this article (Johanna Petsche of the ACU and The Guardian). Afaics WP:BLP doesn't disqualify that. Meanwhile (iv) it is un-encyclopedic to omit a major element of public discourse about this subject. By the same token, it wouldn't matter to Wikipedia if Orson Wells never publicly connected Citizen Kane to William Randolph Hearst by name, for whatever reason - what matters is if it is generally accepted by the public and especially if it is verifiable that someone has. In fact, in the case of Hearst, it would be an omission if Wikipedia didn't include the connection. Like I say, happy to open this up to collective opinion and accept consensus. -Roberthall7 (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way Travelmite you mentioned a transcript. There was a citation for one but afair it was also deleted during disruptive editing. The transcript has been republished by an institute with a strong agenda, so not an organization we need to quote itself, but one we can use as a citation for the transcript. Here it is for you: -Roberthall7 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like an RS to me. I think we'd need something more mainstream. Works of fiction "based on" reality tend to be inaccurate, with characters and events rearranged and modified to fit dramatic needs. Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities is based on real events, but is unreliable as a historical source. Donald Trump's supposed autobiographical "The Art of the Deal" turns out to be unreliable. How can we possibly cite a work identified as fiction as providing any reliable information about this article's subject? Using an opinionated website's unverified transcript of a radio programme to synthesise a connection from a work of fiction is hardly encyclopaedic.


 * Using Citizen Kane as an example is ludicrous. Citizen Kane regularly tops lists of the best movies of all time and we have thousands of reliable sources linking this famous film with Hearst. For Salaman's book, not so much. There is no generally accepted public understanding. Very few people have even heard of the book, let alone read it. --Pete (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Website definitely has an axe to grind, but Channel 4 News is a respectable source, and a licensed broadcaster, with a serious news team. However,the article is ten years old and concerns historical abuse which was already well documented, and no longer denied. We seriously need contemporary external references. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Channel 4 News may be a reliable site, but the other one is not. We cannot depend on the transcript being accurate or complete. Using it to link a work of fiction to the school is a very long stretch. Nobody doubts abuses of the past, and I think we have good sources for a mention. But WP:WEIGHT is skewed in this article. It doesn't present an accurate picture of the current situation. The USA article reflects the current administration, rather than presenting Bush as still running the show. Why should this article follow a different philosophy? --Pete (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Right now we have a very biased website giving a transcript of something Channel 4 allegedly reported. That's problematic from a copyright point of view as well as verify-ability since there is no assurance of accuracy. Can we find the original report?-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 16:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW it's on Youtube in 2 parts  though it seems User:Travelmite is correct that we can cite factual TV in the same way that we cite a book that isn't published online. -Roberthall7 (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could point out exactly where Salaman's book is mentioned? --Pete (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding Citizen Kane, it's not a ridiculous point, but a refutable one. With this famous work there is sufficient secondary analysis to dissect various meanings. I still don't see a pathway where quoting Salaman passes the Wikipedia test for inclusion, until she decides to publicly name the school or organisation. Regarding the "current situation" who can know with certainty. We can include responses from the organisation. Travelmite (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Robert, including the words "echellon" was a bit too much - it's not in the source. If Pete/Skyring has a problem with reporting the numbers in the SES offical report, please discuss here, not just reverting. Again, the issue of being COI does not help. Let's hear a neutral way of distinguishing between these ordinary members reported and other participants who's number is a bit of a guess. Travelmite (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Travelmite thanks, if you take a look at the recently-added Evans paragraph he is a useful source because he was recently published (2013) which is exactly what Fiddlersmouth pointed out is needed. Evans specifically does reference Salaman's book (which is also referenced by the ACU paper and possibly others), and describes it as an "interesting read" on the topic. NB Evans has long been the citation for the Salaman paragraph. Moreover, Evans brings the 'responses' up to date, by saying the SES has lost its "charismatic" and "authoritarian" leader (MacLaren) and so in his view, even if there are damaged lives it is "not a 'secret cult'". I'll adjust the wording to make that clearer. -Roberthall7 (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have not checked everything. Could you quote Evans here on the talk page? It cannot be a just a passing reference or an assumption by Evans. Remember the book is a fiction. It's the real testimony of Salaman that has potential importance. What does Evan say about Salaman (the person)? If it's a weak connection, then you shouldn't use it here. Travelmite (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a passing reference, which basically says that on the subject of SES the Salaman novel is an interesting read. Personally I don't see why it can't be a passing reference. We are not using the novel as a factual source, we are saying that the novel exists, which is relevant. There is no verifiable doubt, anywhere in the public domain, that the novel is about SES and its St. James School. I can see that you are trying to be impartial here and I value and respect that. But let's not assume we are superior to the sources, which are sacred. Evans, the source, clearly makes the connection, and we defer to that. -Roberthall7 (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

On WP we summarize sources and include notable facts. If something receives a passing mention in a single source it does not make it worthy of (even) a passing mention in a WP article which is summarizing 85 other sources. To do so would create undue weight, which we know from WP:UNDUE, is not appropriate. If it's received significant mention in multiple sources then could you please list/link them here so we can have a look? Many thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, let's ensure we're all talking about the same thing here. The blocked editor Pete/Skyring, who has a history of blocks  wrote above: "Channel 4 News may be a reliable site, but the other one is not. We cannot depend on the transcript being accurate or complete. Using it to link a work of fiction to the school is a very long stretch." The truth is that Channel 4 News and the transcript has never been used to connect Salaman's work of fiction to this article. It is disruptive to confuse other editors into thinking it has. If anyone went on a wild goose chase watching the Channel 4 News clips looking for a mention of Salaman, then they have had their time wasted. This may be used as evidence in any future WP:ANI, alongside the removal of sourced content identified by Keithbob, and the problems with conduct identified by Fiddlersmouth and Travelmite, including those of conflict of interest. Now, to turn to the inclusion of a mention of Salaman. Let's not allow Wikipedia to turn into a tool of public relations in which texts are suppressed. Let's remember SES is given ample space for its responses to criticism in the article, and that the critics are shown to have very differing views, some very balanced. In keeping with Wikipedia's ethos of providing comprehensive encyclopedia articles, this entry makes a brief, passing mention of the existence of former SES member Clara Salaman's work of fiction entitled Shame on You, inspired by her experiences there. It rightly treats that as notable information and rightly does not present the novel as a factual source. The overt connection between the novel and the SES is made by (i) Johanna Petsche's academic, peer-reviewed, university paper about SES  and (ii) Jules Evans' 2013 book Philosophy for Life which we have quoted extensively in this article and states: On the School of Economic Science... An interesting read is a novel by former St. James pupil Clara Salaman, Shame on You . Then (iii) a number of websites that we are not using as sources, e.g:  which is generous of us given the very large amount of quotation we have in this article from the self-published SES website. Furthermore, Salaman speaks about her book at length in a Guardian interview  and a Radio New Zealand interview  and in other places that we haven't used, e.g. . Salaman has stated that she is not naming the organization for legal reasons, even though  Petsche and Evans does. There is no source, anywhere, that alleges Salaman's novel was not inspired by her experiences at the SES. I can agree that any attempt to treat this work of fiction as a factual source for Wikipedia should be prevented, as should any attempt to falsely allege this work of fiction is being treated as a factual source. -Roberthall7 (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The block against Skyring (however justified) is irrelevant. Let's say Salaman has a legal reason to not name - you cannot assume the reason. Nor can you use the "not disproven" approach. I still cannot see a pathway to include Salaman at all here, both the book and the interviews. WP doesn't allow you to join all those dots to make a claim, especially one against her wishes. You need to find a reliable source that definitively says, based on hard research or interviews, that Salaman attended the school and the following events are her real experiences there. The most that can be done with this is to cautiously write something on the Salaman biography wikipage. Also, I ask you to keep in mind that the paragraph currently sounds very tabloid/gossip, in any case. The other sources are fine though IMHO. Travelmite (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What's relevant is that there was a misleading comment on this thread that could put the discussion at cross-purposes. It's also relevant that the misleading comment is part of a pattern of behavior, and the place to resolve that is indeed not here but WP:ANI. My support for inclusion of a mention of Salaman's fictional work being of relevance to SES is based on the connection made by at least two reliable sources. Several other sources add context. My support for inclusion comes from my understanding of WP policies and guidelines. Thank you for explaining your understanding in detail and I accept in principle that I may be wrong. I would like to understand the rationale for exclusion more, and may take this up at an appropriate noticeboard or forum. I'll keep you posted if I do. Many thanks, -Roberthall7 (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't take what Pete/Skyring said at face-value. Given you predict an ANI may come up, it's probably more important to make sure this article meets Wikipedia standards and critical material should be irreproachable - quality more than quantity. With reliable sources, they explain how they got their information. Someone can follow the path backwards to get to the original researcher or interview. These sources seem to repeat each other's message in a circular fashion. Since Salaman says she is not disclosing the school, and the interviewers are keeping it off-the-record, then where is the information coming from? Sofar, we are not sure. My guess is that it originated on a BBS forum somewhere. It seems consistent with everything else and probably quite true, but not "reliable" by WP standards. Travelmite (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Per above: Jules Evans' 2013 book Philosophy for Life which we have quoted extensively in this article and states: On the School of Economic Science... An interesting read is a novel by former St. James pupil Clara Salaman, Shame on You. So I propose a compromise solution to at least temporarily solve this very long discussion. We change the line of content to: "In 2009, former St. James pupil Clara Salaman published the fictional novel Shame on You, which has been described as "an interesting read" on the subject of SES.  As a further option, we could then cut the line about Radio New Zealand per se, and replace it with something along the lines of: In connection with the novel, Salaman was interviewed about her personal experiences by Radio New Zealand, The Guardian and The Daily Mail. It would be good to then move on: e.g. the 'fact' tags in this article; and are we happy with the large amount of content that is sourced from the self-published SES website? -Roberthall7 (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That tends to suggest Evans is unreliable too, because he relies on fictional stories. In fact, it seems he is also weighing against using Salaman too, for the same reason I think Wikipedia would also do. I have an exercise which I think will get to the heart of the matter: Is there a reliable source to justify an assertion that Salaman attended St James School in any particular year? Travelmite (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Emily Watson wikipage, a bad reference that needs to be fixed. Via that reference, she did not describe the school as progressive and she observed mistreatment of children according to the reference here. Real testimony in reliable sources are far better thing to focus on. Travelmite (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Watson paragraph - and while we're at it the Wilson and Jackman paragraphs - can be improved. I'd appreciate a reply to my question about our extensive use of the self-published SES website as a source. I still don't understand your issue with Evans. He refers to Salaman's fictional novel as a pertinent cultural text, he does not use it as a factual source. We reflect that. Evans recommends the Salaman novel alongside the SES self-published works and Secret Cult. I went and got Evans in response to your request, and thanks to your request we now have the most up-to-date and comprehensive reliable source quoted extensively, including important quotes from an SES representative. You could try looking for Salaman's St.James dates in the published interviews she did, but I'm not really clear about what you're driving at with an exercise. I've really done a lot of contributing work here - please note I found and contributed the Jackman content as well as Evans etc, etc; I've also offered compromise wording. I don't think we should go round in circles about it any more: am happy to take it up on a noticeboard and have plenty of other editors involved and defer to community consensus. This said, am going to to be hugely busy off-Wiki for at least the next 2 weeks, FYI. But I'll be back. Thanks, -Roberthall7 (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I ask you to focus on Salaman and the special case of her fictional story which is at face-value not linked to SES. The "compromise" wording misses the point. Evans puts 'Shame On You' on the further reading list and that's all. No explanation is given. Evans does no research or analysis about the book or Salaman, so it's not the subject of anything. It's not a "pertinent cultural text". You're more than welcome to involve other editors, as the exercise is to follow Wikipedia rules and guidelines I'll apologise in advance for not removing it immediately, as per WP:BLP. Travelmite (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI
This page is being discussed at the Administrators' noticeboard, here: -Roberthall7 (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate picture, again
I'm going to have another go at removing the duplicate picture first pointed out by John Nagle above over 8 months ago, who asked for it to be fixed. It seems to have been restored as a consequence of the edit warring on this article. Here goes. -Roberthall7 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Eliminating duplicates is uncontroversial. --Pete (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate picture, again
I'm going to have another go at removing the duplicate picture first pointed out by John Nagle above over 8 months ago, who asked for it to be fixed. It seems to have been restored as a consequence of the edit warring on this article. Here goes. -Roberthall7 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Eliminating duplicates is uncontroversial. --Pete (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Legacy income
The article lead now reads "According to the British branch's financial statement for 2015, its main source of income is from wills...." There are several problems with this. 1. Income is received from legacies, not wills. 2. The Report and Financial Statement for 2015 does not say the main source of income is from legacies. a. The financial year ending 2015 was unusual. The report for 2015 states "voluntary income at £1,272,000 was significantly higher than last year’s total of £228,000, and explains the turnaround. This breaks down to £1,086,000 from legacies, and £186,000 from donations and gift aid." The financial statement provides the figures for legacy income for 2014 and 2015, £102,000 and £1,086,000 respectively. Even if legacy income had been the main source of income in 2015, it would be wrong to say it is the main source and wrong to say the financial statement said that. b. The report for 2015 does say "The main sources of funding are fees from courses (which are kept to a necessary minimum), gifts and legacies with some contribution from interest from investments." This is borne out by the financial statement, which shows that income from charitable activities and income from trading activities were both higher than income from donations and legacies. It also shows that legacy income at £1,086,000 was far from the main part of the £5,325,000 total income and formed a much more minor part the previous year (£102,000 of the £4,156,000 total income). It's disturbing that the claim that the main source of income is from wills was reinserted, given that this misreading of the source breaches Wikipedia's policy on Original research and WP:Primary sources and demonstrates the need for it, breaches the Manual of Style in introducing a claim which is not a summary of article body content, and had been challenged and removed. Please do not reinsert it without achieving consensus here. 92.19.24.9 (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There was also a peculiar emphasis on legacy income in the Administration section, which attributed the entirety of the 2015 surplus to it (a surplus is the result of multiple streams of income and expenditure which we are not in a position to hypothecate) and misled by reporting only voluntary income (5%-25% of the total). 92.19.24.9 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with The School of Practical Philosophy
I know nothing about either of these schools but I don't like to see muddle on Wikipedia. While stub-sorting I found a new stub for The School of Practical Philosophy. I tried to move it to School of Practical Philosophy as its correct title, then found that that was already a redirect to School of Economic Science where there is a whole section about the SPP. I nominated the new article for speedy deletion A10 but this was rejected on the basis that there is new content in that new article. I suggested a merge, but then looked into the websites of both schools and reverted myself. The websites seem to indicate that they are two separate entitities. I tweaked the new SPS article a little, and added a mention there of the SES, and have added a main link in the SES article to point to the new SPS article. But the text of that section still asserts that SPS is "the American branch of the School of Economic Science", with supporting quotes.

perhaps you could have a look at this and tidy it up one way or the other? Or any other interested party? At the least, The School of Practical Philosophy and School of Practical Philosophy must lead the reader to the same place.

The history of "School of Practical Philosophy" shows that this discussion has gone on for years, culminating in protection of that redirect by. Creating a new article with the title including "The " sidestepped that long discussion.

Thanks. Pam D  09:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * And there's the lead sentence which says "The School of Economic Science (SES), also known as the School of Philosophy and the School of Practical Philosophy, is a worldwide organisation based in London ...". "Someone" needs to decide whether for Wikipedia purposes it's one worldwide organisation or two (or more?) different ones. Good luck. Pam  D  10:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I live in NYC, I may be influenced by the widespread presence of their advertisements in the NY subway and elsewhere, nor was I even aware of the UK organization; and I admit I did not check the history. , I like your improvements, but if the US organization is going to be a breakout articles, some adjustment of content between the 2  is needed, which I will do. And then my inclination is to leave it to others.  DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. After some research I found this website - https://philosophyschool.com/Worldwide/ - which I think settles the matter. It lists, on an apparently equal footing, 17 campuses in the UK (most using the name School of Economic Science, but some called School of Philosophy, School of Practical Philosophy, or variants) and two dozen worldwide establishments in a dozen countries, called some variant of School of Practical Philosophy or School of Philosophy. It is clear that they are all the same thing. Furthermore, it is clear that the New York campus which is the subject of the new article The School of Practical Philosophy is merely one of dozens of establishments under that name. The separate SES website refers to them as “worldwide schools” or “associated schools”.

I am going to redirect The School of Practical Philosophy to School of Economic Science and make some changes at the parent article. I will leave “also known as” in the lead, since it is footnoted to the website which lists them all. I will rewrite the “School of Practical Philosophy” section to make it clear there are dozens of schools under that heading. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The School of Economic Science is the organisation founded in the UK by Leon MacLaren in the 1930s. It has branches in America, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and elsewhere under the title of School of Practical Philosophy. Typically branches are not national in scope, but city-based, called "The Dublin School", "The Sydney School" and so on. Sub-branches might be called (say) "The Canberra branch of the Sydney School".


 * The worldwide organisation is headed by Maclaren's successor Donald Lambie, and branch heads will defer to him. The various practices such as meditation, philosophy, routines, terms, study material and so on are more or less uniform throughout. Students from one branch can and do attend events and courses in other branches around the world. However, for legal and administrative purposes, each branch will be its own entity, typically a non-profit or charitable organisation. To complicate matters, branches often administer private schools, such as St James Independent Schools which are actual schools with juvenile students attending daily, paid teachers, classrooms and so on, as opposed to the parent bodies, which have unpaid tutors leading weekly classes of fee-paying adult students.


 * The New York School is the most visible branch, due to its heavy use of advertising extending back many years. But it would be a mistake to call this one branch the whole organisation. How we deal with this in Wikipedia terms, I don't know. Sourcing is a problem because although individual branches will have public filings disclosing officers and properties and activities, so far as I know there is no sort of global charter that describes how it all fits together as a whole.


 * Full disclosure. I was a member of the school for many years, and I met many of the leading figures in that time. Mr Lambie travels extensively, visiting branches every few years, and students are encouraged to attend events at other branches. For example, in 2017 I attended a course of study in Delphi, where students from branches around the world examined and discussed a Socratic dialogue along with companion texts from Plotinus and various electives such as Sophocles. The thing went for ten days, led by the head of the Dublin School. There were students from America, the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Crete, and probably a few other places. I enjoyed it immensely, but it was fairly heavy going. Likewise for courses on Sanskrit and other topics. It's intense, but fun. --Pete (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and insights. I said above that I was going to redirect this page to School of Economic Science, but I had second thoughts. Considering the long history of the earlier article School of Practical Philosophy, which is now a redirect, I think I should have a merge discussion instead of unilaterally redirecting. I will propose the merge/redirect below. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , I am not sure if you ever visited the NY branch? There are published assertions that the program is the same, but it might be interesting look for statements otherwise.  DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've dined with the head of the NY School and spent some extended time with senior NY members. There would be differences in administration, but I am quite confident the material studied is pretty much the same. Finding a usable source to support that would be difficult. We could look at the websites of the various branches and compare their published outlines, I guess. --Pete (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose to merge the new article The School of Practical Philosophy into this article School of Economic Science. There was an earlier article, School of Practical Philosophy, which had been redirected to this article as the result of an AfD discussion, Articles for deletion/School of Practical Philosophy. After User:Onadam27 tried several times to expand that redirect page to a full article, there was a request at RFP to full-protect the page as a redirect, which I did. Onadam27 then created a new page under the name The School of Practical Philosophy. I believe the new one should also be made into a redirect, but decided to get some discussion rather than do it unilaterally. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

My reasoning:
 * The School of Practical Philosophy is clearly a branch/subsidiary/related institution to the School of Economic Science; see for example this website - https://philosophyschool.com/Worldwide/ - which I think settles the matter. It lists, on an apparently equal footing, 17 campuses in the UK (most using the name School of Economic Science, but some called School of Philosophy, School of Practical Philosophy, or variants) and two dozen worldwide establishments in a dozen countries, called some variant of School of Practical Philosophy or School of Philosophy. It is clear that they are all the same thing.
 * The new article, The School of Practical Philosophy, is entirely about the New York institution by that name, although there are dozens throughout the world.
 * From the references cited it does not appear that the subject as a standalone meets WP:GNG. That was also the conclusion at the earlier AfD discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Strong support. MelanieN, per WP:BOLD you can go ahead and make the change. I was the editor who merged the articles over five years ago. This was with Talk page rationale that has consistently been supported by consensus since then. Good job by Pam  D  for spotting this in the first place. Note that by its own account, this organization is not an academic institution; it's therefore not a school in terms of what we generally understand by the use of the word. The different branch names it uses in different jurisdictions can indeed mislead (this is not the first time it's happened), and it's worth bearing that in mind at this juncture. It appears that the US branch of the organization does not have the same reputational problem of admitted criminal child abuse and other allegations that the UK branch has been dogged with. Consequently there's a plausible motive for attempting to distinguish between the two reputations; it would be more constructive for involved editors to find citations drawing the distinction, and adding appropriate content to show it. One editor User:Onadam27 outmaneuvering the redirect - and WP:CONS - by using a definite article in the headline to give the impression of there being distinct institutions could be construed as WP:DE, unless they engage in talk page discussion and consensus-building. -Roberthall7 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of which, note the coincidence of this around the time of a fresh news item (a reliable source that can be folded in to this article) about the SPP / SES: -Roberthall7 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks your input. It's been more than a week and no-one has objected to the merge/redirect, so I have carried out the merge. As for that "fresh news item" with the suspicious timing: if it was intended to provide a new source to support the separate article, it doesn't. I very much doubt whether The Outline qualifies as a reliable source (our definition: has editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy), and the "news item" is a first-person essay. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good job MelanieN. Yes: on further look I also doubt The Outline qualifies as WP:RS, I agree with that. To clarify no I don't think it was intended to provide a new source to support the separate article; the timing indicates that the new article might have been created as a form of public relations to divert from the The Outline piece, which was confrontational. Speaking of public relations, note in our article that a senior figure of this organization is Jeremy Sinclair of M&C Saatchi. -Roberthall7 (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On that note, does the SPP / SES internal literature including websites qualify as reliable sourcing? We are citing it very heavily in this article. -Roberthall7 (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Information from the organization itself is usually accepted as a reliable source for factual information (within limits; not if it is promotional or puffery, and not if there are reasons to doubt it). Such sources do not count toward the "significant coverage from independent reliable sources" required to qualify for WP:GNG, because they are not independent. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In which case, perhaps cuts are due to the massive chunks of the organization's information at the top of the article, which when it was added appeared to have been a way of burying the Reputation section? -Roberthall7 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional note: having looked again, it appears The Outline doesn't use the Huffpost or Drudge model as I thought. It has editorial oversight albeit with a politically liberal slant. As we know, the content of some online magazines has actually been scrutinized better than printed books. Our articles on films, history and sport use websites all the time as sources for article sections on 'reception' - that is, a representation of the various interpretive POV as opposed to a factual record. FWIW, mediabiasfactcheck.com says "we rate The Outline left biased and highly factual in reporting" so this may be worth a brief discussion on the WP:RS noticeboard. -Roberthall7 (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That could be. The piece cited is basically a first-person, my-experience type of report, but is there factual information in it that you think we should add? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As far as I can see, Wikipedia encourages us to distinguish between source opinion and fact, both of which have their place when handled responsibly. Firstly, one important piece of factual information in the source (which isn't yet in our article) is about how this organization functions (i.e. its financial model) thanks to the motivation of unpaid volunteers. Secondly, the interpretation of that fact by the source appears to be that people are drawn to give their free labor in return for certain spiritual, social or psychological reward. Also, this article has a Reception section and subjective observations from sources belong there, per our comparable articles such as Landmark Worldwide, etc. For example, the source has interesting opinion about what personally attracts people to the organization. -Roberthall7 (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

New user edits
Per WP:CONS propose immediate restoration of article to state prior this round of changes pending the two new users’ discussion of proposed changes on this Talk page. Among other things they have (i) restored the misleading cant-word "school" to the text (note that by consensus we use the neutral word 'organization' as a universally acceptable term) (ii) removed the sourced content showing it has ~£27 million reserves, (iii) ignored the sourced content showing the ruling of the Indian High Court which banned this organization's guru's use of the status-title "Shankaracharya", and adding it to the intro as their own WP:OR, without citation. The edits look like the public relations that has dogged this article before; unless they are sock puppets or a cohort, per WP:BITE these users need to be welcomed and shown how things are done on Wikipedia with courtesy. I'm unsure if there's a way of undoing the whole round of their reverts in one easy edit, and would ask admins to do this if they know how. For the time being I’ll start with the most problematic edits, mainly restoring sourced content and the consensus that we’ve had long-term. -Roberthall7 (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. To directly address the points raised: (i) the world school has been replaced with organisation. (ii) financial information was not removed. All information relating to finance and property was moved to the same section of the page for better organisation/ reading. (iii) objection to the use of shankarchara has been noted and updated with reference. Further the inaccurate description of the organisations structure has once more been corrected, sourcing the UK charity commissions update. Concentrado343 (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Concentrado343, welcome and thanks for engaging in discussion. Please read WP:CONS. This article has had many editors and has been stable for a very long time. For one new editor to come in and radically change the introduction after years of painstaking consensus-building and collegial teamwork, there needs to be very convincing rationale from the said editor. Please try to present us with it, and in the meantime I am going to revert your changes. To be precise, you have removed financial information from the introduction and placed it lower down the article; you've also done this with other information. Please slow down and read more about Wikipedia style and practice guidelines. Note that we're asked to provide an overview of the subject in the introduction, and its finances are part of that. We're also asked to include any controversies. One other thing; you might not be aware of Wikipedia's rules on WP:SOCK. This might be a coincidence but you do appear to have some kind of similar profile to User:Veuveclicquot1; if you are the same person using that account, or if you are cooperating with the person using it, you have an opportunity now to declare that and discontinue it in good faith, per the rules of our community. Administrators can use WP:CHECK to see for themselves. By the same token, please also familiarize yourself with WP:COI and proceed accordingly. I reiterate that you are most welcome here. -Roberthall7 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Roberthall7, thanks for the discussion, I do take your points on including finances and controversies in the summary and will revert those changes. However you have reverted a lot of perfectly correct information to a version that was not accurate. There seems to be a desire to hide that fact that this is a UK Charity.Concentrado343 (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * On specific points of content in the introduction: (i) the term 'Practical Philosophy' is an argot phrase specific to the organization. Which is why we say at the start of the 2nd par: The SES advertises introductory courses in what it terms "Practical Philosophy" rather than introducing it in the first line as if it is a generally recognized term, which it isn't. If you want to add Sanskrit and Economics with Justice, that 2nd par would be the place for us to do it - not in the first line. (ii) You write "There seems to be a desire to hide that fact that this is a UK Charity." No there isn't, and please note the important principle of WP:AGF. The charitable status in the UK, and the non-profit status in the US are verifiable administrative terms rather than verifiable definitions of the organization, which sources have variously called a new religious movement as well as church, school and the pejorative term which gets a single mention the the article. If you want to emphasize the charitable status, I'd recommend putting it by the new religious movement line. We aren't going to align the first sentence with sources only defining it as a new religious movement - there's equally no rationale for only defining it as a charity. The solution we've found here is to define it as an organization and leave it at that. (iii) The use of the word "guru" is very well sourced, please do not unilaterally cut sourced references, per Wikipedia guidelines. If you want to add more about the guru in the lede, it's an imbalance to add that his tradition goes back to the pre-medieval era while then omitting that a High Court in the present ruled his use of the related title was illegal. We ought to have both, if any at all. (iv) Per Wikipedia guidelines we can't cut the mention of controversy from the lead; if anything we're being very understated by not including what that controversy is about, and so this represents compromise already.-Roberthall7 (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Line about SES guru
One of the new users added the following line without citation:

It has been guided by Sri Shantanand Saraswati and his successor Sri Vasudevananda Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, an ancient seat of learning in India founded by 6th century Indian philosopher Adi Shankara.

This may indicate an honest lack of knowledge or gap in research into the verifiable sources, including what's lower in the body of the article. To that end I'm changing the line to:

''It has a guru, Sri Vasudevananda Saraswati, whose use of the title Shankaracharya was ruled illegal by an Indian High Court in 2017. ''

-Roberthall7 (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Vasudevananda Saraswati's role of school guru rests on his succession to HH, not on any external appointment. My understanding is that VS and Donald Lambie aren't as dynamic a duo as SS and Leon Maclaren. The School would tremble when Maclaren returned from his annual trips to India - what new disciplines would he enforce? - but Mr Lambie returns and things go on the same as before. Not sure that we need to say too much about an all but invisible guru. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring in contradiction of merge rationale
MelanieN, you wrote:

''The School of Practical Philosophy is clearly a branch/subsidiary/related institution to the School of Economic Science; see for example this website - https://philosophyschool.com/Worldwide/ - which I think settles the matter. It lists, on an apparently equal footing, 17 campuses in the UK (most using the name School of Economic Science, but some called School of Philosophy, School of Practical Philosophy, or variants) and two dozen worldwide establishments in a dozen countries, called some variant of School of Practical Philosophy or School of Philosophy. It is clear that they are all the same thing.''

We also have:

''"According to the official spokesperson for the New York chapter, Dr. Monica Vecchio–an adjunct professor of English at Baruch who has been involved with group since 1967–S.E.S. and the School of Practical Philosophy are “the same thing with different names. There are 70 or 80 [branches] around the world. Each share the same course curriculum, with the same content. The principles are the same, the practices are the same, the stream of discussion is the same." ''

This was our rationale for merging the articles in the first place, and is also backed up by other sources. Concentrado and Veuveclicquot1 have contradicted this rationale, which has been consensus for years, by inserting in the intro that this organization is a "federation of independent schools/organizations". Even more seriously, this article content does not appear to be in the citation given - unless I am mistaken, in which case please correct me. Also federation of independent anythings might be a contradiction in terms; but be that as it may, note the following edits:

Concentrado343: Concentrado343: Veuveclicquot1:

Concentrado343 is new and therefore being treated generously in accordance with WP:BITE; at the same time we're obliged to draw a line at WP:DE, and I've identified several more diffs that point to that. They need time to learn as we have either breached WP:3RR or are about to. Input welcome. -Roberthall7 (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Robert, please check out this. I think we can restore the article to its previous consensus condition. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, thank you for the effort, that should help rule out that the issue is anything more troublesome than lack of experience. I have no wish to engage in an edit war and will start a consensus-building section below to see if some of the proposed content can be incorporated; in the meantime, because I have already restored the article to previous consensus a couple of times, would you be able to do so now? -Roberthall7 (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that I look at it I hate to just revert to a previous version, because there has been a lot of editing, some of it constructive. I'll see if I can figure out what sock-added material should be fixed but I don't want to just delete everything that has happened; there have been literally hundreds of edits in the past week or so, not all by socks. Let's discuss what need to be changed. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed a few things. I think we need to consider whether to keep or remove the information about gurus; see the section about that started by Pete, above. What else needs to be changed or reverted? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, that's brilliant work. I now don't need to propose a draft intro here as it would look pretty similar to what you have done. In response to your question:


 * I support mentioning somewhere in the article that the organization obtained US "non-profit" and UK "charity" status, and I'm not sure that the intro is the place for it because secondary sources hardly refer to it as a charity at all, using other terms instead. For the record, there's nothing qualitative for us to diminish or promote about charitable status: that the Donald J. Trump Foundation and the Clinton Foundation are registered charities doesn't have any bearing on whether they are inherently bad or good.
 * I disagree with this rationale. The organisation is a charity, that is a matter of fact. However others sources describe it, it still remains a charity, this fact remains unchanged.=. Millandhouse33 (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not generally use the word "charity" in the lead because it is not really neutral. We usually say "non-profit organisation"; sometimes "humanitarian agency" for obvious do-gooders like the Red Cross or Medecins Sans Frontieres; but not "charity". I will restore "organisation" and add "non-profit". BTW my responses here are going to be kind of disjointed because I do not have time to respond to everything at once. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I support retaining the titles of the streams of introductory meetings in the third paragraph. To that could be added the phrase "...for a token fee, and sometimes free." or some such. Secondary sources and the SES' own literature emphasize that these meetings have minimal-to-free entry (therefore little bearing on the organization's income), in order to find as many potential new members as possible, and there's a place for that level of detail lower down the article.
 * The clause "encouraged to take up meditation" has a dead link and looks like an understatement to the point of inaccuracy when referring to the SES own literature, namely the removed 2017 charity filing: "students are offered an introduction to the practice of mantra meditation after a few terms' study of philosophy. Thereafter, regular practice of meditation is central to the study and practice of philosophy." It would appear that meditation being central means it's required, not encouraged; if it was merely encouraged it wouldn't be central.
 * There is a source describing that meditation becomes mandatory to continue on the philosophy course after a certain point, should updade to this if source can be found Millandhouse33 (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The line about the children's schools should be closer to the bottom of the intro as it's a slightly separate subject.
 * There is lack of secondary-source agreement on whether the organization was founded by Leon or Andrew, though sources tend towards saying it was Leon. That discussion is for lower down the article; the line needs to be struck out to restore consensus.
 * It was andrew, sources to follow Millandhouse33 (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the purpose of the line The UK organisation has 9 trustees, 98 employees, 500 volunteers and lists its area of operation as the UK. Wikipedia doesn't go into such detail about any other organization, and it's a statement of the obvious to say that the UK organization lists its area of operation as the UK. We cut it.
 * The inaccurate opening line you keep restoring suggests this is one global organisation not many independent ones, for this reason it is important to keep in the UK opperation 09:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The data of 4000 UK participants in 2012 UK charity filing is old, and inexplicably used by the sock to replace the more precise 2017 UK charity filing data, which can be restored.
 * supported if substantiated Millandhouse33 (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The single piece of financial data from that 2017 UK charity filing and its citation has also been inexplicably removed by the sock; I'm not sure that the breakdown into smaller numbers is required in the introduction - but it could have a place lower down.#


 * The sock appears to have removed without explanation the long-term consensus line from the intro: The SES has a large real estate portfolio including several mansions in Britain and America.    That needs to be restored.
 * The own use assets were described in the previous point you objected to. Millandhouse33 (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * About the guru, our long-term consensus had a very simple sentence in the intro: It has a guru, Sri Vasudevananda Saraswati.  This has been inflated to It has been guided by two gurus, Sri Shantanand Saraswati and his successor Sri Vasudevananda Saraswati, Adviata teachers associated with Jyotir Math[9], an ancient seat of learning in India founded by 6th century Indian philosopher Adi Shankara. A line of some kind should stay in the intro as it reflects the observations of at least two key secondary sources, Clarke and Evans. Though it is currently too high up the intro and does not accurately represent the source used: we now say the guru is associated with Jyotir Math, an ancient seat of learning in India founded by 6th century Indian philosopher Adi Shankara but the source states that the guru's use of a title associating him with Jyotir Math was ruled illegal in 2017 by an Indian High Court. We can only include the guru's ancient seat of learning in India if we also include that it was taken away from him. Wikipedia is not in the business of misrepresenting sources, let alone concealing illegality.
 * This was addressed in edit 882027433 Millandhouse33 (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To establish that our sock/meat problem is closed, MelanieN please could you arrange for WP:CHECK on the other new users? Because if it's not behind us then an IP range block and/or a period of article protection from new users' time-wasting disruption is in order - and they will always be welcome on the Talk page. There have been some legitimate content proposals that we are accommodating, but their conduct and understanding of policy and procedure needs some time.

Cheers, -Roberthall7 (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert: This new account has also been blocked as a sock. But now that they are here on the talk page, talking about the issues and laying out their reasoning, I would like to be able to work with them. I am going to see if I can get them to understand and maybe fix the sock problem. In the meantime, while we don't necessarily have to leave their article edits in place, I think we should take their points here on the talk page in good faith, respond to them, and see if we can reach a meeting of the minds. I already changed the lead to say "non-profit organisation" (we really don't ever describe such organisations as a "charity"). I think we may be able to find a wording that accommodates both interpretations of the world-wide operations - are they subsidiaries or closely linked but separate operations? Maybe we can work out the other issues. I have suggested to them how they may be able to get the sockpuppetry issue behind them and edit here as a normal editor, working toward consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This page describes a collection of independent organisations, not one organisation. That is well sourced. the description should represent this. Millandhouse33 (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)]])


 * This organisation does teach sansrkti to GCSE level, for that reason it is inaccurate to describe it as an organisation that provides non-academic courses. Millandhouse33 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Robert: This new account has also been blocked as a sock. But now that they are here, talking about the issues and laying out their reasoning, I would like to be able to work with them.

Reputation
"It has a controversial reputation", our lede opines. That seems to be a bit of a stretch. A handful of critics might say so, but where is the wider view? As an example, *any* organisation from a fast food chain to a pop group could be said to have a controversial reputation if one listened to its detractors, but where do we get off saying in wikivoice that the SES has a controversial reputation if there is no good basis for doing so? --Pete (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the various controversies take up about a third of the article (in a section neutrally titled "Reception", and including responses from the organization), it needs to be mentioned in the lead - which is supposed to reflect the content of the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds like something we are saying, rather than anything we can trace to a reliable source. Is there any reliable source saying the SES has a controversial reputation, or is it confected? --Pete (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Pete - even the sources that exist refer to thigs 30 - 40 years ago. Medidtation was seen as strange then, it is not now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millandhouse33 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you're missing the point. We can't rely on our own opinions. We need a reliable source to say that the SES has a controversial reputation. We can't just make it up or even promote our own sincere beliefs that this is so. --Pete (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there one? Millandhouse33 (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, please see points above re reputation Millandhouse33 (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

IMO with or without a source saying explicitly "the school has a controversial reputation", we need to say something in the lead - because of the very large Reception section. That section contains negative accusations and positive tributes all mixed in together; it desperately needs to be reorganized. I think we could come up with a lead sentence that better describes the material in the article text, something like "Some commentators and former participants have accused SES of being a cult or of abusing children in its care, while others have denied the allegations and described it as a benign or helpful influence in their lives." -- MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad you accept the point about reputation. Now, as to WP:WEIGHT. Your suggested wording sort of gives the impression that it's equally good or bad. I venture to suggest that a few have had negative experiences stretching back some decades. Most would have positive reports. I know this for a fact because I've seen feedback. The Sydney School, in particular, has adopted a data-driven management style, and negative responses are sparse and more to do with details like parking and session times not suiting individuals, while positive responses are glowing. It's basically mindfulness and meditation, after all. Nobody gets forced into doing things they don't want to do. Things were different in the past, when Leon MacLaren had more of a dictatorial role, but even then, it was all voluntary. If you didn't like getting up before dawn to chant Sanskrit, you didn't do it. Nobody went around whipping people out of bed. Now, I know my own personal observations aren't any sort of source, but it's a little irritating to see so much emphasis given over to the anguish of a handful when the reality is that hundreds of thousands over the years would differ in their views. --Pete (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Petes, point above. When considering wight, the size of the global organisation, positive vs negative claims made, which entities in the global the global org they cover, what period of time they apply to etc. Millandhouse33 (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

We are discussing this in two places. Let's make all our comments in the section below (while not forgetting or ignoring what has been said here). -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

One organisation or many?
I've been working on whether it is all one organisation, or one with separate affiliated organisations. I am leaning toward the notion that the affiliates are basically part of the organisation. For one thing, all the affiliates are listed on the home (UK) website under the link "Worldwide". It is argued here that the other entities are separate because they are registered in their own countries. That's true: the non-UK affiliates have their own corporate entities, registered in their own country. But when I looked up a couple of those registrations for "School of Practical Philosophy", one in California, one in New York , both registrations refer to them as a "foreign" entity. It may be that we can come up with a wording that kind of talks around the issue. I'll work on that later. I've spent all the time I can on this today. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, MelanieN. As I said in the 2013 merge discussion archived here, which resulted in a six-year consensus for this page: The legal distinction between the two organizations is as irrelevant as, say, Halliburton Co. and Halliburton Company Germany GmbH. It's standard (and often a necessity) that international organizations open separate legal entities in separate national jurisdictions and give them different names; moreover we've got a named senior representative saying they are all the same thing. McDonald's Italy serves mozzarella salad, and Tesco Thailand offers an alternative to local wet markets; they're local sections of the same entity with the same objectives. Our secondary sources say that whatever this organisation chooses to call itself, and whatever bureaucracy it chooses to establish, it is one hierarchical organisation with one leader, Donald Lambie, and it uses practically the same written guidance material for the use of members all over the world. I have not yet seen a secondary, reliable source putting it differently. If there is one, then quote it here. Until then, the consensus wording stays the same.-Roberthall7 (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, MelanieN & Roberthall7. Until the merge the US school had its own page and this one was about UK. If now this page is about all organisations collectively, and I understand the rationale for doing so, the entire lede shouldn't be about London. It should be about the whole thing. Branch specific information, financial reports or the independent enquiry etc should be listed as such as they don't apply to the collective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millandhouse33 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the main thrust of the lead section now does include the worldwide operations, and when it is about the UK operation, it says so. I agree that the UK financial information (and we don't really know if that includes international income and expenses or not) should not be in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

UK branch income
Latest financial statement to update numbers for UK branch in the article

It states:

"5.1.a The consolidated Statement of Financial Activities which accompanies this report shows that the Group generated a surplus in the 12 months to end December 2017 of £2,897,000 compared to the surplus of £1,812,000 in the previous 12 months."

"5.1.c The Charity’s income from courses was about 5% lower than in 2016, reflecting a renewed decline in overall student numbers, despite a small fee increase during the year. The impact of the free Introductory Courses offer is waning in London and some Branches and the advertising strategy will be reviewed in the light of this performance. Voluntary income for the year was £1,691,000 once again higher than in the previous year, and reflects the sale of another property left to the School, as well as a substantial legacy from a student in the North East branch. Donations and gift aid were £129,000 compared to £114,000 for the prior year, and the Trustees are very grateful for ongoing annual donations, as well as legacy income."

"5.2.a Investment gains for the year at £1,799,000 compared to £755,000 which mainly reflects the transfer of 96 Sedlescombe Road to an investment property which required a revaluation, after allowing for its refurbishment costs in previous years. Net gains in the value of other investments was £161,000, compared to £374,000 in 2016, reflecting further volatility in some markets."

"5.4.c In addition, the following reserves will be held for the purposes described: • At the year end, the Charity held total reserves of £27,339,000."

There's been some disagreement in the editing history of this article about where this organization gets its money. On the basis of this citation, would there be consensus now that the main sources of its income appear to be revenue from its mansion at Waterperry House (which was left in a will by a member of the organization), investment revenue from real estate (left in members' wills), and direct legacies from members' wills of real estate? The organization states that in order to appeal to a wide an intake as possible the recruitment-level membership fees are as low as possible, and have even been even free; the numbers in this document reflect that. -Roberthall7 (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We could use an update to the financial information. Not this detailed, of course, but a few purely factual sentences. Do you want to take a stab at writing one, or should I? I probably couldn't get to it today. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, not this detailed of course. In a nutshell, a reasonable summary would be a line saying: "The SES financial statement to the UK Charity Commission shows that by its own account it charges as little as possible in order to boost attendance numbers; it gets most of its money from real estate inherited from recruits who also give their free labor in running properties and meetings." The numbers can be updated where they already are in the article, with the fresh citation. -Roberthall7 (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not a summary. That's filleting a primary source to extract one detail which you can present as culpable, with an expression a hair's breadth away from "by their own admission", seizing the opportunity to imply that the SES is wrong to seek to increase attendance or have volunteers involved in its work. It's also incompetent; that's not its "financial statement to the Charity Commission", that's merely the annual accounts prepared for the benefit of the trustees which registered charities above a certain size must then also file with the Charity Commission, not a statement to the Charity Commission and not the charity's Annual Return. But that's what we expect when you use primary sources to sustain the aggressive investigative reporting which has been characteristic of all your editing of Wikipedia. 92.19.24.77 (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The intro
MelanieN, the difference between non-profit and charity is primarily a US/UK difference of convention, as we can see here:

We've both welcomed the newcomer(s) with courtesy and have demonstrated our wish to work with them, by encouraging them onto the Talk page, by incorporating their wishes into a discussion of consensus, and by encouraging them to appeal the ban. I trust that our kindness will not be taken for granted and that they will start to learn. I get the feeling this has turned into a very generous tutorial, but here goes:

(i) A fresh section is started here because of the above breach of WP:TALKO, which states: Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. Please adhere to this wise guideline.

(ii) To repeat, I have not ruled out having this non-profit or charitable status in the introduction. As I have said above: If you want to emphasize the charitable status, I'd recommend putting it by the new religious movement line. So in a nutshell, I can support it going into the intro, just not the first line, which had held long-term consensus. There are policy reasons for this:

(iv) The essay WP:TRUTH. Read it. In summary, Wikipedia relies on the citation of available, reliable sources; it most certainly does not rely on what individual editors perceive as facts. The misunderstanding about how to term this organization stems from a common lack of knowledge about Wikipedia's policy on verifiability versus fact, and to some extent neutral point of view and reliable sourcing.

(v) So what's verifiable? Certainly, it's verifiable that the WP:PRIMARY source official filings show this charity/non-profit status; (which would be preferable to using the publicity material of the organization calling itself non-profit and a charity). But Wikipedia encourages us to favour WP:SECONDARY sourcing. Which secondary sources refer to this organization as a charity? Clarke refers to it as a "British NRM" ; a paper at the American Psychological Association refers to it as a "cult" ; Evans says he doesn't think it is a 'secret cult' but terms it a "deeply hierarchical organisation." (Anecdotally, Emily Watson has referred to it as "a kind of religious set-up" .) Evidently, there is no unanimity in the reliable secondary sources on what to term this organization. So the most neutral and widely acceptable term for the first line is therefore "organization", which is what held consensus for years before the disruptive sock-puppet arrived. Given that Wikipedia favours secondary sources, our use of "organization" is very fair choice out of the various other terms that are verifiable.

Well, this has become a time-consuming tutorial alright. I'm going to make the change, preserving charity/NPO in the intro as well as the wording MelanieN salvaged from the disruption.

In general, if you don't want to get banned: confer first, edit later. -Roberthall7 (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks for the explanation re “charity”. I see that we do have Category:Charities, where there is a useful explanation that it is local/national usage whether to say “charity” or “nonprofit organisation”. I didn’t realize that; I was coming from my U.S. viewpoint where to call something a “charity” is kind of a compliment or an endorsement - as if confirming that they do good work. But checking out some UK-based listings from that category I see they do say things like “educational charity”, “registered charity”, etc. So should we say “registered charity” or “charitable organisation” or what?


 * I am going to try to come up with a wording that indicates both that the individual entities or group of entities are individually chartered/incorporated/whatever, but that they all follow the same curriculum and organizational pattern, and seem to have a common supervisor. (I think I saw a source for that.) I'm continuing to be mostly offline today but I will think about it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The UK charity system is the product of centuries of haphazard laws, good intentions and roads to hell, but I'll try to lay out the situation. "The Fellowship of the School of Economic Science"'s UK accounts state that it's an unincorporated association, registered as an educational charity in England and Wales (which have a single registrar, the Charity Commission) and in Scotland (where the registrar is the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator). The Charity Commission does not maintain a separate registry of "Educational Charities" but education is one of the charitable purposes which qualify a charity for registration with them. A wide range of schools and other institutions are charities with educational purposes; some are poor and cater to the poor, some started that way and have become the richest, most expensive schools in the country, catering to the children of the richest and most powerful (e.g. Eton College, Harrow School and others mentioned in Public school (United Kingdom)). For this and other reasons (e.g. lately, sexual abuse by charity staff), public esteem of charities varies a lot.
 * The SES is a not-for-profit in the mundane sense that it has no shareholders to whom it distributes profits; there isn't any particular legal or tax status of "not-for-profit" in the UK - see Nonprofit organization. Comparatively recent changes to the law allow charities to pay trustees if they obtain approval from Charity Commission, but the SES accounts don't mention such approval and state that trustees were only reimbursed for the travel and subsistence costs of attending meetings. The charity is free to make surpluses and build up reserves. 92.19.24.77 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The intro now looks like this:

Please be aware that it can be a waste of time to unilaterally make major changes to a page that has been stable for as long as this one has. Revert-warring can also lead to a permanent ban from Wikipedia. If anyone has proposed changes, please discuss them on this page first as they will get a fair hearing with reference to Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

--Roberthall7 (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

A model for progress
Looking at our entry for The Study Society, we might take some inspiration there. The list of publications is more complete and in a better format than we have here. The Study Society has a broadly similar history and background to the SES and follows a similar path in contemporary society. The teachings are the same: philosophy, mindfulness, meditation, Advaita, guided by HH Sri Santananda Saraswati. If anything, it's a little more "out there" with the teachings of the two Russians and particularly the Sufi practices, but nobody's calling it a cult. Incidentally, I note TSS is likewise claiming credit for organising the Albert Hall presentation on meditation in 1961! --Pete (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL, that's a riot! about the 1961 presentation. I notice that our article about TSS cites two sources that can't be viewed online - just like our article on the Marahishi - so we really have no way of confirming which of these conflicting claims is true. Maybe they both are, maybe neither is. I agree about publications: we should list publications that are actually published and available to the public, and include some basic bibliographic information. And yes, I would favor keeping a list of such publications (to reassure Millandhouse that if they do the work of adding this information, the material will be kept). -- MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @MelanieN SES's own video on it's history claims it helped organise the 61 event. If it "helped organise" rather than organised another party must have been involved (TSS). Would that be a good enough source?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millandhouse33 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In a word, no. Sorry, but SES is not an independent reliable source. "Because I said so" is not accepted as evidence here. Can you find anything independent of SES that says so? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, will come back to it if a source presents itselfMillandhouse33 (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Can certainly adapt the publications section to that model. Would be good if the history section were subdivided too. 21:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added subheadings to the history section, will keep working on this but think it does make it easier to read. Millandhouse33 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Duplication re St James school etc
It seems that content about the children's school is duplicated in paras 6 and 8 (if I'm counting right) of "History", and then rehashed, expanded just a little, in its own section of "Controversies". Needs some pruning. Pam D  23:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Go for it. -Roberthall7 (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed the paragraph below as it pointed about above it was duplicated. Millandhouse33 (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In 1975, as a response to requests from SES parents, MacLaren opened three experimental schools, called St James Independent Schools, for children initially from ages 5 through 10 (and later to 18) and the St. Vedast school for ages 10 through 18. These SES schools were also reported to be the "among the last private schools in England to ban caning" after they discontinued the practice in 1996. The schools were subject to a critical series of articles focusing on the School's discipline regime and its links to the School of Economic Science in the London Evening Standard in the early 1980s. An independent inquiry into mistreatment of pupils between 1975 and 1985 at St James' and St Vedast's schools, concluded that "mental and physical mistreatment" of some pupils had occurred, including "criminal assaults" by teachers, during the ten-year period considered by the inquiry. Other schools included the Ficino School in Auckland, New Zealand; St James Preparatory School, Johannesburg, South Africa; John Colet School, Sydney, Australia; Erasmus School, Melbourne, Australia; Alcuin school in Leeds closed in 2009; St James' primary school in Stockport closed in 2015. John Scottus School in Dublin. The London St James Junior Boys merged with the Junior Girls School to form St James Juniors in 2015. St. James Senior Boys school moved from London to Ashford in 2015, the site of the Senior Girls School is in West London.

Accuracy of intro and other proposed updates
Moving interleaved comments to here:


 * As perMelanieNcomment the first line should state that this many orgs not one. Not to be tedious but Donald Lambie is recognized as Senior Tutor or School Leader by the individual organisations. He essentially sets the direction for the Schools and heads the philosophy departments. He has a leadership rather than supervisory role, has he visits most schools once a year or less it is the local administration that run things. He has no legal status at any of the orgs, he is not a trustee nor employee, they choose to recognize his leadership. Will add some sources to the admin and/or world wide schools section. In UK terms the organisation would be described as a Registered Charity although the non-formal term not for profit is the widely understood as equivalent.


 * The line about "financial statement for 2017, it ended that year with total reserves of £27,339,000.[28]" is not correctly stating what is in the cited report. The £27,399,000 figure is clearly labeled as net assets in the report. Assess include buildings and anything of value the trust owns to go about it's business. That is not a reserve. I've not seen financial data on other organisations summaries so unless it is of particular relevance for this organisation it should be removed. If it must be there that it should be accurate. The current wording states the org has £27m in reserve, there is not a single source to support that.


 * Is the property portfolio of sufficient interest to be in the intro. Most orgs do not have this?


 * Many more sources to be added to the reception section, similar to "shame on you section", presenting the alternative views that exist on the same thing.


 * The opening line of reception section includes both claims of cult & New religious movement. I plan on making these two separate paragraphs as different sources make the claims, and add other sources to the respective paragraphs related to these claims.


 * Like new format of doctrine section. Will continue to add sources under the respective headings.


 * Propose adding Publications section, listing publications of SES.

Millandhouse33 (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Statements not supported by the citation should be removed or have citation revised  These include:
 * The organisation has a controversial reputation
 * According to the British branch's financial statement for 2017, it ended that year with total reserves of £27,339,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millandhouse33 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The net assets of a charity are its net reserves. A charity's net reserves don't only comprise its cash; investments are included and property's included. Consider for a moment: if the charity wished, it could sell property and use the income; many do, often. I'd say Wikipedia editors shouldn't use primary sources like annual accounts unless they understand the primary sources but better yet, Wikipedia editors could simply follow Wikipedia's policy on original research in general and WP:PRIMARY in particular. 92.19.24.77 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you 92.19.24.77, actually reserves are only those assets it could sell without compromising its operations. If it sells property it uses to teach, it will have to either buy some more or stop this function. That is why they are described as assets and not reserves. Investment assets similarity, generates revenue used for operations, selling them while would bring in cash in the short term could lead to an operational defect. I imagine there is a reserve fund somewhere that they could just sell without compromising operations but I don't see it marked out in the books. I happy to remove the financial data altogether if that is your preference. Millandhouse33 (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do agree that if we are to use a primary source, we should use the terms in it but given the risk of selection (e.g. to communicate that an organisation is wealthy beyond expectation) we should remove material that is based only on that primary source. 92.19.24.77 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Controversial reputation
We provide one link for this sentence in the lead. It's from a book and not readable online, but that does not make it invalid; it just means we can't read it to see what it actually says. More to the point, we are not required to provide sources for everything in the lead, and in fact sources in the lead are discouraged if the information is included and sourced in the text. And there is plenty of material in the text to support the assertion that there is controversy. So I think we can leave that sentence alone. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN I have read the book, it does not mention SES's reputation at all. In a section called "teaching truth" he lists a hand full of what he calls "new religious organisations" including SES and the experience of members of his congregation in going there. No mention of reputation at all. Happy to send you a photo. If it doesn't support the statement it really shouldn't be there. Pete's point above covers the other material you mention. 21:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Millandhouse33 (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice the section above. I'll comment there instead of here. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Entirely concur with MelanieN's there is plenty of material in the text to support the assertion that there is controversy. So I think we can leave that sentence alone. That's not personal opinion, that reflects our community's strict editing policy that ledes summarise the article, and policy overtly states that controversy gets included in the lede. Per WP:LEDE: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. [Note 2: Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.] As many secondary sources repeatedly refer to this organisation's admitted criminal child abuse (that hit national television news in 2006), and several refer to its past mistreatment of women and homophobia, this intro is currently generous to the organisation by not mentioning such detail. According to Wikipedia policy, there's a strong case for not being so generous; that case is far stronger than a wish for us not to mention any controversy. So I recommend leaving that sentence alone. -Roberthall7 (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Disagree.Roberthall7 This is not a page about the UK organisation anymore. It is about all 80 worldwide. All the points you refer to are all are ether about the UK branch or the children school they set up. The vast majority of schools that form this organisation don't have such a reputation. So it is wrong to claim the entire organisation has a controversial there is no verifiable source saying this. I'm not suggesting removing reference to controversy, but it should be clear that all of it is about the UK. I'm all for controversy being mention in the lede but it should be clear which organisation in the group this relates to. It is not all 80. Millandhouse33 (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It's pretty simple, Roberthall7. Do we have a reliable source stating that the SES (and SPP) has a controversial reputation? If so, please present it. --Pete (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is now spread between two sections, and some of the comments are not really clear about what they want the article to actually say. Let’s make it clear where we stand. Do you prefer:
 * Option 1: leave the current sentence in the article: "The organisation has a controversial reputation and is seen by some commentators as a cult or new religious movement.[12]"
 * Option 2: leave the current sentence in the article with a better reference.
 * Option 3: use a some-say-others-say formulation like the one I proposed: "Some commentators and former participants have accused SES of being a cult or of abusing children in its care, while others have denied the allegations and described it as a benign or helpful influence in their lives."
 * Option 4: Say something about controversy, but not either of these sentences.
 * Option 5: don’t say anything at all about controversy in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

My opinion: I much prefer option 3, I could accept 1 or 2, I don't think 4 is acceptable given that the controversy takes up about one-third of the text. (It does need to be reorganized.) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 6: Suggestion: "Some commentators as a new religious movement or a cult, others have described it as a benign or helpful influence in their lives. SES have denied these allegations stating that thousands of people have taken their courses the vast majority reporting good experiences". Not perfect but includes original statement, considers objections and weighting. there are sources for all 3 statements. This can stand alone in the lede Millandhouse33 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Too much WP:WEIGHT to the detractors. The moaning doesn't reflect reality. We shouldn't lose the criticism, especially the historic mentions, but we don't need to spend a third of our article on it, giving an undue appearance to what is essentially a beneficial and productive organisation. --Pete (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually agree, it's very difficult to write a sentence that give's this it's appropriate weight, would prefer it excluded. Millandhouse33 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That "Reactions" section is really the problem. It is very badly written and gives way too much coverage to one book and one pair of critics. Give me a day, I'm going to try to do a trim, rewrite, and re-organize. Then maybe the reorganized section will suggest to us what we ought to say in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Whew! That took a good many hours, but I have organized the Reactions section into subsections by topic and I think it is more readable now. So NOW let's figure out how to summarize this content in a sentence for the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, so now that the “Reaction” section is in readable form, it appears that 1) the description of “cult” mainly comes from a couple of books, 2) those books were taken seriously enough that we find people responding to them, 3) we do find sources comparing the organisation to a new religious movement, 4) the truly serious issue is about treatment of schoolchildren in the affiilated schools in the 1970s and 1980s, 5) claims that the organisation did psychological harm to its adult members (other than schoolchildren) are vague and non-specific, and 6) we have several comments from current or former adult members praising the organization, but none blaming or accusing it. (Do we have any kind of figure as to how many people have taken classes, or how many are currently considered members?) I think we can now attempt to summarize this into a sentence or two for the lead. I’d leave out “controversial” for something more specific. Something like this:
 * Option 7: The organisation has sometimes been called a cult or a new religious movement; many members say its programs have enriched their lives. It has been criticized for the way children were treated in the affiliated day schools during the 1970s and 1980s. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * on total numbers "Since its founding, over 100,000 students have taken courses at SES and its associated schools. In assessing current active membership, however, SES only counts students who continue after their first year’s course. The SES currently has around 5,000 members in the UK, 1,400 of them in London, and the remainder in twenty other branches around the UK. There are related schools, independent but using teaching material from the London HQ, in North and South America, Australasia, South Africa, the West Indies, and several European countries. source" Millandhouse33 (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * MelanieN, I can also accept 1 or 2. With 3, it really depends on the precise wording. Because as soon as we expand our concise, generic summary line the choice is going to be about in which directions to expand it and how to maintain accuracy when we do. Because, for example, there could be false dichotomies in this particular phrasing: e.g. what if some people say it has had benign or helpful influence in their lives and they also don't deny the allegations? What if some think it's not a 'cult' but a religious movement with treatment of women they have a problem with? If we choose to mention the child abuse, it would be unfair to the organization to omit that it has confirmed that it happened, and determined that it was criminal; see MOS:ACCUSED. We'd also need to word it so that it doesn't imply it's the only issue, which it isn't. I appreciate your sense of the wording is that it is giving examples of various attitudes; but in a summary lede we must not inadvertently mislead the general reader by turning the summary into polar extremes. So I'm willing to consider a variation of your option 3 though I'd expect it would open a conceptual can of worms that's hard to resolve. And so I'm inclined towards 1 or 2. Btw, for similar reasons, I've a hunch that the line Its main activity is to offer courses for adults, ranging from an introductory series called Practical Philosophy to more advanced classes might be better out than in, also because we have a description of the courses just a few lines below it. Might you be able to reconsider? And again, I entirely support your point that controversy takes up about one-third of the text; WP:LEDE guidance tells us to summarize the article and any query about this guidance can always be taken up with uninvolved administrators at appropriate fora. -Roberthall7 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to see and consider your proposed wording - whether as a variation of option 3 or a completely new approach. As for the sentence I added that says it offers courses: I consider it to be essential, in the opening paragraph of the lead about any organization, to give some sense of what the organization is or what it does. IMO we need to do that even if we offer more detail later in the section. Can you suggest a better summary for the first paragraph? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. As for asserting that the child abuse was "criminal", I would strongly oppose that. "Criminal" was a characterization from a private investigative commission; as far as I know, no actual charges were ever filed. As for "what if some people" say this or that, that is speculation; we are limited to what the sources say. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware from reading up five or six years ago, it the inquiry wasn't entirely private but closely connected to the SES, and because of that drew allegations that it was a PR action at the time. But the conclusion of the inquiry used the word 'criminal' itself; this was said to be a form of SES soul-searching, Mr Boddy quoted Nelson Mandela's "truth and reconciliation." With regard to the opening paragraph of the lead about any organization, I entirely agree that one needs to give some sense of what the organization is or what it does. And that's the point. Due to lack of unanimity in sources we're not coming down either way on what this organization is, so logically we need to be careful about asserting what this organization does. If it's a new religious movement as some sources say, then those are not courses but religious meetings. If it's a school which is not encouraging people into a spiritual movement, then those are simply courses. Using latter implies we've taken a position on which sources we're going along with. But we need to maintain NPOV. Your 1 & 2 are the best at doing that. -Roberthall7 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 7 is the best so far if it is to be left in, still in favour of 5. Context is relevant here, with a 100,000 students and the vast majority of the international organisation free of any such accusations how much prominence can this really be given. There is 100% agreement that his organisation offers courses in philosophy, economics etc. The barristers enquiry was commissioned by the St James schools governors, it says so in the report. I've seen no evidence of any court ruling on any of it. Criminal is a word used in the report not any legal judgement. Millandhouse33 (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, further to your request for proposed content, my position remains the same that the long-term consensus version worked well. Let's remember that it was changed on February 4th and there has been a discussion since then. To recall, it had looked like this:

As I say, this has held consensus best. I also concur that the opening paragraph should say what this organization is and does. In my view the consensus content above says its teachings are based on the orthodox Hindu philosophy of Advaita Vedenta as interpreted by Leon Maclaren. If on further assessment of that version it isn't clear enough, we could look into making the wording clearer. But when we do that, we're going to need to to be razor-sharp about wording, because Wikipedia would require us to bear in mind what secondary sources say these meetings are: namely, the recruitment activity of a spiritual group, whose main activity is proselytising and achieving spiritual goals. If anything, we need to look into whether in our restraint and goal of fairness the secondary sources (both elsewhere and as cited here) are being accurately accommodated by our content. As far as I recall it was me, many years ago, who added the modifier "some". But was that adequate, to say that some commentators refer to it as a new religious movement? If so, then what is the majority view among secondary sources? Is the American Psychological Association paper by Walsh, Y., Russell, R. J. H., & Wells, P. A. some commentators? Is the Encyclopedia of New Religions another commentator? Is the Philosophers' Magazine another commentator? Is Jules Evans of the University of London another? Etc., etc. It's verifiable that secondary sources have put the SES in the same category as the Church of Scientology and the Unification Church of the United States. Both are straightforwardly introduced by Wikipedia as new religious movements. Recent discussion calls for a rationale as to why we are not doing so here. -Roberthall7 (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lets be clear about what some of these sources actually say: The American Psychological Association paper by Walsh, Y., Russell, R. J. H., & Wells - describes SES as a non-religious organisation that has been accused (weather rightly or wrongly) of being a cult. Saying it is accused of being a cult is not the same as saying it is a cult. Jules Evans describes SES as  a “Platonic community with around 20,000 followers.” “Platonic”  meaning related to plato. On this page he is already quoted as saying "I personally don't think SES is a 'secret cult”. I'll check the other two when I get a chance but so far none have described SES as either a cult or a new religious organisation. Millandhouse33 (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The Philosophers' Magazine, 8 May 1999
For use in Reception section. -Roberthall7 (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For heavens sake, Robert! Surely you know better than to copy an entire article into Wikipedia! If you don't, please reread WP:COPYPASTE. Yes, that applies to talk pages too. I had to revision-delete all that from the history because it was a copyright violation. In the future if you want to reference published material, provide a link to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't know that and was aiming to share the material for discussion before adding it to the article unilaterally. Thanks for WP:COPYPASTE. -Roberthall7 (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert, if you want people to be able to view and discuss this article, all you have to do is provide a link where they can go and read it. (I note that the IP below says they can't comment on it because they can't see it.) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a link; I had it saved offline from ages ago, which is what prompted me to share it with others here in good faith. When I wrote 'look again' I was referring to my actions, not the article. -Roberthall7 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2019
In first paragraph, change "Its main activity is to offer courses for adults, ranging from an introductory series called Practical Philosophy to more advanced classes. By its own account, the general courses it provides "are not academic."[6]" to "Its main activity is to offer non-academic courses for adults, ranging from an introductory series called Practical Philosophy to more advanced classes.[6]" Use of "by its own account/admission" phrasing, scare quotes and belabouring the point with an entire sentence where a single sourced adjective for "courses" will suffice breaches WP:NPOV. 92.19.24.77 (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't support this. The problem has been caused by new user(s) changing the very long-term consensus phrasing (see discussion above), and this line is an attempt to find a solution. The whole intro is being discussed as a consequence but I believe we need to return to something very close to the long-term consensus version. It appears that WP:SECONDARY sources describe this organization as a new religious movement and a few other terms, rather than a course-providing body. We're required to consistently accommodate those sources. For the record, they're not scare quotes, that's a direct quote from the organization's own website. -Roberthall7 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The sentence "By its own account, the general courses it provides "are not academic."[6]" isn't a recent attempt to find a solution. You inserted it in 2016, and the only consensus is that it doesn't seem to have been discussed then. Your response above about "the problem has been caused by new user(s)" does not justify this 2016 sentence and does not seem to recognise either that I suggest the word "non-academic" be used in the previous sentence instead or that I suggested that your use of a primary source (the accounts, not the website) remain. The last might well be a mistake. 92.19.24.77 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Strong Support for the change. There is a lot of subtle language on this page that gives the impression that something untoward is going on rather than presenting things in a neutral manor. The suggested text states the purpose without any undertones. Millandhouse33 (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

92.19.24.77: To be precise, MelanieN recently made a change to the line amid her hardworking attempts to find a solution to recent editing and discussion, and that is what I was referring to. Also, if something lasts for a long time in an article, Wikipedia considers that a form of consensus which you can read about at WP:CONS. As it happens I don't object to your use of the phrase "non-academic", and I am not sure what you mean by saying that I don't recognize that you suggested it: I am hereby doing so now if it helps. About primary sourcing, are you aware that the website https://www.schooleconomicscience.org/faqs/ is a primary source, as is all this organization's own material, which is used extensively in this article, in places to promote this organization? You've also written to me above: But that's what we expect when you use primary sources to sustain the aggressive investigative reporting which has been characteristic of all your editing of Wikipedia. This allegation could be interpreted by Wikipedia as a projection of aggression, and it’s evidently an error. Given your IP address record shows that you appear to be new here, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Notice at the top of this page that we have a code of conduct on civility by which one must avoid personal attacks and comment on content, not on the contributor. Failure to adhere to this can lead to a ban from our community as a matter of policy. For the record, it was me who added Jules Evans, who is one of the very few, recent, bone fide secondary sources in this article. This source happens to be very balanced if not rather friendly towards the organization. Exactly for that reason, I chose to quote it at great length, including the comment that Evans thinks this organization is not a 'secret cult'. MelaineN has cut down that quote on a principle of brevity, which I understand entirely. I also added Hugh Jackman to this article, quoting his praise for this organization both in GQ Australia and the Oprah Winfrey Show. These are promotional media that Wikipedia does not see as ideal sources, and a tendentious editor would have every pretext to keep them out, and I have done the opposite. There are other examples, across years of work, about how the allegation is unfounded; but longstanding editors are not required to justify themselves to new users even as much as I am doing now. You clearly dislike the material about SES from The Philosophers' Magazine; you are entitled to your opinion and please look again: I placed it above in good faith to be discussed by all of us including you, instead of unilaterally using it for a citation in the article without discussion, which is what all editors are within their rights to do. Most go ahead and do that anyway. This is the beauty of our guidance on assuming good faith. If we behave as if the other means well, chances are we might not jump to conclusions about them. FYI, normally this sort of discussion would be on your Talk page, but your current IP address is here and so is the allegation. To show you understand our policies and guidelines, use the strikethrough tool (using HTML strikeout tags ) to draw a line through the allegation, and welcome to Wikipedia. -Roberthall7 (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You write that I "clearly dislike the material about SES from The Philosophers' Magazine; you are entitled to your opinion and please look again." I do not dislike it. I only saw enough to see that it was a clear copyright violation in breach of a Wikipedia policy with legal implications (see WP:COPYVIO) so I deleted it and MelanieN has deleted it from the revision history, standard procedure per WP:COPYVIO. I cannot "look again". You responded then that you "didn't know that". It is often the case that editors who edit only in one narrow area are not exposed to the full range of Wikipedia's policies and resulting guidelines and do not research them with a view to the ways in which they constrain those editors themselves. They may for example be unaware of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and believe that longstanding breaches of policy in one article are permitted by virtue of having remained unchallenged; they might argue as you have that the use of WP:PRIMARY sources in one part of an article is justified by their use elsewhere in the article. That's not true and the existence of entire sections such as the current "Administration" section that refer only to primary sources is a major failing here.
 * Where we have major breaches of WP:PRIMARY we often find breaches of WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Your claim regarding the SES's 46-page 2017 report and financial statement that "a reasonable summary would be a line saying: "The SES financial statement to the UK Charity Commission shows that by its own account it charges as little as possible in order to boost attendance numbers; it gets most of its money from real estate inherited from recruits who also give their free labor in running properties and meetings."" breached inter alia WP:NPOV, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH. It also breached WP:OR in that you tried to calculate from the report or elsewhere that it gets most of its money from inherited real estate which you then paint ("by their own account") as discreditable. That occasioned my description of your editing here as aggressive investigative reporting. You have objected to that description; you have let your proposal stand. That proposal also suggests that after dying and leaving their estates to SES, recruits also give their free time. That is "not explicitly stated by the source" either.
 * A related sentence in the lead breaches WP:SYNTH as well as WP:NPOV, "The SES has a large real estate portfolio including several mansions in Britain and America.[26][27][28][29]". None of the four references state that the SES owns a "large" amount of real estate; that is your characterisation. The first three are SES-related webpages each describing a different property the SES uses in its activities. The last tells us that in 2004 a property which was then the School for Practical Philosophy was on sale; when you inserted that reference in 2017 it did not support the claim that "the SES has a large real estate portfolio". The term "portfolio" is itself loaded and suggests the real estate is hoarded for investment purposes rather than kept for use in the SES's activities. That is not supported by the primary sources and no secondary source is offered.
 * That sentence used to include the claim that the SES's "main source of income is from wills" which you inserted then and reinserted after deletion. Several errors in that "summary" are detailed at Talk:School of Economic Science/Archive 2. You didn't respond, though it's good to see you didn't reinsert the claim there, but as we've seen above you seem to remain concerned to suggest that the SES is disturbingly rich and has become so by inducing members to leave money to it. That may be so, but you need to find WP:SECONDARY sources for it. You need to stop hinting at it and per WP:OR you must not try to carry out your own research to show it; that's aggressive investigative reporting.
 * One other small point and then perhaps I can leave this to those who remain ready to devote considerable time and effort to building the encyclopedia in accordance with its principles and policies: you mention inserting text about Hugh Jackman which you did in 2012. Those sources are now eight or more years old; if nothing more recent says he is still a member, claims that he is one should be rephrased or marked as failing validation. 92.19.24.77 (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss how to modify this sentence. I agree that "by their own admission" and "not academic" are less than ideal. The idea is to get across the idea that these courses are not classes or courses in an academic sense, i.e., something that can lead to a diploma or degree. They are for general interest and personal improvement. The proposed sentence above - "Its main activity is to offer non-academic courses for adults, ranging from an introductory series called Practical Philosophy to more advanced classes.[6]" - actually expresses this pretty well. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * MelanieN, because we're still discussing the whole paragraph, I suggest we discuss this sentence in its context. The non-academic aspect is certainly one of the ideas to get across, with that I concur. As I've said in another thread higher up the Talk page (note this has become a split discussion again), Wikipedia asks for the content in the intro to accommodate the verifiable secondary sources as widely as possible. Are we satisfied that this is being done, if we don't accommodate the idea in the sources that this organization's main activity is to bring its members towards a spiritual goal? One of our secondary sources, Jules Evans, in a paper for the University of London, says: "The philosophical communities created by Plato and Pythagoras are close to what we would think of today as religious cults: the members of the community committed to a particular way of life with the aim of completely transforming their personalities. Some contemporary philosophical communities are close to this religious model: the School of Economic Science, for example, which offers courses in practical philosophy, is a neo-platonic sect which tries to bring its members closer to divine union." There are variations on this sentiment in other secondary sources, some of which indicate the early meetings, called courses, are a system of recruitment into a spiritual and lifestyle commitment. That's actually consistent with our quoting of Hugh Jackman's endorsement, where he says that this has become his church. This is non-pejorative and verifiable. -Roberthall7 (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The balance of that paragraph, with its talk about gurus, certainly suggests a spiritual goal. In any case, we don't have to rewrite the whole paragraph to rewrite one sentence. The suggestion is to replace the current two sentences, Its main activity is to offer courses for adults, ranging from an introductory series called Practical Philosophy to more advanced classes. By its own account, the general courses it provides "are not academic."[6], with the equivalent single sentence Its main activity is to offer non-academic courses for adults, ranging from an introductory series called Practical Philosophy to more advanced classes.[6] Several people (three by my count) have supported this change. You have provided no argument against it. This looks like consensus and I am going to make this change. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I can also support the line with an adjustment from "Its main activity is to offer..." to "It offers..." in order to accommodate what appears to be the majority view among secondary sources: that its main activity is the pursuit of a spiritual goal. My argument is that I'm not yet convinced this lede's suggestion of a pursuit of a spiritual goal adequately accommodates the secondary sources. They tend to be explicit that this is the organization's main activity, emphasized by the use of the term 'new religious movement', etc.-Roberthall7 (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are actually talking about their main goal - as described by others. I am talking about their main activity - what they actually do with their time and resources. That's what I would do in the lead of any organisation. But I would be OK with this change "it offers" if others agree; that doesn't materially change the content. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Can clarify how this is about their main activity. Reading of our reliable secondary sources shows there is much more than offering courses. They indicate its main activity is guidance to towards the divine, or enlightenment in a spiritual sense. As described, the courses are a preparation for this activity; most people don't continue in SES after one or two courses, those who choose to stay do very much more than attend a course. They are given a mantra and initiated into meditation with a ritual, after which they are referred to as members. Said sources indicate that bringing members towards enlightenment also takes place outside courses; in one-to-one discussions, through conducting oneself according to a version of Advaita Vedanta philosophy, by reading related ancient scriptures, by attending residential retreats that have their own specific activities, devotion through service such as cleaning of properties, fulfilling one's role as a woman or man, through donation of professional services, and the practice of meditation. While bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy (especially where it can be skewed by attack and advocacy), at some stage it might be helpful to flag this article at subject-specific project fora with specialists on spiritual groups - who should have access to the secondary sources we're asked to rely on. In the meantime, I can start to look for quotes for our use from Cusack above and Washington below, though I'd prefer not to monopolize the research and for others including you to be selecting from the same secondary source material. -Roberthall7 (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The points 92.19.24.77 made about the following are valid, we should remove these lines unless there are better sources:

Millandhouse33 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)18:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "The SES financial statement to the UK Charity Commission shows that by its own account it charges as little as possible in order to boost attendance numbers; ....
 * it gets most of its money from inherited real estate....
 * SES has a large real estate portfolio including several mansions ....