This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
An editor removed the material at Nirmala Srivastava#2007 Indian flag controversy, withthe edit summary:
Yet the material clearly references a reliable source. [2] - Will Beback · † · 21:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, I mis-read the Yahoo source and mistook it for a Yahoo groups link. My bad. Sfacets 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing to show the relevance or notability of the "incident". Is this a section about a photograph circulated on a forum? Sfacets 10:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Simply a call to attention - there is no 'relevance' template at this time. If the incident was not reported on by News sources, then it is debatable how important/relevant this information is. Sfacets 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Anything that goes to the online news of some sites isn't reliable. The flag apology has to go, it is totally irrelevant with the biography of Shri Mataji. I will be removing it unless an administrator decides it should stay and take responsibility. If Simon or anyone can find the apology in an official Sahaj site, signed and all then we can rethink about it. Michalis 9 ( talk) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel that this page http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Sahaja_peace_prize.html is relevant and worth linking in the International honours section, but I hesitate to add it myself as I wrote it. Would a kind independent/neutral editor add it for me? -- Simon D M ( talk) 17:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The long-promised improvements to this International Honours section have been a long time coming, so I have re-instated it with unsupported parts removed. -- Simon D M ( talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Recently Sfacets linked to a video hosted on MySpace (listed as normally unacceptable under WP:EL) and justified it on the Talk:Sahaja Yoga page by saying that the video could have been hosted anywhere. Now he is deleting a link to a short video clip here and citing WP:RS and WP:BIO. I think he needs to state his case clearly on this page before continuing to remove this link. -- Simon D M ( talk) 08:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Does WP:EL say anything about videos? In fact, read this. Also please read up on the difference between External links and reliable sources (particularily when dealing with biographies). Sfacets 08:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss this any further. Ask the question at WP:EL if you want. Sfacets 14:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
How is a video of someone sitting on the ground smiling lightly any proof? I ask this to the administrator. If you have seen this video you would know that anyone could have created it. Please accept only reliable material. Michalis 9 ( talk) 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The last substantive point made was this: The sources is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's criteria. The job of the WP is to summarise what the reliable source says, not to pass judgement on it. -- Simon D M ( talk) 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
"The experience happened after having visited a seminar by Rajneesh" In this sentence I referred to the 1970 Rajneesh event at Nargol as a "meditation camp" as this is what it is referred to by Coney in her book Sahaja Yoga and that is what the Rajneesh people refer to it as eg in the tiltle of In Search of the Miraculous [5]. Sfacets has insisted on changing it to 'seminar' which is the word used in a SY source. I changed it back to 'meditation camp' and gave this reference: http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/is_v03/3-2-17.htm Sfacets changed it again suggesting that the source is invalid. Now my point is that we should surely be consistent in how we refer to the event and we should use the host's name rather than the renaming of one of the participants. Secondly I'd like comments on the acceptability of the Indian Skeptic as a source.-- Simon D M ( talk) 15:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What is the "Frederick Post Friday"? Could we have a more precise reference and the relevant quotation please? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"On June 19, at 7 p.m., Dr. NIRMALA Devi SRIVASTAVA, scholar and world- renown speaker, will be at the Masur Auditorium, NIH, Bethesda, to describe how meditation produces its effect on the autonomic nervous system. On June 20, at 7 p.nx, at the Uni- versity of Maryland College Auditorium" Sfacets 09:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"...Meditation, yoga seminars planned Big The role of meditation has been established in curing stress-related disorders and having a beneficial effect in many other disease states. On June 19, at 7 p.m., Dr. NIRMALA Devi SRIVASTAVA, scholar and world- renown speaker, will be at the Masur Auditorium, NIH, Bethesda, to describe how meditation produces its effect on the autonomic nervous system. On June 20, at 7 p.nx, at the Uni- versity of Maryland College Auditorium" - she will introduce SAHAJA YOGA and give an experience of Kundalini awakening to the audience. Kundali- ni is a spiritual energy in the trian- gular bone, the sacrum in every human being. Dr. Srivastava has been able to integrate extensive knowledge from ancient India with modern science to expand understanding and aware- ness of the subtleties of the human nervous system and how its dysfunc- tion can make a person prone to dis- eases such as stress adaptation dis- order, cancer, AIDS, substance abuse and others. She will be pre- senting a new hypothesis about cau- sation of so-called psychosomatic disorders and a different approach to solving some of these complex medical problems. Sahaja Yoga has been shown in medical studies conducted in India, Australia and Russia to have direct action on the autonomic nervous system. She has been twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, has been honored by the U.S. Congress and the United Nations, and has received numerous honors and AWARDs in recognition of her con- tribution to peace, health and well- being of humankind in over 86 nations. Dr. Srivastava explains the inte- grated nature of all aspects of the human being, including the relation- ship between physical, mental, emo- tional and spiritual health." Frederick Post Friday, June 16, 2000
This is a newspaper from Maryland. Sfacets 11:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It is part of an article. The preceding sentence to the beginning of the passage above is "I don't tell people how to vote but I do rec- ommend that they vote. I also rec- ommend that they refrain from alco- hol, drugs and tobacco. Those are all "personal I suppose. I don't apologize for them. Being against gun violence falls into the same cate- gory. My sole purpose is to help and guide my teen readers." So it isn't an event listing. Sfacets 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The statement is sourced from a newspaper article. Sfacets 14:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is by reporter Sarah Fortney titled "Using Yoga to cure stress". Sfacets 10:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed J Coney's assertion for the same reason. Sfacets 04:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This has already been brought up. J Coney was a moderator for a forum run by Simon, holds a minority viewpoint, and makes extraordinary claims. Sfacets 04:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is Simon removing sourced content under the guise of reverting another editors changes? [6] Sfacets 14:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Simon is a known contributor to websites that are critical of SY. He maintains at least two of them. Sfacets 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I made no such claim, as I said earlier, please stop inventing things. Sfacets 15:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You have been editing this article what... one month now? And all you have done is add out of context minority viewpoints and self-published sources the the article. Nice. Sfacets 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Why was this material removed? It is sourced to work by experts published by major publishers who substantially agree with each other. These apeear to be extraordinarily good sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not not calling into question her credentials, I am calling into question her neutrality, and the reliability of her information. Her view is in the minority -to quote you: "The claim (...), if true, should be easily sourced to more verifiable sources". I restored Kakar. Sfacets 04:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I am saying that Coney is not valid as a source - she has COI issues, and her views on SY in general are a minority viewpoint. Sfacets 06:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
She received the information for her book by Simon Dicon Montford, a longtime critic. She was a moderator for his Yahoo group. No other sources back her claims. Sfacets 06:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you deny that she was an admin for Simon D M's website? Sfacets 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
At repsent the article says nothing about the subject between 1970 and 2004. Surely we can find a reliable source that describes her some of her activities in that period. I gather that she lived England from the mid-'70s to mid-'80s, though I can't find a source for it now. Are there other, non-contentious facts about this period that we can add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
As usual Simon DM revert one after another (5 in 24 hours) edits which are sourced just because it doesn't go in his vision of SY. I can't go on like this. Hours of work destroyed one after another by this vandal -- Agenor 77 ( talk) 10:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I had added list of other's who claim to be incarnation, (which was removed) and this is very much needed, as there are many more incarnations in this world currently. Mataji is also one of them, that list belongs in there. Kindly put forth your concern. A personal opinion (ignorable), Is all powerful, almighty, omnipresent Lord Almighty that weak, that it needs multiple simultaneous incarnations to handle growing human population ? -- Cult free world ( talk) 11:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This controversy fits more in page dealing with Sahaja Yoga as organization, rather then NS, there is no link of NS with this controversy, hence it should be part of the organization page. -- Cult free world ( talk) 06:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
User 203.11.225.5 is of the opinion that meditate4free.co.uk is a newspaper, however on checking the site, it appears that, this site is solely dedicated to praise the cult leader.
Here is the information about that domain.
Domain name:
meditate4free.co.uk
Registrant:
John Firth
Trading as:
c/o Netscalibur UK Ltd - FDD
Registrant type:
UK Limited Company, (Company number: 2212003)
Registrant's address:
Unknown
Unknown
GB
Registrar:
Compila Limited [Tag = COMPILA]
Relevant dates:
Registered on: 16-May-2001
Renewal date: 16-May-2009
Last updated: 26-May-2007
I have never heard of any newspaper in UK which goes by the name meditate4free!! this is not a newspaper, as far as i can see, comments from other's is also invited so that we can move ahead with this reference, which appears to be a promotional peace of work!! --
talk-to-me! (
talk)
09:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, what's the problem with these links? -- Simon D M ( talk) 13:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
1. The "mesmerising" quote appears in the second sentence, there is no need to repeat it.
2. The way Nirmala Srivastava is smiling at the camp is irrelevant and is used as a kind of accusation in an attempt to push a particular line. Therefore, it is original research see
WP:OR. Coney's source can be used to confirm that Nirmala Srivasta was indeed at the camp, no argument there.
Freelion (
talk)
02:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
1. It was repeated. It is fixed now. Before going and adding it again, check in the second sentence.
2. Now that this topic is open again for discussion, I think it best to stick to the more neutral version. Please see
Biographies about living people. The reference to the way Nirmala Srivastava is smiling at a Rajneesh camp relies on
guilt by association and this is to be avoided in biographies about living people.
I've made a few other individual changes to the article, each one with an edit summary. If anyone needs to change these I would appreciate the courtesy of individual responses to each change instead of one big reversion as has been happening.
Freelion (
talk)
07:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a problem with the wording and this topic is being discussed, so use a neutral version for now. You have not addressed my argument. It is you who is trying to push ahead with unacceptable wording. I asked you to review each change individually but you have not. Please explain yourself clearly because your actions are appearing rash and your argument about reason for going to the camp does not make sense. According to WP:BRD you should just be reverting and discussing, not making further uncalled for changes. WP:BLP states the importance of getting it right and not making untrue claims based on guilt by association in biographies about living people. Freelion ( talk) 04:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Your last remark was a load of POV and OR. You are completely ignoring my argument that the Coney reference relies on guilt by association and cannot be included in a biography about a living person. You're continual reverting of multiple changes without any explanation, plus more unexplained edits of your own, can only be viewed as disruption. Please address your own behaviour. Freelion ( talk) 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You haven't explained anything. If you want an explanation of guilt by association, do us all a favour and read the article. You've keep reverting multiple individual edits which had either an appropriate mention on the talk page or an edit summary. But you haven't explained any one of those reversions except to say that it's POV pushing. This is inappropriate behaviour. You might not be able to explain yourself very well, but your actions are on the record. Freelion ( talk) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Simon D M, I have again edited out your sarcastic, offensive comments. Please see WP:CIVIL before making comments which may be offensive to other editors. Freelion ( talk) 01:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Due to recent edit warring I've protected the page. Please seek mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to report the statement of a 3rd party reliable source (Coney) who says that Nirmala Srivastava was smiling in a video of a Rajneesh meditation camp in May 1970? This topic has been discussed here and here. The piece of text in the article that is being questioned is this:
The objector argues that including this text constitutes "a kind of accusation" that "relies on guilt by association" and thereby contravenes WP:BLP.
My own stand is that WP:NPOV requires that the facts about multiple or conflicting opinions should be documented so that readers can form their own view. WP:BLP states that "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." -- Simon D M ( talk) 16:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The Coney quote is fine - tho it might depend on quite how it's used... current page has no mention of "smiling beatifically". However the preceding quote that Nirmala Devi "was shocked to see him loot people under the guise of spirituality" is far more problematic. Checking the source, I see it is actually a quote from a web page by a loose collective of UK-based groups practicing her yoga method. As such it is an unreliable source. The web page does not attribute the statement to Nirmala Devi and there is no evidence cited that this was even her opinion. Its use in this context gives a very false impression and since it is a somewhat inflammatory statement, such an opinion should only be attributed to Nirmala Devi if a reliably sourced citation exists. If the editors remove that misleading quote then the whole "smiling beatifically" thing would become obsolete. Dakinijones ( talk) 08:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The source website (Yahoo News India) appears to be offline - is there another source for the apology quotation?
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 16:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This aricle should be moved to the name most people refer to Shri Nirmala Srivastava as per WP:COMMONNAME - ie 'Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi' - it should never have been moved in fact. Sfacets 12:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
the reality is that "Mataji Nirmala Devi" is the name most widely used, usually prefixed by Shri. Wikipedia editors need to recognise that this is the reality and name the article accordingly, with appropriate redirect(s) Sahajhist 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you from the past? Did you just skip over what I just said? Sfacets 02:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If you look at any newspaper archives you will see that Shri Mataji is referred to as "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" and not as "Nirmala Srivastava". A very simple way to demonstrate this is to do a Google search for "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" - there are 42,300 results, whereas for "Nirmala Srivastava" there are only 3,260 - QED Surely wikipedia cannot be hijacked by the opinion of someone who is flying in the face of all exisiting evidence! windinthetrees 6 July 2007
May I assume that all those following this discussion are quietly nodding their heads in agreement? If so, can anyone advise me how to implement this change. Do I simply cut and paste all the info from this page into the Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi page and give this page the redirection which is currently on the other page? Freelion ( talk) 04:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
We could make an exception in this case because of the widespread recognition of her name with honorifics. The name of this article sets a precedent for all other articles which use her name. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, it is in the interest of readers that names used throughout articles on Wikipedia are the ones which are most widely known. It is especially true in this case because the two names - "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" and "Nirmala Srivastava" are quite different which can lead to confusion. The proposed guidelines clearly make an allowance for such an exception to the general guideline of not using honorifics by saying "exceptions may apply to individuals who are widely known by an honorific name or with a title." Freelion ( talk) 07:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
So does it not matter that Wikipedia uses more than one name for the same person? Maybe we should use whichever name is used by the particular reference we are using. Freelion ( talk) 00:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Nirmala Devi is less commonly used but makes sense being a truncation of the name with honorifics. That being said, the first sentence of the article does say "more widely known as Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi". This fits the criteria for the exception at Titles and honorifics - Naming conventions for India and Srilanka. So my ammended proposal is to title the article as "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" and refer to her inline as "Nirmala Devi". Freelion ( talk) 04:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It has been demonstrated that the subject is most widely known by her honorific title, so I was thinking that the aforementioned guideline would allow her to be addressed as such, even in the title. WP:MOSBIO suggests not using honorifics inline so this prompted my revised proposal. I think that in the scholarly literature the name with honorifics will be the most common, but I'll check. Freelion ( talk) 06:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
An editor removed the material at Nirmala Srivastava#2007 Indian flag controversy, withthe edit summary:
Yet the material clearly references a reliable source. [2] - Will Beback · † · 21:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, I mis-read the Yahoo source and mistook it for a Yahoo groups link. My bad. Sfacets 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing to show the relevance or notability of the "incident". Is this a section about a photograph circulated on a forum? Sfacets 10:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Simply a call to attention - there is no 'relevance' template at this time. If the incident was not reported on by News sources, then it is debatable how important/relevant this information is. Sfacets 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Anything that goes to the online news of some sites isn't reliable. The flag apology has to go, it is totally irrelevant with the biography of Shri Mataji. I will be removing it unless an administrator decides it should stay and take responsibility. If Simon or anyone can find the apology in an official Sahaj site, signed and all then we can rethink about it. Michalis 9 ( talk) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel that this page http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Sahaja_peace_prize.html is relevant and worth linking in the International honours section, but I hesitate to add it myself as I wrote it. Would a kind independent/neutral editor add it for me? -- Simon D M ( talk) 17:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The long-promised improvements to this International Honours section have been a long time coming, so I have re-instated it with unsupported parts removed. -- Simon D M ( talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Recently Sfacets linked to a video hosted on MySpace (listed as normally unacceptable under WP:EL) and justified it on the Talk:Sahaja Yoga page by saying that the video could have been hosted anywhere. Now he is deleting a link to a short video clip here and citing WP:RS and WP:BIO. I think he needs to state his case clearly on this page before continuing to remove this link. -- Simon D M ( talk) 08:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Does WP:EL say anything about videos? In fact, read this. Also please read up on the difference between External links and reliable sources (particularily when dealing with biographies). Sfacets 08:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss this any further. Ask the question at WP:EL if you want. Sfacets 14:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
How is a video of someone sitting on the ground smiling lightly any proof? I ask this to the administrator. If you have seen this video you would know that anyone could have created it. Please accept only reliable material. Michalis 9 ( talk) 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The last substantive point made was this: The sources is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's criteria. The job of the WP is to summarise what the reliable source says, not to pass judgement on it. -- Simon D M ( talk) 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
"The experience happened after having visited a seminar by Rajneesh" In this sentence I referred to the 1970 Rajneesh event at Nargol as a "meditation camp" as this is what it is referred to by Coney in her book Sahaja Yoga and that is what the Rajneesh people refer to it as eg in the tiltle of In Search of the Miraculous [5]. Sfacets has insisted on changing it to 'seminar' which is the word used in a SY source. I changed it back to 'meditation camp' and gave this reference: http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/is_v03/3-2-17.htm Sfacets changed it again suggesting that the source is invalid. Now my point is that we should surely be consistent in how we refer to the event and we should use the host's name rather than the renaming of one of the participants. Secondly I'd like comments on the acceptability of the Indian Skeptic as a source.-- Simon D M ( talk) 15:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What is the "Frederick Post Friday"? Could we have a more precise reference and the relevant quotation please? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"On June 19, at 7 p.m., Dr. NIRMALA Devi SRIVASTAVA, scholar and world- renown speaker, will be at the Masur Auditorium, NIH, Bethesda, to describe how meditation produces its effect on the autonomic nervous system. On June 20, at 7 p.nx, at the Uni- versity of Maryland College Auditorium" Sfacets 09:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"...Meditation, yoga seminars planned Big The role of meditation has been established in curing stress-related disorders and having a beneficial effect in many other disease states. On June 19, at 7 p.m., Dr. NIRMALA Devi SRIVASTAVA, scholar and world- renown speaker, will be at the Masur Auditorium, NIH, Bethesda, to describe how meditation produces its effect on the autonomic nervous system. On June 20, at 7 p.nx, at the Uni- versity of Maryland College Auditorium" - she will introduce SAHAJA YOGA and give an experience of Kundalini awakening to the audience. Kundali- ni is a spiritual energy in the trian- gular bone, the sacrum in every human being. Dr. Srivastava has been able to integrate extensive knowledge from ancient India with modern science to expand understanding and aware- ness of the subtleties of the human nervous system and how its dysfunc- tion can make a person prone to dis- eases such as stress adaptation dis- order, cancer, AIDS, substance abuse and others. She will be pre- senting a new hypothesis about cau- sation of so-called psychosomatic disorders and a different approach to solving some of these complex medical problems. Sahaja Yoga has been shown in medical studies conducted in India, Australia and Russia to have direct action on the autonomic nervous system. She has been twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, has been honored by the U.S. Congress and the United Nations, and has received numerous honors and AWARDs in recognition of her con- tribution to peace, health and well- being of humankind in over 86 nations. Dr. Srivastava explains the inte- grated nature of all aspects of the human being, including the relation- ship between physical, mental, emo- tional and spiritual health." Frederick Post Friday, June 16, 2000
This is a newspaper from Maryland. Sfacets 11:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It is part of an article. The preceding sentence to the beginning of the passage above is "I don't tell people how to vote but I do rec- ommend that they vote. I also rec- ommend that they refrain from alco- hol, drugs and tobacco. Those are all "personal I suppose. I don't apologize for them. Being against gun violence falls into the same cate- gory. My sole purpose is to help and guide my teen readers." So it isn't an event listing. Sfacets 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The statement is sourced from a newspaper article. Sfacets 14:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is by reporter Sarah Fortney titled "Using Yoga to cure stress". Sfacets 10:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed J Coney's assertion for the same reason. Sfacets 04:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This has already been brought up. J Coney was a moderator for a forum run by Simon, holds a minority viewpoint, and makes extraordinary claims. Sfacets 04:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is Simon removing sourced content under the guise of reverting another editors changes? [6] Sfacets 14:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Simon is a known contributor to websites that are critical of SY. He maintains at least two of them. Sfacets 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I made no such claim, as I said earlier, please stop inventing things. Sfacets 15:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You have been editing this article what... one month now? And all you have done is add out of context minority viewpoints and self-published sources the the article. Nice. Sfacets 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Why was this material removed? It is sourced to work by experts published by major publishers who substantially agree with each other. These apeear to be extraordinarily good sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not not calling into question her credentials, I am calling into question her neutrality, and the reliability of her information. Her view is in the minority -to quote you: "The claim (...), if true, should be easily sourced to more verifiable sources". I restored Kakar. Sfacets 04:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I am saying that Coney is not valid as a source - she has COI issues, and her views on SY in general are a minority viewpoint. Sfacets 06:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
She received the information for her book by Simon Dicon Montford, a longtime critic. She was a moderator for his Yahoo group. No other sources back her claims. Sfacets 06:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you deny that she was an admin for Simon D M's website? Sfacets 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
At repsent the article says nothing about the subject between 1970 and 2004. Surely we can find a reliable source that describes her some of her activities in that period. I gather that she lived England from the mid-'70s to mid-'80s, though I can't find a source for it now. Are there other, non-contentious facts about this period that we can add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
As usual Simon DM revert one after another (5 in 24 hours) edits which are sourced just because it doesn't go in his vision of SY. I can't go on like this. Hours of work destroyed one after another by this vandal -- Agenor 77 ( talk) 10:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I had added list of other's who claim to be incarnation, (which was removed) and this is very much needed, as there are many more incarnations in this world currently. Mataji is also one of them, that list belongs in there. Kindly put forth your concern. A personal opinion (ignorable), Is all powerful, almighty, omnipresent Lord Almighty that weak, that it needs multiple simultaneous incarnations to handle growing human population ? -- Cult free world ( talk) 11:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This controversy fits more in page dealing with Sahaja Yoga as organization, rather then NS, there is no link of NS with this controversy, hence it should be part of the organization page. -- Cult free world ( talk) 06:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
User 203.11.225.5 is of the opinion that meditate4free.co.uk is a newspaper, however on checking the site, it appears that, this site is solely dedicated to praise the cult leader.
Here is the information about that domain.
Domain name:
meditate4free.co.uk
Registrant:
John Firth
Trading as:
c/o Netscalibur UK Ltd - FDD
Registrant type:
UK Limited Company, (Company number: 2212003)
Registrant's address:
Unknown
Unknown
GB
Registrar:
Compila Limited [Tag = COMPILA]
Relevant dates:
Registered on: 16-May-2001
Renewal date: 16-May-2009
Last updated: 26-May-2007
I have never heard of any newspaper in UK which goes by the name meditate4free!! this is not a newspaper, as far as i can see, comments from other's is also invited so that we can move ahead with this reference, which appears to be a promotional peace of work!! --
talk-to-me! (
talk)
09:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, what's the problem with these links? -- Simon D M ( talk) 13:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
1. The "mesmerising" quote appears in the second sentence, there is no need to repeat it.
2. The way Nirmala Srivastava is smiling at the camp is irrelevant and is used as a kind of accusation in an attempt to push a particular line. Therefore, it is original research see
WP:OR. Coney's source can be used to confirm that Nirmala Srivasta was indeed at the camp, no argument there.
Freelion (
talk)
02:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
1. It was repeated. It is fixed now. Before going and adding it again, check in the second sentence.
2. Now that this topic is open again for discussion, I think it best to stick to the more neutral version. Please see
Biographies about living people. The reference to the way Nirmala Srivastava is smiling at a Rajneesh camp relies on
guilt by association and this is to be avoided in biographies about living people.
I've made a few other individual changes to the article, each one with an edit summary. If anyone needs to change these I would appreciate the courtesy of individual responses to each change instead of one big reversion as has been happening.
Freelion (
talk)
07:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a problem with the wording and this topic is being discussed, so use a neutral version for now. You have not addressed my argument. It is you who is trying to push ahead with unacceptable wording. I asked you to review each change individually but you have not. Please explain yourself clearly because your actions are appearing rash and your argument about reason for going to the camp does not make sense. According to WP:BRD you should just be reverting and discussing, not making further uncalled for changes. WP:BLP states the importance of getting it right and not making untrue claims based on guilt by association in biographies about living people. Freelion ( talk) 04:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Your last remark was a load of POV and OR. You are completely ignoring my argument that the Coney reference relies on guilt by association and cannot be included in a biography about a living person. You're continual reverting of multiple changes without any explanation, plus more unexplained edits of your own, can only be viewed as disruption. Please address your own behaviour. Freelion ( talk) 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You haven't explained anything. If you want an explanation of guilt by association, do us all a favour and read the article. You've keep reverting multiple individual edits which had either an appropriate mention on the talk page or an edit summary. But you haven't explained any one of those reversions except to say that it's POV pushing. This is inappropriate behaviour. You might not be able to explain yourself very well, but your actions are on the record. Freelion ( talk) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Simon D M, I have again edited out your sarcastic, offensive comments. Please see WP:CIVIL before making comments which may be offensive to other editors. Freelion ( talk) 01:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Due to recent edit warring I've protected the page. Please seek mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to report the statement of a 3rd party reliable source (Coney) who says that Nirmala Srivastava was smiling in a video of a Rajneesh meditation camp in May 1970? This topic has been discussed here and here. The piece of text in the article that is being questioned is this:
The objector argues that including this text constitutes "a kind of accusation" that "relies on guilt by association" and thereby contravenes WP:BLP.
My own stand is that WP:NPOV requires that the facts about multiple or conflicting opinions should be documented so that readers can form their own view. WP:BLP states that "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." -- Simon D M ( talk) 16:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The Coney quote is fine - tho it might depend on quite how it's used... current page has no mention of "smiling beatifically". However the preceding quote that Nirmala Devi "was shocked to see him loot people under the guise of spirituality" is far more problematic. Checking the source, I see it is actually a quote from a web page by a loose collective of UK-based groups practicing her yoga method. As such it is an unreliable source. The web page does not attribute the statement to Nirmala Devi and there is no evidence cited that this was even her opinion. Its use in this context gives a very false impression and since it is a somewhat inflammatory statement, such an opinion should only be attributed to Nirmala Devi if a reliably sourced citation exists. If the editors remove that misleading quote then the whole "smiling beatifically" thing would become obsolete. Dakinijones ( talk) 08:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The source website (Yahoo News India) appears to be offline - is there another source for the apology quotation?
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 16:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This aricle should be moved to the name most people refer to Shri Nirmala Srivastava as per WP:COMMONNAME - ie 'Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi' - it should never have been moved in fact. Sfacets 12:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
the reality is that "Mataji Nirmala Devi" is the name most widely used, usually prefixed by Shri. Wikipedia editors need to recognise that this is the reality and name the article accordingly, with appropriate redirect(s) Sahajhist 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you from the past? Did you just skip over what I just said? Sfacets 02:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If you look at any newspaper archives you will see that Shri Mataji is referred to as "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" and not as "Nirmala Srivastava". A very simple way to demonstrate this is to do a Google search for "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" - there are 42,300 results, whereas for "Nirmala Srivastava" there are only 3,260 - QED Surely wikipedia cannot be hijacked by the opinion of someone who is flying in the face of all exisiting evidence! windinthetrees 6 July 2007
May I assume that all those following this discussion are quietly nodding their heads in agreement? If so, can anyone advise me how to implement this change. Do I simply cut and paste all the info from this page into the Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi page and give this page the redirection which is currently on the other page? Freelion ( talk) 04:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
We could make an exception in this case because of the widespread recognition of her name with honorifics. The name of this article sets a precedent for all other articles which use her name. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, it is in the interest of readers that names used throughout articles on Wikipedia are the ones which are most widely known. It is especially true in this case because the two names - "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" and "Nirmala Srivastava" are quite different which can lead to confusion. The proposed guidelines clearly make an allowance for such an exception to the general guideline of not using honorifics by saying "exceptions may apply to individuals who are widely known by an honorific name or with a title." Freelion ( talk) 07:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
So does it not matter that Wikipedia uses more than one name for the same person? Maybe we should use whichever name is used by the particular reference we are using. Freelion ( talk) 00:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Nirmala Devi is less commonly used but makes sense being a truncation of the name with honorifics. That being said, the first sentence of the article does say "more widely known as Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi". This fits the criteria for the exception at Titles and honorifics - Naming conventions for India and Srilanka. So my ammended proposal is to title the article as "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" and refer to her inline as "Nirmala Devi". Freelion ( talk) 04:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It has been demonstrated that the subject is most widely known by her honorific title, so I was thinking that the aforementioned guideline would allow her to be addressed as such, even in the title. WP:MOSBIO suggests not using honorifics inline so this prompted my revised proposal. I think that in the scholarly literature the name with honorifics will be the most common, but I'll check. Freelion ( talk) 06:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)