This page 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. |
Regarding this edit; while critics' claims may be nonsensical, they are nonetheless widely made. Wikipedia describes the place of a subject in the world; since these claims exist in large numbers they should be reported. Such is the essence of NPOV.
The POV tag was added to this artilce in July of 2004, by an editor who made few contributions to the article. There has been no discussion on this page for more than six months. therefore, I'm removing the tag. Anyone who wishes to discuss specific issues is welcome to replace it. - Willmcw 22:16, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
There is a POV issue here, namely the so called merging of documents by
Paul Foord which resulted in the removal of an entire document.
Reverted to prior version to remove inappropropriate edits done by Kill_Bossy
It is because of this POV that I reverted the document - I make no objection to the links, but the links weren't the only part modified. Shane 22:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The critics claims are not widely made. They are frequently made, and that's different They are frequently made by a very small number of people who harbour a personal grudge against Sahaja Yoga and wish to devote their time to this sort of activity. Logically, if Sahaja Yoga is free as it claims, then it is going to attract a wide variety of people, including some rare unsavoury types. If it is a good organisation then it will not allow those type to remain in Sahaja Yoga. They will be expelled, and those unsavoury types are exactly the sort of people who will continue that kind of negative and unsubstantiated allegations. Note, besides some web sites there is NO EVIDENCE that backs the claims they make. It is the worst kind of hearsay and slander and if 1% of it were true we would all be in jail instead of in many many countries around the world. Our point is that an encyclopedia needs to be factual. It should not be a platform for this kind of activity. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.48.101.131 (
talk •
contribs)
I agree, and also would like to point out that most of the critical external links are personal webpages which are slanderous in nature, do not employ multiple/professional sources, and therefore reflect only one persons POV, a minority. For this reason, links to sites where only one person's point of view is expressed should be removed. Please discuss.
Shane 04:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Removed content by user KillBossy, uncorroborated theory. Shane 04:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)24th
In this case he should specify where exactly he took the citation from. Placing a citation without specifying it's source voids it's validity... Shane 05:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Tue 24th Jan 06
Removed links to the [ [4]] site, seing as it is mentionned in the aforementionned site that the institute do not support any of the views contained on the website. ([ site's disclaimer]) The links are therefore invalid. Shane
I removed the links to the Rick_Ross institute.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/acm2.htm http://www.apologeticsindex.org/130-rick-ross http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/rossr1.html
according to many, Rick Ross, the founder of the institute is a 'false specialist' in the field, having no doctorate or diploma to backup his research except for a high school degree.
http://www.culteducation.com/cv.html
Also called into question is his POV, being of the Jewish faith.
To top it all off, the man has a criminal record, dating back to when he illegaly kidnapped an individual in an attempt to "deprogram" him - one of many attempts at individuals and organisation's freedom of expression
Shane 06:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Regarding this edit; while critics' claims may be nonsensical, they are nonetheless widely made. Wikipedia describes the place of a subject in the world; since these claims exist in large numbers they should be reported. Such is the essence of NPOV.
The POV tag was added to this artilce in July of 2004, by an editor who made few contributions to the article. There has been no discussion on this page for more than six months. therefore, I'm removing the tag. Anyone who wishes to discuss specific issues is welcome to replace it. - Willmcw 22:16, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
There is a POV issue here, namely the so called merging of documents by
Paul Foord which resulted in the removal of an entire document.
Reverted to prior version to remove inappropropriate edits done by Kill_Bossy
It is because of this POV that I reverted the document - I make no objection to the links, but the links weren't the only part modified. Shane 22:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The critics claims are not widely made. They are frequently made, and that's different They are frequently made by a very small number of people who harbour a personal grudge against Sahaja Yoga and wish to devote their time to this sort of activity. Logically, if Sahaja Yoga is free as it claims, then it is going to attract a wide variety of people, including some rare unsavoury types. If it is a good organisation then it will not allow those type to remain in Sahaja Yoga. They will be expelled, and those unsavoury types are exactly the sort of people who will continue that kind of negative and unsubstantiated allegations. Note, besides some web sites there is NO EVIDENCE that backs the claims they make. It is the worst kind of hearsay and slander and if 1% of it were true we would all be in jail instead of in many many countries around the world. Our point is that an encyclopedia needs to be factual. It should not be a platform for this kind of activity. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.48.101.131 (
talk •
contribs)
I agree, and also would like to point out that most of the critical external links are personal webpages which are slanderous in nature, do not employ multiple/professional sources, and therefore reflect only one persons POV, a minority. For this reason, links to sites where only one person's point of view is expressed should be removed. Please discuss.
Shane 04:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Removed content by user KillBossy, uncorroborated theory. Shane 04:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)24th
In this case he should specify where exactly he took the citation from. Placing a citation without specifying it's source voids it's validity... Shane 05:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Tue 24th Jan 06
Removed links to the [ [4]] site, seing as it is mentionned in the aforementionned site that the institute do not support any of the views contained on the website. ([ site's disclaimer]) The links are therefore invalid. Shane
I removed the links to the Rick_Ross institute.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/acm2.htm http://www.apologeticsindex.org/130-rick-ross http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/rossr1.html
according to many, Rick Ross, the founder of the institute is a 'false specialist' in the field, having no doctorate or diploma to backup his research except for a high school degree.
http://www.culteducation.com/cv.html
Also called into question is his POV, being of the Jewish faith.
To top it all off, the man has a criminal record, dating back to when he illegaly kidnapped an individual in an attempt to "deprogram" him - one of many attempts at individuals and organisation's freedom of expression
Shane 06:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)