Personally Sethie doesn't see the need for having this in an encyclopedia article, and if it stays in, Sethie proposes we move it to under the practices section- so at least it has some connection to the article.
However, Sethie's vote is to remove it. Sure it looks cool and what does it add? Sethie 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The ability to feel 'sensations' corresponding to the different chakras on hands and head are an integral part of SY meditation, and therefore essential to the article. This would not be a part of the pratices, rather would belong in the chakra section since it is related to the chakras rather than the accompanying practices... ˜˜˜˜
I have waited over a month for anyone to say why they feel the hand/chart helps the article and have heard no response. Removing.
Sethie 17:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand Will's point about how much detail should be in the article; however the location of the chakras on the hands, head (and the limbs, feet also) are an important part of the diagnostic aspects of Sahaja Yoga meditative practice. I vote for restore. Sahajhist 12:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
However, Sethie's vote is to remove it. Sure it looks cool and what does it add? Sethie 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If they are integral, I would like to see them idea mentioned in the article, and as of yet, I have not heard a single reason why the charts should go in the article..... Sethie 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Sethie 18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"::The use of the hand centres to 'diagnose' the chakras in the body is a major part of SY. If it seems that the information is overwhelming the article, perhaps a new article should be created for the sole purpose of oitlining/describing the chakra system in SY... Sfacets 07:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Long version: To Sfacets and Sahajist
For over TWO MONTHS, I have tried to engage in dialogue about whether the charts would make a better article or not. Neither of you have replied and merely ignored my queries and attempts at dialogue and stuck them back in.
You have said, "Oh it is important to Sahaj Yoga" but have failed to address why it is important to THIS ARTICLE.
I have no opinion on Sahaj Yoga and here I am wasting my time trying to discuss things with two very obviously biased editors. I have asked three or four times, "How does this make a better article" and your only replies have been to reinsert the pictures.
Either engage in dialogue or leave this page. Seriously.
Talk or leave. And I mean actual talk.
Wikipedia is based on creating concensus, not people dropping by and shoving stuff into articles and then disapearing or not addressing concerns.
I have been extremely paitent and given A LOT of time to answer my concerns with this.
I would ask both of you to review WP:CON and actually dialogue about this. To quote myself: Look if you think it'll make a better article to have the charts- I am open, tell me! "The charts are very important to SY" doesn't convince me one iota that there inclusion would make a better article! It convinces me that we need more info about the charts.
I am open. Let's talk. Otherwise, please leave.
I don't like to go around reverting edits, however I have given you TWO months to give a reason for their inclusion. I am still opposed to it, and since you have given ZERO reason for their inclusion, on this page, the current concensus is 1-0.
Come on Sfacts you're an admin, I expected better of you. Sethie 17:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Short version: I am not going to be have my concerns ignored by two people with a clear POV who aren't willing/able to discuss my concerns. Participate or leave. I am open to changing my position about their inclusion/exclusion. I am not open to my concerns not being respectfully addressed, by two editors who are members of the organization of the article we're discussing!
Sethie 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly here for the long term. And for the record, I agree with WillBeBack's attempted compromise. And btw Sethie, if you must undo yet again, please take care to leave other edits in place. [[User:sahajhistsahajhist]] 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Greetings ! I just want to know What are the 16 gunas (attributes) that one qualify in order to be considered a true guru (Satguru) ? Thank you.
Dispute over whether or not to include hand/head diagnosis charts inside the article as shown in this version [ [1]]
This version [ [2]] looks to me like an article not for describing or explaing about the group, but as a means of expressing and sharing the actual information and practices of the group. I have asked for a reason for the inclusion of the hand/head chart for two months and have recieved no answer, other then the continued re-insertion of the charts, by two Sahaja Yoga practitioners! They assert that it is very important to the tradition but have added no further information (other then the charts) I am wondering if the chakra chart needs to be taken out as well? Sethie 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The article does not share the 'practices of the group', rather is presents practices that the group would like to be publicly associated with it. One of the most important practices of the group - the worship of Shri Mataji - is completely left out. This is a far more significant aspect of the group than charitable activities for example. -- Simon D M 15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
This is a sharing of spiritual Knowledge and how and when the information needs to be conveyed is best judged by the parishioners. Not all the practices can be expressed in words. for e.g. when Hanuman opens his heart and you see Sri Ram in his heart. Opening a heart can not be expressed in words , It has to be felt and whatever is written takes you to the level where you can feel and know the truth from your inner spirit. This Text are just to accelerate to know the truth .Thanks for pointing out but leave it to the practitioners what to include and what not to include. (King_48141) My primary concern as an editor is with the text of this article (which I believe currently to be a reasonable consensus view). I have no view on inclusion of the charts per se. Certainly these charts are available elsewhere on the web for those interested in practising this meditation. sahajhist 23:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be an idea to include some of the so-called 'miracle photos' that are used in Sahaja Yoga as evidence of Mataji's divinity, although critics claim they are just poorly taken photos. You can see a long list here: http://imageevent.com/sahaja/miraclephotos -- Simon D M 17:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe the head/hand charts are too specific for an encyclopedia article. The article without them provides enough information for people to become aware that the topic is a meditation exercise related to chakras. Those interested in learning the details of all that is involved, how the meditation works, the complete theory behind it, etc., can follow a link to sites that are dedicated to providing this information in full. At issue is not the value of the meditation, nor whether the diagrams are essential to understanding it, but simply the limitation that "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook." For comparison, look at the article on "Slapping" (electric bass technique), "rock climbing," and "database design," each of which articles is not a tutorial, but does include links to at least one tutorial site. VisitorTalk 08:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
so... Sfacets 05:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
"Dispute over whether or not to include hand/head diagnosis charts inside the article as shown in this version 24
[edit] Brief statement by involved parties
This version 25 looks to me like an article not for describing or explaing about the group, but as a means of expressing and sharing the actual information and practices of the group. I have asked for a reason for the inclusion of the hand/head chart for two months and have recieved no answer, other then the continued re-insertion of the charts, by two Sahaja Yoga practitioners! They assert that it is very important to the tradition but have added no further information (other then the charts) I am wondering if the chakra chart needs to be taken out as well? Sethie 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)"
And in your own words re-state what you hear me expressing concern over? Sethie 06:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
"...This version 25 looks to me like an article not for describing or explaing about the group, but as a means of expressing and sharing the actual information and practices of the group"
nope.
sorta close, and nope.
I guess you'll just have to assume good faith. Sfacets 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
For the 500th time will you just freaking answer this question: Why does having the actual charts, in ANY article make a better article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethie ( talk • contribs).
I have restored the charts (with modifications to size/formating), since it appears that no consensus has been reached here for their removal. Sfacets 01:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you removed the charts before any consensus was reached to do so. I have responded as best I could to your none-too specific questions, and yet you failed to accept any of my answers, instead choosing to "shout" out your exasperation
[3], perhaps because you decided that you didn't like my answers. A month later, still no concensus reached, I re-insert the charts (which shouldn't have been taken out in the 1st place) and preto! along comes Sethie to remove them again. If there was no COI in the 1st place, there definitely was the second time.
I am still waiting for concensus for the charts to removed, and suggest you do the same. Sfacets 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
this talk page is getting awfully long. Can someone do the necesssary please? Sahajhist 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The archive of previous discussions can now be found here. Sfacets 04:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that substantial progress has been made in recent months in achieving an article that reflects the diverse perspectives of the regular editors, and indeed the text has been stable for some months now. Therefore I propose removing the 'neutrality' notice at the top of the main article. Any comments? Sahajhist 03:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I would propose replacing the neutrality notice. Indeed, this article is designed by sahaja Yoga practicioners as it doesn't even mention that in several countries, including France, this is considered to be a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.136.97.42 ( talk) 21:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see the neutrality notice return. The article needs to give a more complete picture of Sahaja Yoga including the religious aspect. -- Simon D M 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Mr. Saint Joseph of Arimathea, this is great and all, however do you have any sources to back your claims? Original Research isn't admissible here. Sfacets 12:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What exactly are you criticizing? Sfacets 14:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
http://www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/mneytxt.htm#Celebrations%20&%20Pujas
-- Simon D M 11:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of serious objections I have put up the proposed section. -- Simon D M 18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
from reading this it seems to me that Simon is simply doing everything he can to blantenly discredit Sahaja Yoga. You should remember that it isnt the purpose of wikipedia to judge, but rather to present it exactly as it is done/said. thus CP should still be said as with Sir- but and it should be stated that although he is refered to as this, the title Sir is only meant for those who actually live in Commonwealth states. I also believe that you should list the Official Sahaja Yoga response under external links and make a link to it in the Cult Allegations section. I have googled it and found the response here: http://www.sahajayogafacts.org/default.asp -Devindra Payment comment added by 24.80.193.138 ( talk) 03:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey I never said that the response was good or whatever what you said means I'm just saying it should be put there. Anyways I do agree that the page is neutral, what I was saying is that you seem to be trying to point out every single little flaw you can. Nothing is perfect. Its probably as neutral as it can get, atleast until new information can be added. -Devindra Payment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.193.138 ( talk) 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor posted a proposal to split out an article to tbe titled "Sahaja Yoga International", with the note: suggest page be split into one on the yoga, one on the organization. [4] However he may not be aware that that article was already deleted and he material merged here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaja Yoga International. Are there any significant new sources on the topic that would justify recreating the article? If not, we shouldn't split it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone asked for this section to be tidied up. I agree. So I have removed (IMHO) extra and old links. Obviously only a small selection of available links can be included, and the resulting listing needs to be balanced and uptodate. If anyone disagrees, please add your comments. Sahajhist 01:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProjects exist to improve articles. Their scope is often wide, encompassing articles that may have only a minor relationship. There is no harm in attaching an article to a project, and some benefit.
In this instance, Yoga is one of the six schools of Hinduism. Furthermore, Kundalini and Dharma are Hindu concepts. Finally, Shakti is a Hindu deity, and the founder of SY is an incarnation of her. So there are several reasons to connect this article and related topics to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I've no objection to the link, but it should be noted that Sahaja Yoga, whilst based on Indian yogic practices, is beyond exising religions, including 'Hinduism' Sahajhist 10:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sahaja Yoga isnt based on Hinduism. It includes aspects of many religions, the main reason it seems so Hindu related is because: a) Nirmala Shrivastava is Indian (though her parents are Christian), and b) there is just so much Hindu culture. Though yes I think it would be good to atach it but do what Sahajhist said, though a little less defiantly. -Devindra Payment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.193.138 ( talk) 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
All Religons believe they are beyond the other religons, or they think the other religons are devil worshippers or something. -Devindra Payment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.193.138 ( talk) 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
These terms appear only vaguely related to this topic. Can any explain the relationship? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
would be more relevant. -- Simon D M 15:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed epilepsy as the source says [5] "No reliable evidence to support the use of yoga as a treatment for control of epilepsy." I left the cite in there, but there needs to be a source that supports this. Ticklemygrits 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank for pointing it out - I replaced it with another source:
Bhagavatheeswaran Rajesh, Divakaran Jayachandran, Govindan Mohandas, Kurupath Radhakrishnan. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2006, 12(4): 367-371. doi:10.1089/acm.2006.12.367. [6]
Sfacets 14:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I still have problems with it SF: "Conclusions: If confirmed through randomized trials involving a larger number of patients, this YMP may become a cost-effective and adverse effect-free adjunctive treatment in patients with drug-resistant epilepsies.". I'd be much happier if it said "claimed to", but the source is better Ticklemygrits 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Chandrika Prasad Srivastava#"Sir". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Why was this deleted?
And why do this domain name keeping getting changed?
This is disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Because the user should discuss before adding information - there is no secondary source showing that the subject of the article is the person mentionned. The link is changed as per previous discussions. Nothing disruptive about it - it just needs to be done correctly. Sfacets 09:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
A reliable secondary source is needed. The real location of the website is freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga and not sahaja-yoga.org. Sfacets 22:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, or rephrase the sentences so that it is clear where the information comes from. Sfacets 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
No, because as I said, there is no reliable secondary source linking the two people. Are they the same person? Sfacets 00:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea - neither do you. A secondary source linking the two names is necessary. Please do not add OR content. Sfacets 02:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Everything needs to have reliable secondary sources - or specify where the information comes from. Sfacets 13:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Please just look us the definition of secondary sources. Sfacets 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are missing the point - as long as the information is attributed (eg "according to the organization" etc.) the information is fine to stay. Unattributed content, or unsourced content is not.
Sfacets 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually it wouldn't - since my original point stands. Most of the content you tagged was already attributed. Sfacets 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
No, since the person in question is not otherwise notable. Sfacets 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets knows full well that there is only one Australian Sahaja Yogi called Dr Bohdan SHEHOVYCH. He knows full well it was the same person wrestling with Terence Blackley who became World Leader. In fact, if you google "Bohdan SHEHOVYCH", only one Bohdan Shehovych comes up! It is ludicrous that a simple sourced addition needs such a merry dance to get through. Looking through these talk page archives I can see that this merry dance has been going on for a while. Does Wikipedia have any process whereby a mediator can keep such nonsense under control? -- Simon D M 10:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I unlinked puja, because puja in a Hindu context is different than puja in the context of SY. Dharma is relevant - the mere fact that it is part of "Vishwa Nirmala Dharma" is proof of that. Sfacets 04:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there more than one kind of puja? The article about it describes a rite that appears similar to what is depicted in SY videos. The article indicates that there are many kinds of pujas. Furher, SY calls the rites that it performs "pujas". Do we have source that describes the difference, if any, between SY pujas and other pujas? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
No, you want to add the information, the burden of evidence is upon you to prove that it is the same. Sfacets 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You are right - there is no way that it could work - I will re-link the term. Sfacets 02:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There are many sources showing that Nirmala Srivastava is th founder of SY. Judith Coney's book for example. Sfacets 04:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently reverted Simon D M's edits - please discuss here before making large multiple edits. Sfacets 18:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Please comment above re the discussion on "Bohdan Shehovich" Sfacets 18:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Also edits like this one are unacceptable - you canot use an unreliable source such as freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga especially given that you are the registered owner of said website. Sfacets 19:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
What it links to is a heavily edited scanned documents that says nothing but "Mr G. Lanza is on the immigration list" - which could mean anything. Reliable sources are needed - all we have here is your word that you aren't the webmaster - the site certainly contains enough of your content. I can be on a moral high horse - especially in this case - I don't link to any self-created website and insure that reliable sources are provided - or that the information is attributed. Sfacets 10:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the section on criticism. You want any info from a critical site banned from that section. OTOH you are happy with pro-SY sites being quoted in the rest of the article. The edit you reverted said that this has been reported and that evidence has been produced. This is more than for most of the stuff on Mataji. Can you even verify her birth date from her birth certificate and passport? Some people find it odd that her birth date happens to be the same as the 'Enlightenment' date of her former guru Rajneesh. Or are there 2 standards of evidence, one for the pro-SY and one for the anti-SY? This page is badly in need of balance and I point to 2 main things: 1) the religious and superstitious elements of SY are being purposefully hidden (look how long you've taken to accept a puja link); 2) all criticism of SY is being stifled (look at you laughable attempt to conjure up another Bohdan). -- Simon D M 11:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no controversy surrounding the issue. (Except that imagined up by yourself). Again, if the critical claims check out source-wise they are kept. Please read above for discussion on reliability of sources and attribution. Sfacets 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I have been talking to you about! Good that you looked it up. "Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's ban on original research. In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for reliability. This includes references, citations, and external links". I'm expecting reliable secondry sources from you now. Sfacets 14:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You left out "If an article is written about a well-known, mainstream topic, fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review should not be included in the article". Also see the example given"Creation science". Sfacets 15:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Or rather, your opinions are not a large or widespread fringe theory. Sfacets 15:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I won't even start with what Simon thinks he is. (Find the grail yet Simon?) I removed the libelous comment above per Wiki guidelines. Sfacets 23:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
hello Simon. I see you're still trying to be the great expert on Sahaja Yoga. As usual, well off line. A lot has changed since you were expelled in 1990. In particular, the administrative framework is quite different from what you assert above. Sahajhist 05:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
New NGO Link: www.nirmalprem.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatla.subhash ( talk • contribs) 07:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
website is currently under construction -- Simon D M 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it isn't. Changed characteristics of water doesn't imply changed molecular/atomic structure. Water (apart from pure H20) contains many elements. The summary of the finds at the SY website lists the different elements in the 1st and second state of the water. Sfacets 11:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion, again. Take it up with the scientist who made the study. Sfacets 12:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Why does sourced material on the World Leader Bohdan Shehovich keep being removed? We discussed it above but I think all the objections have been addressed. The council of world leaders is the head of the organization. They are obviously very important to SY. More important, I'd say, than some musical groups. Yet information about the council and its leaders keeps getting deleted. Please explain the reasoning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The objections haven't been addressed - and all that is being removed is Simon's opinion that someone with the "same unusual name" is mentioned on the site. The information on Guido is also based on Simon's Original Research - all that he is offering as proof of Guido's denial of entry into the UK (the only perhaps remotely notable point) is a heavily edited low-res scanned image allegedly from the UK police hosted on a Critical website (which Simon is involved in editing) which states only that Guido is "on the immigration list" - which could mean anything. The preceding contet is copied from the Yahoo group that Simon maintains. Sfacets 23:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
All we have is two people with the same name. As I said above, there are many sources connecting "Nirmala Srivastava" or "Shri Mataji" to SY, whereas there is nothing showing that 'Bohdan' is the same Bohdan in both sources. I have nothing against adding info on Guido, if reliable sources are provided (although I don't see how he is notable, or how notability inside or outside the organization can be shown) and the information is relevant to the subject of the article. Sfacets 23:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one seeking to add information, the burden of evidence is on the submitter. A secondary source is needed to establish the connection between the "two individuals" called Bohdan. It would be Original Research to conclude that since the people share the same name they are the same person, and also potentialy libelous to do so. The organization isn't overseen by the world council. According to the purpose outlined on the website, "The purpose of this body is to stimulate the further growth of Sahaja Yoga and to provide support to the efforts of all the national collectives". The actions undertaken by the council are internal to the organization, and therefore are non-notable outside it, making mentioning their names unnecessary, since non of these people have been shown to be notable outside the organization. Sfacets 04:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said, primary sources can be used if attributed. Unlike Bohdan, Nirmala Srivastava is notable in that she has been the subject of many academic sources - most of which establish/confirm that a person named Nirmala Srivastava started the SY movement. I'm not asserting that there is a second Bohdan, that would require a secondary source. I don't seek to add anything about Bohdan to the article, therefore the burden of proof isn't on me. Sfacets 05:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Notice the " " scare quotes. Drawing the parallel between verifying a notable person who has been the subject of articles and someone who has been the subject of 1 article is ridiculous. You are jumping to extremes, as usual when you are unable to logically back up your argument - ignoring what I previously wrote, and soon you will take some drastic editing measure to prove your point. I am not asserting that there are two Bogdans, but if you want to find sources proving your asserting re: the 5 Nirmala Srivastavas - go right ahead. Sfacets 05:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You can mention the 'world leader', but connecting him with the subject of the newspaper article is Original Research. Sfacets 06:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Why do you mention that Bohdan Shehovych is a recent addition to the WCASY? How is this notable? I removed Guido, the source says nothing about him being a world leader or part of WCASY Sfacets 07:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It isn't the reference but the relevance I have an issue with. Are you going to add all the news from the organization to the article now? Your addition of the Russian leader's resignation is also neither relevant or notable. Sfacets 07:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
So according to you any/all information pertaining to the WCASY should be added to the article? I think they had a barbecue last week... Sfacets 09:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
So why are you adding minor details about individuals within the WCASY? Sfacets 10:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Bohdan & Guido's appointments and 'resignations' are notable enough to be reported on offical SY sites and the sites of their critics. The Metropolitan Police have even seen fit to issue a letter about one of them. The Sfacets multiple personality disorder can surely be dealt with by simply naming the people involved. Am I going wrong somewhere? Remember I'm new around here and a little support would be appreciated. -- Simon D M 11:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
If you don't stop with the Personal Attacks you will be banned from editing.
Issues with your recent additions:
1.
"In 2004 an Australian general practitioner called Bohdan Shehovych was made a World Leader in Sahaja Yoga and appointed to the World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga"
How do you know if he is a general practitioner?
2.
"another long time Sahaja Yoga World Leader and original member of the World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga [9] (Trustee of the Sahaja Yoga World Trust and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Sahaja Yoga World Centre
This is a) Duplicate material b)Unsourced c) Original Research in that it makes claims unsupported by the source, suh as how long he has beeen a leader.
3.
Headmaster of the Rome School citation needed)
Which school is that? Also unsourced
4.
"has been reported as being on the Immigration List of the UK Home office (ie he would be arrested on entry to the UK citation needed) A photograph of a heavily edited letter, allegedly from the Metropolitan Police, is provided as evidence by a critical website."
Again, no source - and no secondary source analysing the primary one (ie the alleged Police letter)
5.
[10] This World Leader was suspended from all activities in Sahaja Yoga in 2005, reportedly for disrupting a havan ritual and threatening members of Sahaja Yoga.
Duplicate content. Also unsourced here.
Sfacets 12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
1. see: http://gpra.e-newsletter.com.au/link/id/7dd4b904ad6068ddd703/page.html
and: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syrc/message/268
2. a) do you have evidence that every member of the World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga is also a
Trustee of the Sahaja Yoga World Trust? Certainly not all the trustees or council members are Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Sahaja Yoga World Centre. b) see: http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_209_2003.asp and: http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_262_2004.asp c) length of time is not specified, you need another example. Also note that you must give time for sources to be found.
3. Rome School means the Sahaja School in Rome. Give time for the source to be found. 4. Give time for the source to be found. Do you think the Metropolitan Police might be informing the relevant department
of Interpol about a parking violation? This is a serious and notable document.
5. The source is given as: http://www.sahajayoga.com/swan/view_swan.asp?mode=print&swanid=503
it actually says "has interrupted a Havan assaulting some sahaja yogis from Rome with insults, threats and attempts of physical aggression" which is stronger than the current wording of the article. Don't see how this is duplicate content.
Regarding Personal Attacks, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black I hope this helps although much of it you could have found by simply looking at the article carefully. -- Simon D M 11:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Did you seriously just reference your own Yahoo group? Your second link doesn't work. 2. Thanks for adding sources (it should still be attributed) 3. Waiting... 4. According to your POV. Waiting for a source. 5. Waiting for a source.
Sfacets 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC) About personal attacks - try reading WP:PA and then come back and talk to me.
1. I've already removed the GP statement.
2. I think you'll find the sources were already there when you made your complaint.
3. OK
4. Let's wait to see if Will thinks this is a inadmissable ref
5. Source already give twice. Unless you are complaining that GL is referred to as a World Leader. OK, I've changed the article to no longer call him that just to make you happy although the implication of pages like
http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_257_2004.asp is clearly that wcasy members are world leaders.
RE: WP:PA I have read it. --
Simon D M 15:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Could Simon please discuss them here? Sfacets 11:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed it because I created it. It isn't going to expand, so I removed it. Sfacets 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You prove my point regarding your lack of objectivity regarding my edits - this is a passage you were dead set against adding. Now that I remove it - all of a sudden you want it kept. Sfacets 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I would gladly stick to 1RR, however it would help if Simon discusses his edits before adding large chunks of unsourced and POV information to the article. I see no reason not to revert if his edits remain undiscussed. Sfacets 22:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss your edits before undoing other editor's work - you made five edits where you removed content. Please be more considerate in your edits- Will Beback - are you going to warn him about 3RR now? Sfacets 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
"A photograph of a heavily edited letter, allegedly from the Metropolitan Police, is provided as evidence by the critical website. [12] This World Leader was suspended from all activities in Sahaja Yoga in 2005, reportedly for disrupting a havan ritual "assaulting some sahaja yogis from Rome with insults, threats and attempts of physical aggression.". [1]
When is the letter dated? What's to say that the letter and/or the placement of Guido's name on the list happened before 2005? If it happened after then it isn't relevant to the article, since that is when he ceased to be part of SY. Sfacets 14:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
"Ceased all activities" means that he is no longer part of the Org. Sfacets 15:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
"The meditation is described as a syncretism of different religions that "unites the essence of all religions". [2] " The reference is to a section on whether Sahaja Yoga is a religion. It is clearly not just about the meditation technique and the statement in it referred to is also clearly not just about the meditation technique. So the statement is not supported by the source and had to go. I don't see why Sfacets reverted this. -- Simon D M 15:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly how so? Sfacets 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The two are inter-connected - here they are talking about the beliefs of Sahaja Yoga which pertains to the meditation side - the organisation isn't a a syncretism of different religions. Sfacets 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You removed sourced and quoted content, replacing the quote found in the article ""significantly more effective than the generic approach in reducing stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms" with your own "effective than the [one other] generic approach [tested] in reducing stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms" please explain. Sfacets 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That's according o your POV - you cannot change a quote from a source to suit that. Sfacets 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless Dr Manocha is talking about himself in the third person, the author is more than likely someone else, probably Associate Professor John Eden. Sfacets 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The author could just as easily be the other person mentionned. Sfacets 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You can open an RFC if you want, however IMO you cannot claim that the author is someone when it isn't expressly written in the source. Sfacets 11:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
So open an RFC - you are the one seeking to change content. This discussion is indeed over - either open an RFC or move on - Wikipedia isn't a depository for your Original Research. Sfacets 22:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Where? Sfacets 08:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I am going to ask Simon once again to be courteous and discuss major proposed changes here. His large ondiscussed and unconsesnsed changes to the article are disruptive. Feel free to add inormation - but if you need to change/remove/re-organize content, then please have consideration for other editor's work which has gone into the article. Sfacets 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Ramesh Manocha ("R. Manocha"), "a clinical research fellow at the Sydney Royal Hospital for Women's Natural Therapies Unit" [15], has done considerable writing and research connected with SY, and there is also indication that he practices and advocates SY meditation.
He has also written on other, non-medical topics, including a review of a book titled "Jesus Lived in India" that says:
His are qualifications variously listed as:
Steven Hassan writes:
According to a speech by Sir CP, Dr. Manocha was part of the medical team that treated Shri Mataji in 2006.
What to make of this? We can't second guess the reliablity of the peer-reviewed journals that have published his work. It may be worth noting, though, that Menocha specializes in doing research on SY, advocates its uses, and practices it himself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The beginning of this article is clunky because it defines SY as a practice and then goes on to talk about associated beliefs, organisation, guru/goddess, etc. What is the overarching concept here that includes all the others? It is New Religious Movement - that includes all the other facets. The article would be improved if it started like this:
Sahaja Yoga ( Sahaja meaning innate [3] and Yoga meaning union) is a new religious movement founded by Nirmala Srivastava, more widely known as "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" or "Mother" by followers - who worship her as the complete [34] incarnation of the Adi Shakti. [4] The term Sahaja Yoga can also be used to refer to the practices that are promoted by the movement, including meditation and puja. There are a number of formal organizational bodies within Sahaja Yoga, the main one being known as Sahaja Yoga International or Vishwa Nirmala Dharma.
Sahaja Yoga grew from India and England (where Nirmala Srivastava moved in 1972) and spread internationally. There are now Sahaja Yoga centers around the world [5].
As this is a major change, I'm putting it up for discussion and of course welcome constructive input. -- Simon D M 16:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It is simple - what came first, the meditation or the organization? Sahaja Yoga meditation exists separately of the organization. The intro is fine as it is, except for the "the complete [4] incarnation of the Adi Shakti" (which isn't in the source). Your knowledge of the organizational structure of SY appears to be outdated, it has been a long time since you "left". Sfacets 21:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As there's no further comment, I'll go ahead. -- Simon D M 11:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There is further comment. Wait for concensus before applying disputed changes. You are being disruptive, but I will stick to my 1 revert. - perhaps someone else could revert pending consensus on this issue? Sfacets 11:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought the fact that you had revisited this section but not said anything more on the issue meant you'd finished. Actually I don't think saying that SY is a NRM is all that controversial, after all Mataji calls SY a global religion. SY is certainly a lot more than a practice. -- Simon D M 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've now read the prior discussion on this. Originally 'cult' was a neutral word. It became problematic. 'NRM' was designed to be a new neutral word with only a partial overlap to leave 'cult' behind. If people are saying that NRM is becoming problematic then we need to see where the problem is coming from - it's coming from high profile cases of a few of these NRMs giving the others a bad name. It's not to do with the word NRM which is neutral and descriptive, you could even say bland. Call SY meditation a practice by all means, but SY in its totality is a NRM, and any academic study that has tried to study SY in its totality has labelled it a NRM. -- Simon D M 12:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the original quote that was supplied, we have: "The Adi Shakti is the Great Mother... Today her most complete incarnation is living on the earth to start the Golden Age; in this incarnation her name is Sri Mataji Nirmala Devi." The Advent, 1979, Gregoire de Kalbermatten (author), p298, cited in Sahaja Yoga, by Judith Coney, pp103-4 -- Simon D M 10:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You can't talk about an NRM without talking about its beliefs. So we need a section on that. Most of the Sahaja Yoga meditation article is just about the beliefs surrounding SY meditation and could be incorporated easily. That would lead little left in the Sahaja Yoga meditation article which is no bad thing because it doesn't really say much about SY meditation eg where the attention is put etc -- Simon D M 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If you read prior discussions you will see that it was already previously incorporated, but the article was getting too long. Sfacets 11:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read the prior discussions. If you want to re-open the issue, try an RFC. Sfacets 11:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see the discussion on Article spinouts above. If it is too long it will duplicate content. Sfacets 22:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Off topic how? Sfacets 13:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It is completely on topic - it isn't complete, however it discusses the basic tenet behind SY meditation ie the Chakra system, Kundalini etc. Sfacets 11:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Other aspects such as? Sfacets 11:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The Vashi health center isn't a tenet of SY. You still haven't replied to my question - why is it off topic? Sfacets 11:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that the only objector to this is now blocked, and the objections never seemed to stack up to anything anyway, can I take it that I can go ahead with the Beliefs section? -- Simon D M 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No. Sfacets 08:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, go right ahead. Sfacets 11:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
"The organization says the practice of Sahaja Yoga .. which may even be obtained immediately by visiting a Sahaja Yoga webpage.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20060101093331/http://www.sahajayoga.org/</ref>"
If you are using a link to an old archived version of the page, you will need to change the wording. Sfacets 05:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, simply that the website in question no longer states that. Sfacets 06:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The main SY site seems to be offering 'Self Realisation' by online video at http://www.sahajayoga.org/experienceitnow/ which is linked on the main page. -- Simon D M 16:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The name Sahaja Yoga has been trademarked in the US by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma although the term goes back at least to the 15th Century Indian mystic Kabir. [35] [36]
The first references quotes Simon (yes, that is Simon D M. The second makes no reference to "Sahaja Yoga". Sfacets 13:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The second reference is invalid because it quotes the defendant in the case (ie Simon D Montford) - not exactly source material. Sfacets 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The second source is useless without the first source (which aimed at establishing that SY was a "trademark" - the second aimed at proving that the term "Sahaja Yoga" was used by Kabir.) the second source describes "sahaj yog", the first describes a concept, and doesn't discuss the name in relation to Kabirs "sahaj yog" ideas. Sfacets 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The second source doesn't mention "Sahaja Yoga", and describes the concept, doesn't discuss the name. I added the reference above (thanks), and moved the section to the organization section. Sfacets 02:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am. There is no evidence that the two carry the same meaning or describe the same concept. To say that the case was lost because "the term had been used before 1970" is an oversimplification, and wrong. Sfacets 02:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You cannot claim that because a term is the same that it always means the same thing. Are Sahaja Yoga practices exactly the same as the concept outlined by Kabir? Sfacets 08:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Your POV is expressed in the WIPO article. Sfacets 08:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually no, I wasn't part of the trial. Sfacets 11:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Despite the reverting of Simon D M and the warning of Wilbeback, I insist this
Nirmala Srivastava has stated that meditation is not thinking "about your problems at all, whatever chakras you have, anything", rather it "means exposing yourself to God’s grace." [10] She has described meditation as "an individual journey towards God." [11]
Is not the exact (correct) quotation. She said:
Don’t worry at what point you have a problem. Say, many people during meditation, I have seen, if they catch somewhere they go on looking after it. You just don’t have to worry. You just let it go and it will work by itself. So you don’t have to put in any effort. This is what meditation is. Meditation means exposing yourself to God’s grace
Either we add the correct one, either we take out this line. I don't understand what is going here ? Thank you per advance PS: And I do not understand why we should discuss and argue for such evidence. Agenor 77 12:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is this website being used as a source? The link http://www.valaya.co.uk/KNOWLEDGEpujaProt1.htm for example, states its origin as being from a "Private archive", nothing else. Unless a good reason is provided to keep this as a source, I will remove it as well as associated content. Sfacets 16:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
And you see this how? By the copyright information? It is obviously a private website. Sfacets 00:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
No, only that it isn't an official website, and is an unreliable source in this case. Sfacets 03:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability This is obviously a Self-published source, and is not reliable, unless it is verified by another source. Sfacets 05:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not adding the information, or using the source. Please read
burden of evidence. You need to provide evidence of the validity of the website as a source.
Sfacets 08:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Nobody accused you of anything here. My issue is with you backing up your assertions with your own material. Also please comment on the edits, not the editor. Sfacets 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Now let's stop the petty back-biting and get back to the subject in hand: "Valaya is in line with the international policy of Sahaja Yoga" http://www.valaya.co.uk/HOME.htm It is also listed by the Canadian site: http://www.sahajayoga.ca/WorldWide/PersonalWebsites.html -- Simon D M 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It also seems Gian has some pretty high-powered customers: http://www.masciangelo.com/INFO_BASE_UK_3.html I think he'd no better than to start making stuff up and putting it onto his sites. -- Simon D M 15:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:V clearly states that personal websites are not acceptable as sources. This is clearly a private (there is a login on the home page, although the site is not very secure, and for this reason pages inside the site have been linked to) and personal website, and there is no evidence that the author is an expert on the subject. User:Windinthetrees 10:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this discussion has gone on long enough and we should ask Will, as a neutral party, to decide. -- Simon D M 14:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Are any of the sources currently used traceable back to talks? Re:the cheerleader - what can I say, I'm a cool guy. Sfacets 11:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
How about the speeches here: http://www.valaya.co.uk/IN-DEEP.htm ? These are word-for-word speeches of the founder with her copyright on them. ---- Simon D M ( talk) 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A few more edits, pleae comment on:
Sfacets 21:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, it's good that the page protection has encouraged you to pay some attention to this page. There are plenty of ongoing discussions here already waiting for your comment. For now let me respond to your specific points: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon D M ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Simon D M 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop spamming us with your yahoo group. Sfacets 11:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless it is spamming - is this relevant to the article? No. Sfacets 11:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, you keep changing the illustrative video for puja from the original http://www.sahajayoga.com.au/shrimataji2006/video8.html to http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=17308564 (some of your edit summaries even refer to the latter as the original, which you must know is incorrect). MySpace is listed as a link that should normally be avoided. On a less technical note, although this is a self-published puff piece, you do see various aspects of SY, and if it doesn't contravene WP:EL it would be good to link it somewhere. BUT, you have to watch for 20 minutes or so before getting half minute glimpse of the actual puja with somebody talking over it. Nevertheless, it was nice to see Derek F on the video who I used to work with at Shudy Camps. -- Simon D M ( talk) 13:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Puja is generally a 2-3 day event - encompassing cultural themes etc... Nothing is written in Wiki policy about not allowing videos hosted on Myspace (this could just as easily have been hosted anywhere else). This video shows a larger picture of what Puja means, and includes interviews with Yogis. A lot more illustrative. Sfacets 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, why do you keep inserting that this link is 'opinions by Steve Hassan'? It is bemusing given that there is absolutely no indication of this on the page, especially so given that you were not able to discern Manocha's authorship of his article even though it was clearly indicated in the byline.-- Simon D M ( talk) 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It is his website, and is unsigned. Sfacets 20:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This RFC, insisted upon by Sfacets, concerns this article which is quoted in this section. It has been discussed here.In brief Simon D M maintains that the article indicates that Ramesh Manocha is the author and that John Eden is the coordinator of the Herbs in Focus section of the website. As evidence he points to Ramesh Manocha being mentioned in the standard byline and John Eden being billed in the same manner on every instance of a Herbs in Focus article for example. Simon D M points out that Dr Wadegaonkar has reached the same conclusion. Sfacets initially objected to this because the author refers to Ramesh Manocha in the 3rd person. Later he objected that John Eden could be the author of the article because no part of the article explicitly says that Ramesh Manocha is the author. -- Simon D M 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the factual basis of the issue has been established, and have therefore deleted the tag. Sahajhist 20:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This RFC, suggested by Sfacets, is over whether there be a Beliefs section including info on Chakras, Kundalini, Self-Relisation, etc in this article or should this be in the Sahaja Yoga meditation page? Previous discussion takes place here and here
In brief, Simon D M maintains that these concepts are relevant to many aspects of the new religious movement Sahaja Yoga, while Sfacets maintains they are specific to one aspect, namely meditation, which currently has a spin-off page.
Simon D M has sourced a number of examples where these basic concepts are applied to other aspects of Sahaja Yoga: Knowledge of chakras and kundalini used to diagnose [43]; anapurna mantra used before taking food or drink [44]; and vibrations used to match couples [45].
Sfacets has responded by seeking to widen the definition of 'Sahaja Yoga meditation' to include all other practices. I will let Sfacets provide his own sources and rationale as I am not aware of any he has provided so far.-- Simon D M 16:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The article was intended as a 'depository' for information about and surrounding Sahaja Yoga meditation, (ie the chakras, Kundalini, Subtle body etc) which cannot be understood without these concepts. Sfacets 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Notice the ' ' scare quotes. I don't see the need to duplicate the information, there is a specific article for the information. Sfacets 11:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
"The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article." from: Wikipedia policy -- Simon D M 13:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The Sahaja Yoga meditation article is separate as such from this main article - it is intended to contain information regarding beliefs, practices etc as followed by Sahaja Yoga. The Sahaja Yoga meditation article is intended solely to discuss beliefs/practices and is not a POV fork - there was no objection to it's creation, and it doesn't duplicate/touch on the same subject as this article. It is a spin-off article, a widely used and acceptable practice on Wikipedia. If you have any ideas for a more descriptive name, per Will Beback feel free to suggest it. Sfacets 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is a spin off from the Meditation section. As such it deals with SY meditation, which is based on Chakras, Kundalini, and various practices aimed at awakening this Kundalini to rise through said Chakras. As such, what is the problem with the title as it currently reads? Sfacets 08:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, since it isn't needed. Many/most of the practices fall under meditation. Sfacets 08:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has already been full circle a couple of times at least. The discussion started because Sfacets would not accept a Beliefs section in the main article because there is a rudimentary one in the symeditation page, and that is actually the subject of this RfC. I suggest we move on my putting the Beliefs section into the main article as originally planned and then having another look at what the SYmeditation page actually adds beyond the disputed charts. If the main article is too long, we should look at what should most reasonably be spun out. It seems the syMeditation article was created without due process and is being presented as a fait accomplis to block development of the main article. Time for the tail to stop wagging the dog.-- Simon D M ( talk) 08:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, I've removed the redirects to the disputed page until such time as you can make up your mind whether it's SYmeditation or SYbeliefs&practices. It's for you to decide as you created it, seem to be exhibiting ownership and seem to be redifining its purpose at every turn.-- Simon D M ( talk) 09:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that Puja comes in under Meditation in a Sahaja Yoga context. I am not exhibiting ownership - you don't seem to grasp the concept of why the article was created - SY meditation discusses beliefs relating to Sahaja Yoga. There is the organization Sahaja Yoga (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) and then there is Sahaja Yoga meditation, a separate 'school of meditation' which encompasses spiritual practices such as Puja etc. There is no due process necessary to create a new article - and there was no opposition to it's creation at the time. The article spinout (did you read the relevant policy?) is intended to take space-consuming content from this article (which was previously very long/large and create a new article which could then be expanded separately. I don't see how you figure this is blocking development of the "main" article. Sfacets 12:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've taken another look on the policy on spinouts and came across this: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another." WP:SPINOUT#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles So even if there were any sense in Sfacets' dichotomy, it would not justify blocking a Beliefs section in the main page. -- Simon D M ( talk) 14:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
How does that back up your position? "may well contain" doesn't imply that it should. Duplicate content isn't advised on Wikipedia. Sfacets 16:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I already have explained. Read^. Sfacets 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Sfacets 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't need sources. If it is a 'false dichotomy' prove it to me. Sfacets 09:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Simon wrote: " if Sahaja Yoga meditation is about all beliefs and practices, why is Sfacets just linking it under the meditaion section?" [46] - I have added the template to the Practices section, and will move the bulk of the section to the Sahaja Yoga meditation article. Sfacets 09:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is a co-religionist? Using inaccurate descriptors like that makes me wonder at your ability to correctly edit articles here. What, so your reason for deleting the template was bogus? Sfacets 21:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[ You did] remove that, as you well know. Sfacets 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You aren't reading what I wrote. I'm not saying that Puja comes under Sahaja Yoga as a practice, I'm saying it comes under Sahaja Yoga meditation, which was introduced long before puja. Sfacets 11:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you haven't (or have, which is an even scarier prospect) because you are discussing something completely different. Sfacets 11:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not coming from RFC and I am not sure whether I understand all the arguments, but to have an article Sahaja yoga: beliefs and practices of which the meditation is a part sounds like a good idea. I also think that the meditation section in this article should be a subsection of beliefs and practices. If there are motivated objections to that then I would like to hear them. Andries ( talk) 12:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? Sfacets 04:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I set the above RfC up, and the previous discussion, to get consensus on adding a new section to this page as requested by Sfacets. Now Sfacets, after unnecessarily dragging out the discusssion by repeating the same POV while ignoring requests for evidence, has gone headlong into a major re-organization of this page without seeking consensus. It appears that having no defence, he had decided upon attack. This strikes me as hypocritical and disruptive behaviour.-- Simon D M ( talk) 11:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, if you want to reorganise this page around your POV that puja etc fall under syMeditation, then firstly you need some evidence to back it up, then you need to get consensus. If you ever manage to do the former (so far there have been no signs of even understanding why it is necessary), I suggest you create a mock-up of your proposed structure on a user page of your own. Unilaterally launching into reorganising the page is far more disruptive that the beliefs section that I added, for which I've had to go through hours of tortuous discussion. -- Simon D M ( talk) 11:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Good to see that you are taking responsibility for the RFC after all. Good on you. None of the edits I made were discussed during the RFC. I made the edits by being bold, because, frankly - the article looked like it had come out of a donkey's A*ç. Instead of reverting my hard work, please be civil and detail your objections here. I will answer your concerns and we can work things out. Let us also see what other editors have to say - which is what an RFC is all about. Sfacets 11:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
My edits were not reckless. Your beliefs section? no: the project's belief section. Again, please detail your issues with my changes here and stop being disruptive. Sfacets 12:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Why should it be? Also, correct me if I am wrong - I integrated information into other sections. Which material has disappeared? I am not responsible for other editor's edits, as I have already stated. Sfacets 12:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
All my edits which changed anything of consequence had edit summaries - so there was no subterfuge involved. That isn't POV wording, it echoes the source I provided. I would appreciate it if you regarded my edits separately from other editors. SY meditation came first - not the organization (as you yourself have pointed out). Therefore the organisation is actually an outcome of that meditative practice. Extrapolate this, and you will realise that puja falls under SY meditation. Sfacets 12:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I know you didn't pass comment - maybe you should have. There is no POV wording involved. Are you seriously suggesting that the organisation came before the meditation? It isn't an extraordinary claim - less even than your clim that the "NRM" came before the meditation. If you can show that the org started before the meditation then fine - otherwise your point is moot. Sfacets 13:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Prove it. If Mataji had followers before she started the meditation, then prove it. We all know this is your opinion. Now back it with some facts. The source contradicted nothing. It proved nothing. If you can show that the organisation started before the meditation then do so - otherwise your argument is flawed. Sfacets 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You first. If you cannot provide evidence that SY meditation started after the creation of the organisation then your point is moot anyway. Sfacets 10:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have argued my point - SY meditation came before SY org. Therefore Puja (which came after SY meditation) part of SY meditation. My edits reflect this (among other things). Also the article looks better than it did before. Did you have a nice lunch? (oh sorry, wondering off topic.) Sfacets 11:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Consensus? Where do you see consensus? I made the changes because nothing was geting done - did you even list the RFC's in the right place? And, as I said - it is now up to you to provide evidence, otherwise your point is moot. Sfacets 11:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You obviously cannot back your claim. Please refrain from reverting the page. Sfacets 12:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I am seeking consensus, otherwise I wouldn't be discussing here. Perhaps you should start discussing the article instead of me. Sfacets 12:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The ball is in your court simon. Waiting for your evidence. Also by reverting you are removing many non-controversial edits - and therefore being disruptive. Sfacets 13:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest mediation. See the relevant section. -- Simon D M ( talk) 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You are obviously at loss to provide evidence backing your claims. If you cannot do so, then the page will remain organized the way it was. Sfacets 00:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should file for mediation. It is pointless to carry on like this. -- Simon D M ( talk) 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Mediation seems like a good idea. Sfacets 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
As an alternative to mediation, we could consider a compromise. I would accept SY meditation as its own top-level section with subsections on the practice and the state (possibly also with a Medical Studies subsection), and the Practices section being renamed Other Practices. It is also acceptable for the SYmeditation material to go on the Sahaja Yoga meditation page, and there remain just a neutrally worded summary on the main page. However, it is not acceptable the existence of the SY meditation page to block a Beliefs section in the main page (that would be like saying there should be no Beliefs section in the Christianity page because there is a theology section in the Eucharist page). Also unacceptable is all the recent POV wording and removal of sourced material, so the reorganisation would have to be based on the current revert to Will BeBack's last version. The reorganisation would also have to be based on consensus. -- Simon D M ( talk) 11:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a 1st draft of the proposed structure. The studies on SY meditation are not under the SY meditation section, this is open to discussion, I just felt that it left the other Medical Applications stuff isolated as can be seen in this alternate proposal. Either proposal could work with this proposed structure for the Sahaja Yoga meditation article. -- Simon D M ( talk) 12:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
So how could SY meditation remain the main heading for a section which comprises multiple sub sections and also be integrated into the SY Meditation article? There would be a lot of duplicate content. Sfacets 13:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That isn't what the article is about though, is it? A spinoff article requires a short introductory paragraph, nothing more. Sfacets 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally Sethie doesn't see the need for having this in an encyclopedia article, and if it stays in, Sethie proposes we move it to under the practices section- so at least it has some connection to the article.
However, Sethie's vote is to remove it. Sure it looks cool and what does it add? Sethie 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The ability to feel 'sensations' corresponding to the different chakras on hands and head are an integral part of SY meditation, and therefore essential to the article. This would not be a part of the pratices, rather would belong in the chakra section since it is related to the chakras rather than the accompanying practices... ˜˜˜˜
I have waited over a month for anyone to say why they feel the hand/chart helps the article and have heard no response. Removing.
Sethie 17:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand Will's point about how much detail should be in the article; however the location of the chakras on the hands, head (and the limbs, feet also) are an important part of the diagnostic aspects of Sahaja Yoga meditative practice. I vote for restore. Sahajhist 12:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
However, Sethie's vote is to remove it. Sure it looks cool and what does it add? Sethie 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If they are integral, I would like to see them idea mentioned in the article, and as of yet, I have not heard a single reason why the charts should go in the article..... Sethie 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Sethie 18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"::The use of the hand centres to 'diagnose' the chakras in the body is a major part of SY. If it seems that the information is overwhelming the article, perhaps a new article should be created for the sole purpose of oitlining/describing the chakra system in SY... Sfacets 07:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Long version: To Sfacets and Sahajist
For over TWO MONTHS, I have tried to engage in dialogue about whether the charts would make a better article or not. Neither of you have replied and merely ignored my queries and attempts at dialogue and stuck them back in.
You have said, "Oh it is important to Sahaj Yoga" but have failed to address why it is important to THIS ARTICLE.
I have no opinion on Sahaj Yoga and here I am wasting my time trying to discuss things with two very obviously biased editors. I have asked three or four times, "How does this make a better article" and your only replies have been to reinsert the pictures.
Either engage in dialogue or leave this page. Seriously.
Talk or leave. And I mean actual talk.
Wikipedia is based on creating concensus, not people dropping by and shoving stuff into articles and then disapearing or not addressing concerns.
I have been extremely paitent and given A LOT of time to answer my concerns with this.
I would ask both of you to review WP:CON and actually dialogue about this. To quote myself: Look if you think it'll make a better article to have the charts- I am open, tell me! "The charts are very important to SY" doesn't convince me one iota that there inclusion would make a better article! It convinces me that we need more info about the charts.
I am open. Let's talk. Otherwise, please leave.
I don't like to go around reverting edits, however I have given you TWO months to give a reason for their inclusion. I am still opposed to it, and since you have given ZERO reason for their inclusion, on this page, the current concensus is 1-0.
Come on Sfacts you're an admin, I expected better of you. Sethie 17:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Short version: I am not going to be have my concerns ignored by two people with a clear POV who aren't willing/able to discuss my concerns. Participate or leave. I am open to changing my position about their inclusion/exclusion. I am not open to my concerns not being respectfully addressed, by two editors who are members of the organization of the article we're discussing!
Sethie 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly here for the long term. And for the record, I agree with WillBeBack's attempted compromise. And btw Sethie, if you must undo yet again, please take care to leave other edits in place. [[User:sahajhistsahajhist]] 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Greetings ! I just want to know What are the 16 gunas (attributes) that one qualify in order to be considered a true guru (Satguru) ? Thank you.
Dispute over whether or not to include hand/head diagnosis charts inside the article as shown in this version [ [1]]
This version [ [2]] looks to me like an article not for describing or explaing about the group, but as a means of expressing and sharing the actual information and practices of the group. I have asked for a reason for the inclusion of the hand/head chart for two months and have recieved no answer, other then the continued re-insertion of the charts, by two Sahaja Yoga practitioners! They assert that it is very important to the tradition but have added no further information (other then the charts) I am wondering if the chakra chart needs to be taken out as well? Sethie 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The article does not share the 'practices of the group', rather is presents practices that the group would like to be publicly associated with it. One of the most important practices of the group - the worship of Shri Mataji - is completely left out. This is a far more significant aspect of the group than charitable activities for example. -- Simon D M 15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
This is a sharing of spiritual Knowledge and how and when the information needs to be conveyed is best judged by the parishioners. Not all the practices can be expressed in words. for e.g. when Hanuman opens his heart and you see Sri Ram in his heart. Opening a heart can not be expressed in words , It has to be felt and whatever is written takes you to the level where you can feel and know the truth from your inner spirit. This Text are just to accelerate to know the truth .Thanks for pointing out but leave it to the practitioners what to include and what not to include. (King_48141) My primary concern as an editor is with the text of this article (which I believe currently to be a reasonable consensus view). I have no view on inclusion of the charts per se. Certainly these charts are available elsewhere on the web for those interested in practising this meditation. sahajhist 23:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be an idea to include some of the so-called 'miracle photos' that are used in Sahaja Yoga as evidence of Mataji's divinity, although critics claim they are just poorly taken photos. You can see a long list here: http://imageevent.com/sahaja/miraclephotos -- Simon D M 17:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe the head/hand charts are too specific for an encyclopedia article. The article without them provides enough information for people to become aware that the topic is a meditation exercise related to chakras. Those interested in learning the details of all that is involved, how the meditation works, the complete theory behind it, etc., can follow a link to sites that are dedicated to providing this information in full. At issue is not the value of the meditation, nor whether the diagrams are essential to understanding it, but simply the limitation that "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook." For comparison, look at the article on "Slapping" (electric bass technique), "rock climbing," and "database design," each of which articles is not a tutorial, but does include links to at least one tutorial site. VisitorTalk 08:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
so... Sfacets 05:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
"Dispute over whether or not to include hand/head diagnosis charts inside the article as shown in this version 24
[edit] Brief statement by involved parties
This version 25 looks to me like an article not for describing or explaing about the group, but as a means of expressing and sharing the actual information and practices of the group. I have asked for a reason for the inclusion of the hand/head chart for two months and have recieved no answer, other then the continued re-insertion of the charts, by two Sahaja Yoga practitioners! They assert that it is very important to the tradition but have added no further information (other then the charts) I am wondering if the chakra chart needs to be taken out as well? Sethie 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)"
And in your own words re-state what you hear me expressing concern over? Sethie 06:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
"...This version 25 looks to me like an article not for describing or explaing about the group, but as a means of expressing and sharing the actual information and practices of the group"
nope.
sorta close, and nope.
I guess you'll just have to assume good faith. Sfacets 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
For the 500th time will you just freaking answer this question: Why does having the actual charts, in ANY article make a better article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethie ( talk • contribs).
I have restored the charts (with modifications to size/formating), since it appears that no consensus has been reached here for their removal. Sfacets 01:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you removed the charts before any consensus was reached to do so. I have responded as best I could to your none-too specific questions, and yet you failed to accept any of my answers, instead choosing to "shout" out your exasperation
[3], perhaps because you decided that you didn't like my answers. A month later, still no concensus reached, I re-insert the charts (which shouldn't have been taken out in the 1st place) and preto! along comes Sethie to remove them again. If there was no COI in the 1st place, there definitely was the second time.
I am still waiting for concensus for the charts to removed, and suggest you do the same. Sfacets 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
this talk page is getting awfully long. Can someone do the necesssary please? Sahajhist 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The archive of previous discussions can now be found here. Sfacets 04:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that substantial progress has been made in recent months in achieving an article that reflects the diverse perspectives of the regular editors, and indeed the text has been stable for some months now. Therefore I propose removing the 'neutrality' notice at the top of the main article. Any comments? Sahajhist 03:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I would propose replacing the neutrality notice. Indeed, this article is designed by sahaja Yoga practicioners as it doesn't even mention that in several countries, including France, this is considered to be a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.136.97.42 ( talk) 21:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see the neutrality notice return. The article needs to give a more complete picture of Sahaja Yoga including the religious aspect. -- Simon D M 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Mr. Saint Joseph of Arimathea, this is great and all, however do you have any sources to back your claims? Original Research isn't admissible here. Sfacets 12:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What exactly are you criticizing? Sfacets 14:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
http://www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/mneytxt.htm#Celebrations%20&%20Pujas
-- Simon D M 11:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of serious objections I have put up the proposed section. -- Simon D M 18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
from reading this it seems to me that Simon is simply doing everything he can to blantenly discredit Sahaja Yoga. You should remember that it isnt the purpose of wikipedia to judge, but rather to present it exactly as it is done/said. thus CP should still be said as with Sir- but and it should be stated that although he is refered to as this, the title Sir is only meant for those who actually live in Commonwealth states. I also believe that you should list the Official Sahaja Yoga response under external links and make a link to it in the Cult Allegations section. I have googled it and found the response here: http://www.sahajayogafacts.org/default.asp -Devindra Payment comment added by 24.80.193.138 ( talk) 03:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey I never said that the response was good or whatever what you said means I'm just saying it should be put there. Anyways I do agree that the page is neutral, what I was saying is that you seem to be trying to point out every single little flaw you can. Nothing is perfect. Its probably as neutral as it can get, atleast until new information can be added. -Devindra Payment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.193.138 ( talk) 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor posted a proposal to split out an article to tbe titled "Sahaja Yoga International", with the note: suggest page be split into one on the yoga, one on the organization. [4] However he may not be aware that that article was already deleted and he material merged here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaja Yoga International. Are there any significant new sources on the topic that would justify recreating the article? If not, we shouldn't split it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone asked for this section to be tidied up. I agree. So I have removed (IMHO) extra and old links. Obviously only a small selection of available links can be included, and the resulting listing needs to be balanced and uptodate. If anyone disagrees, please add your comments. Sahajhist 01:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProjects exist to improve articles. Their scope is often wide, encompassing articles that may have only a minor relationship. There is no harm in attaching an article to a project, and some benefit.
In this instance, Yoga is one of the six schools of Hinduism. Furthermore, Kundalini and Dharma are Hindu concepts. Finally, Shakti is a Hindu deity, and the founder of SY is an incarnation of her. So there are several reasons to connect this article and related topics to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I've no objection to the link, but it should be noted that Sahaja Yoga, whilst based on Indian yogic practices, is beyond exising religions, including 'Hinduism' Sahajhist 10:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sahaja Yoga isnt based on Hinduism. It includes aspects of many religions, the main reason it seems so Hindu related is because: a) Nirmala Shrivastava is Indian (though her parents are Christian), and b) there is just so much Hindu culture. Though yes I think it would be good to atach it but do what Sahajhist said, though a little less defiantly. -Devindra Payment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.193.138 ( talk) 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
All Religons believe they are beyond the other religons, or they think the other religons are devil worshippers or something. -Devindra Payment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.193.138 ( talk) 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
These terms appear only vaguely related to this topic. Can any explain the relationship? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
would be more relevant. -- Simon D M 15:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed epilepsy as the source says [5] "No reliable evidence to support the use of yoga as a treatment for control of epilepsy." I left the cite in there, but there needs to be a source that supports this. Ticklemygrits 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank for pointing it out - I replaced it with another source:
Bhagavatheeswaran Rajesh, Divakaran Jayachandran, Govindan Mohandas, Kurupath Radhakrishnan. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2006, 12(4): 367-371. doi:10.1089/acm.2006.12.367. [6]
Sfacets 14:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I still have problems with it SF: "Conclusions: If confirmed through randomized trials involving a larger number of patients, this YMP may become a cost-effective and adverse effect-free adjunctive treatment in patients with drug-resistant epilepsies.". I'd be much happier if it said "claimed to", but the source is better Ticklemygrits 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Chandrika Prasad Srivastava#"Sir". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Why was this deleted?
And why do this domain name keeping getting changed?
This is disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Because the user should discuss before adding information - there is no secondary source showing that the subject of the article is the person mentionned. The link is changed as per previous discussions. Nothing disruptive about it - it just needs to be done correctly. Sfacets 09:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
A reliable secondary source is needed. The real location of the website is freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga and not sahaja-yoga.org. Sfacets 22:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, or rephrase the sentences so that it is clear where the information comes from. Sfacets 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
No, because as I said, there is no reliable secondary source linking the two people. Are they the same person? Sfacets 00:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea - neither do you. A secondary source linking the two names is necessary. Please do not add OR content. Sfacets 02:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Everything needs to have reliable secondary sources - or specify where the information comes from. Sfacets 13:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Please just look us the definition of secondary sources. Sfacets 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are missing the point - as long as the information is attributed (eg "according to the organization" etc.) the information is fine to stay. Unattributed content, or unsourced content is not.
Sfacets 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually it wouldn't - since my original point stands. Most of the content you tagged was already attributed. Sfacets 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
No, since the person in question is not otherwise notable. Sfacets 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets knows full well that there is only one Australian Sahaja Yogi called Dr Bohdan SHEHOVYCH. He knows full well it was the same person wrestling with Terence Blackley who became World Leader. In fact, if you google "Bohdan SHEHOVYCH", only one Bohdan Shehovych comes up! It is ludicrous that a simple sourced addition needs such a merry dance to get through. Looking through these talk page archives I can see that this merry dance has been going on for a while. Does Wikipedia have any process whereby a mediator can keep such nonsense under control? -- Simon D M 10:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I unlinked puja, because puja in a Hindu context is different than puja in the context of SY. Dharma is relevant - the mere fact that it is part of "Vishwa Nirmala Dharma" is proof of that. Sfacets 04:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there more than one kind of puja? The article about it describes a rite that appears similar to what is depicted in SY videos. The article indicates that there are many kinds of pujas. Furher, SY calls the rites that it performs "pujas". Do we have source that describes the difference, if any, between SY pujas and other pujas? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
No, you want to add the information, the burden of evidence is upon you to prove that it is the same. Sfacets 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You are right - there is no way that it could work - I will re-link the term. Sfacets 02:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There are many sources showing that Nirmala Srivastava is th founder of SY. Judith Coney's book for example. Sfacets 04:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently reverted Simon D M's edits - please discuss here before making large multiple edits. Sfacets 18:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Please comment above re the discussion on "Bohdan Shehovich" Sfacets 18:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Also edits like this one are unacceptable - you canot use an unreliable source such as freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga especially given that you are the registered owner of said website. Sfacets 19:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
What it links to is a heavily edited scanned documents that says nothing but "Mr G. Lanza is on the immigration list" - which could mean anything. Reliable sources are needed - all we have here is your word that you aren't the webmaster - the site certainly contains enough of your content. I can be on a moral high horse - especially in this case - I don't link to any self-created website and insure that reliable sources are provided - or that the information is attributed. Sfacets 10:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the section on criticism. You want any info from a critical site banned from that section. OTOH you are happy with pro-SY sites being quoted in the rest of the article. The edit you reverted said that this has been reported and that evidence has been produced. This is more than for most of the stuff on Mataji. Can you even verify her birth date from her birth certificate and passport? Some people find it odd that her birth date happens to be the same as the 'Enlightenment' date of her former guru Rajneesh. Or are there 2 standards of evidence, one for the pro-SY and one for the anti-SY? This page is badly in need of balance and I point to 2 main things: 1) the religious and superstitious elements of SY are being purposefully hidden (look how long you've taken to accept a puja link); 2) all criticism of SY is being stifled (look at you laughable attempt to conjure up another Bohdan). -- Simon D M 11:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no controversy surrounding the issue. (Except that imagined up by yourself). Again, if the critical claims check out source-wise they are kept. Please read above for discussion on reliability of sources and attribution. Sfacets 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I have been talking to you about! Good that you looked it up. "Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's ban on original research. In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for reliability. This includes references, citations, and external links". I'm expecting reliable secondry sources from you now. Sfacets 14:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You left out "If an article is written about a well-known, mainstream topic, fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review should not be included in the article". Also see the example given"Creation science". Sfacets 15:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Or rather, your opinions are not a large or widespread fringe theory. Sfacets 15:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I won't even start with what Simon thinks he is. (Find the grail yet Simon?) I removed the libelous comment above per Wiki guidelines. Sfacets 23:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
hello Simon. I see you're still trying to be the great expert on Sahaja Yoga. As usual, well off line. A lot has changed since you were expelled in 1990. In particular, the administrative framework is quite different from what you assert above. Sahajhist 05:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
New NGO Link: www.nirmalprem.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatla.subhash ( talk • contribs) 07:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
website is currently under construction -- Simon D M 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it isn't. Changed characteristics of water doesn't imply changed molecular/atomic structure. Water (apart from pure H20) contains many elements. The summary of the finds at the SY website lists the different elements in the 1st and second state of the water. Sfacets 11:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion, again. Take it up with the scientist who made the study. Sfacets 12:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Why does sourced material on the World Leader Bohdan Shehovich keep being removed? We discussed it above but I think all the objections have been addressed. The council of world leaders is the head of the organization. They are obviously very important to SY. More important, I'd say, than some musical groups. Yet information about the council and its leaders keeps getting deleted. Please explain the reasoning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The objections haven't been addressed - and all that is being removed is Simon's opinion that someone with the "same unusual name" is mentioned on the site. The information on Guido is also based on Simon's Original Research - all that he is offering as proof of Guido's denial of entry into the UK (the only perhaps remotely notable point) is a heavily edited low-res scanned image allegedly from the UK police hosted on a Critical website (which Simon is involved in editing) which states only that Guido is "on the immigration list" - which could mean anything. The preceding contet is copied from the Yahoo group that Simon maintains. Sfacets 23:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
All we have is two people with the same name. As I said above, there are many sources connecting "Nirmala Srivastava" or "Shri Mataji" to SY, whereas there is nothing showing that 'Bohdan' is the same Bohdan in both sources. I have nothing against adding info on Guido, if reliable sources are provided (although I don't see how he is notable, or how notability inside or outside the organization can be shown) and the information is relevant to the subject of the article. Sfacets 23:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one seeking to add information, the burden of evidence is on the submitter. A secondary source is needed to establish the connection between the "two individuals" called Bohdan. It would be Original Research to conclude that since the people share the same name they are the same person, and also potentialy libelous to do so. The organization isn't overseen by the world council. According to the purpose outlined on the website, "The purpose of this body is to stimulate the further growth of Sahaja Yoga and to provide support to the efforts of all the national collectives". The actions undertaken by the council are internal to the organization, and therefore are non-notable outside it, making mentioning their names unnecessary, since non of these people have been shown to be notable outside the organization. Sfacets 04:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said, primary sources can be used if attributed. Unlike Bohdan, Nirmala Srivastava is notable in that she has been the subject of many academic sources - most of which establish/confirm that a person named Nirmala Srivastava started the SY movement. I'm not asserting that there is a second Bohdan, that would require a secondary source. I don't seek to add anything about Bohdan to the article, therefore the burden of proof isn't on me. Sfacets 05:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Notice the " " scare quotes. Drawing the parallel between verifying a notable person who has been the subject of articles and someone who has been the subject of 1 article is ridiculous. You are jumping to extremes, as usual when you are unable to logically back up your argument - ignoring what I previously wrote, and soon you will take some drastic editing measure to prove your point. I am not asserting that there are two Bogdans, but if you want to find sources proving your asserting re: the 5 Nirmala Srivastavas - go right ahead. Sfacets 05:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You can mention the 'world leader', but connecting him with the subject of the newspaper article is Original Research. Sfacets 06:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Why do you mention that Bohdan Shehovych is a recent addition to the WCASY? How is this notable? I removed Guido, the source says nothing about him being a world leader or part of WCASY Sfacets 07:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It isn't the reference but the relevance I have an issue with. Are you going to add all the news from the organization to the article now? Your addition of the Russian leader's resignation is also neither relevant or notable. Sfacets 07:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
So according to you any/all information pertaining to the WCASY should be added to the article? I think they had a barbecue last week... Sfacets 09:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
So why are you adding minor details about individuals within the WCASY? Sfacets 10:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Bohdan & Guido's appointments and 'resignations' are notable enough to be reported on offical SY sites and the sites of their critics. The Metropolitan Police have even seen fit to issue a letter about one of them. The Sfacets multiple personality disorder can surely be dealt with by simply naming the people involved. Am I going wrong somewhere? Remember I'm new around here and a little support would be appreciated. -- Simon D M 11:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
If you don't stop with the Personal Attacks you will be banned from editing.
Issues with your recent additions:
1.
"In 2004 an Australian general practitioner called Bohdan Shehovych was made a World Leader in Sahaja Yoga and appointed to the World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga"
How do you know if he is a general practitioner?
2.
"another long time Sahaja Yoga World Leader and original member of the World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga [9] (Trustee of the Sahaja Yoga World Trust and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Sahaja Yoga World Centre
This is a) Duplicate material b)Unsourced c) Original Research in that it makes claims unsupported by the source, suh as how long he has beeen a leader.
3.
Headmaster of the Rome School citation needed)
Which school is that? Also unsourced
4.
"has been reported as being on the Immigration List of the UK Home office (ie he would be arrested on entry to the UK citation needed) A photograph of a heavily edited letter, allegedly from the Metropolitan Police, is provided as evidence by a critical website."
Again, no source - and no secondary source analysing the primary one (ie the alleged Police letter)
5.
[10] This World Leader was suspended from all activities in Sahaja Yoga in 2005, reportedly for disrupting a havan ritual and threatening members of Sahaja Yoga.
Duplicate content. Also unsourced here.
Sfacets 12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
1. see: http://gpra.e-newsletter.com.au/link/id/7dd4b904ad6068ddd703/page.html
and: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syrc/message/268
2. a) do you have evidence that every member of the World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga is also a
Trustee of the Sahaja Yoga World Trust? Certainly not all the trustees or council members are Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Sahaja Yoga World Centre. b) see: http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_209_2003.asp and: http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_262_2004.asp c) length of time is not specified, you need another example. Also note that you must give time for sources to be found.
3. Rome School means the Sahaja School in Rome. Give time for the source to be found. 4. Give time for the source to be found. Do you think the Metropolitan Police might be informing the relevant department
of Interpol about a parking violation? This is a serious and notable document.
5. The source is given as: http://www.sahajayoga.com/swan/view_swan.asp?mode=print&swanid=503
it actually says "has interrupted a Havan assaulting some sahaja yogis from Rome with insults, threats and attempts of physical aggression" which is stronger than the current wording of the article. Don't see how this is duplicate content.
Regarding Personal Attacks, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black I hope this helps although much of it you could have found by simply looking at the article carefully. -- Simon D M 11:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Did you seriously just reference your own Yahoo group? Your second link doesn't work. 2. Thanks for adding sources (it should still be attributed) 3. Waiting... 4. According to your POV. Waiting for a source. 5. Waiting for a source.
Sfacets 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC) About personal attacks - try reading WP:PA and then come back and talk to me.
1. I've already removed the GP statement.
2. I think you'll find the sources were already there when you made your complaint.
3. OK
4. Let's wait to see if Will thinks this is a inadmissable ref
5. Source already give twice. Unless you are complaining that GL is referred to as a World Leader. OK, I've changed the article to no longer call him that just to make you happy although the implication of pages like
http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_257_2004.asp is clearly that wcasy members are world leaders.
RE: WP:PA I have read it. --
Simon D M 15:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Could Simon please discuss them here? Sfacets 11:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed it because I created it. It isn't going to expand, so I removed it. Sfacets 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You prove my point regarding your lack of objectivity regarding my edits - this is a passage you were dead set against adding. Now that I remove it - all of a sudden you want it kept. Sfacets 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I would gladly stick to 1RR, however it would help if Simon discusses his edits before adding large chunks of unsourced and POV information to the article. I see no reason not to revert if his edits remain undiscussed. Sfacets 22:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss your edits before undoing other editor's work - you made five edits where you removed content. Please be more considerate in your edits- Will Beback - are you going to warn him about 3RR now? Sfacets 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
"A photograph of a heavily edited letter, allegedly from the Metropolitan Police, is provided as evidence by the critical website. [12] This World Leader was suspended from all activities in Sahaja Yoga in 2005, reportedly for disrupting a havan ritual "assaulting some sahaja yogis from Rome with insults, threats and attempts of physical aggression.". [1]
When is the letter dated? What's to say that the letter and/or the placement of Guido's name on the list happened before 2005? If it happened after then it isn't relevant to the article, since that is when he ceased to be part of SY. Sfacets 14:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
"Ceased all activities" means that he is no longer part of the Org. Sfacets 15:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
"The meditation is described as a syncretism of different religions that "unites the essence of all religions". [2] " The reference is to a section on whether Sahaja Yoga is a religion. It is clearly not just about the meditation technique and the statement in it referred to is also clearly not just about the meditation technique. So the statement is not supported by the source and had to go. I don't see why Sfacets reverted this. -- Simon D M 15:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly how so? Sfacets 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The two are inter-connected - here they are talking about the beliefs of Sahaja Yoga which pertains to the meditation side - the organisation isn't a a syncretism of different religions. Sfacets 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You removed sourced and quoted content, replacing the quote found in the article ""significantly more effective than the generic approach in reducing stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms" with your own "effective than the [one other] generic approach [tested] in reducing stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms" please explain. Sfacets 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That's according o your POV - you cannot change a quote from a source to suit that. Sfacets 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless Dr Manocha is talking about himself in the third person, the author is more than likely someone else, probably Associate Professor John Eden. Sfacets 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The author could just as easily be the other person mentionned. Sfacets 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You can open an RFC if you want, however IMO you cannot claim that the author is someone when it isn't expressly written in the source. Sfacets 11:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
So open an RFC - you are the one seeking to change content. This discussion is indeed over - either open an RFC or move on - Wikipedia isn't a depository for your Original Research. Sfacets 22:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Where? Sfacets 08:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I am going to ask Simon once again to be courteous and discuss major proposed changes here. His large ondiscussed and unconsesnsed changes to the article are disruptive. Feel free to add inormation - but if you need to change/remove/re-organize content, then please have consideration for other editor's work which has gone into the article. Sfacets 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Ramesh Manocha ("R. Manocha"), "a clinical research fellow at the Sydney Royal Hospital for Women's Natural Therapies Unit" [15], has done considerable writing and research connected with SY, and there is also indication that he practices and advocates SY meditation.
He has also written on other, non-medical topics, including a review of a book titled "Jesus Lived in India" that says:
His are qualifications variously listed as:
Steven Hassan writes:
According to a speech by Sir CP, Dr. Manocha was part of the medical team that treated Shri Mataji in 2006.
What to make of this? We can't second guess the reliablity of the peer-reviewed journals that have published his work. It may be worth noting, though, that Menocha specializes in doing research on SY, advocates its uses, and practices it himself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The beginning of this article is clunky because it defines SY as a practice and then goes on to talk about associated beliefs, organisation, guru/goddess, etc. What is the overarching concept here that includes all the others? It is New Religious Movement - that includes all the other facets. The article would be improved if it started like this:
Sahaja Yoga ( Sahaja meaning innate [3] and Yoga meaning union) is a new religious movement founded by Nirmala Srivastava, more widely known as "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" or "Mother" by followers - who worship her as the complete [34] incarnation of the Adi Shakti. [4] The term Sahaja Yoga can also be used to refer to the practices that are promoted by the movement, including meditation and puja. There are a number of formal organizational bodies within Sahaja Yoga, the main one being known as Sahaja Yoga International or Vishwa Nirmala Dharma.
Sahaja Yoga grew from India and England (where Nirmala Srivastava moved in 1972) and spread internationally. There are now Sahaja Yoga centers around the world [5].
As this is a major change, I'm putting it up for discussion and of course welcome constructive input. -- Simon D M 16:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It is simple - what came first, the meditation or the organization? Sahaja Yoga meditation exists separately of the organization. The intro is fine as it is, except for the "the complete [4] incarnation of the Adi Shakti" (which isn't in the source). Your knowledge of the organizational structure of SY appears to be outdated, it has been a long time since you "left". Sfacets 21:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As there's no further comment, I'll go ahead. -- Simon D M 11:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There is further comment. Wait for concensus before applying disputed changes. You are being disruptive, but I will stick to my 1 revert. - perhaps someone else could revert pending consensus on this issue? Sfacets 11:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought the fact that you had revisited this section but not said anything more on the issue meant you'd finished. Actually I don't think saying that SY is a NRM is all that controversial, after all Mataji calls SY a global religion. SY is certainly a lot more than a practice. -- Simon D M 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've now read the prior discussion on this. Originally 'cult' was a neutral word. It became problematic. 'NRM' was designed to be a new neutral word with only a partial overlap to leave 'cult' behind. If people are saying that NRM is becoming problematic then we need to see where the problem is coming from - it's coming from high profile cases of a few of these NRMs giving the others a bad name. It's not to do with the word NRM which is neutral and descriptive, you could even say bland. Call SY meditation a practice by all means, but SY in its totality is a NRM, and any academic study that has tried to study SY in its totality has labelled it a NRM. -- Simon D M 12:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the original quote that was supplied, we have: "The Adi Shakti is the Great Mother... Today her most complete incarnation is living on the earth to start the Golden Age; in this incarnation her name is Sri Mataji Nirmala Devi." The Advent, 1979, Gregoire de Kalbermatten (author), p298, cited in Sahaja Yoga, by Judith Coney, pp103-4 -- Simon D M 10:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You can't talk about an NRM without talking about its beliefs. So we need a section on that. Most of the Sahaja Yoga meditation article is just about the beliefs surrounding SY meditation and could be incorporated easily. That would lead little left in the Sahaja Yoga meditation article which is no bad thing because it doesn't really say much about SY meditation eg where the attention is put etc -- Simon D M 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If you read prior discussions you will see that it was already previously incorporated, but the article was getting too long. Sfacets 11:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read the prior discussions. If you want to re-open the issue, try an RFC. Sfacets 11:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see the discussion on Article spinouts above. If it is too long it will duplicate content. Sfacets 22:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Off topic how? Sfacets 13:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It is completely on topic - it isn't complete, however it discusses the basic tenet behind SY meditation ie the Chakra system, Kundalini etc. Sfacets 11:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Other aspects such as? Sfacets 11:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The Vashi health center isn't a tenet of SY. You still haven't replied to my question - why is it off topic? Sfacets 11:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that the only objector to this is now blocked, and the objections never seemed to stack up to anything anyway, can I take it that I can go ahead with the Beliefs section? -- Simon D M 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No. Sfacets 08:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, go right ahead. Sfacets 11:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
"The organization says the practice of Sahaja Yoga .. which may even be obtained immediately by visiting a Sahaja Yoga webpage.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20060101093331/http://www.sahajayoga.org/</ref>"
If you are using a link to an old archived version of the page, you will need to change the wording. Sfacets 05:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, simply that the website in question no longer states that. Sfacets 06:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The main SY site seems to be offering 'Self Realisation' by online video at http://www.sahajayoga.org/experienceitnow/ which is linked on the main page. -- Simon D M 16:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The name Sahaja Yoga has been trademarked in the US by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma although the term goes back at least to the 15th Century Indian mystic Kabir. [35] [36]
The first references quotes Simon (yes, that is Simon D M. The second makes no reference to "Sahaja Yoga". Sfacets 13:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The second reference is invalid because it quotes the defendant in the case (ie Simon D Montford) - not exactly source material. Sfacets 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The second source is useless without the first source (which aimed at establishing that SY was a "trademark" - the second aimed at proving that the term "Sahaja Yoga" was used by Kabir.) the second source describes "sahaj yog", the first describes a concept, and doesn't discuss the name in relation to Kabirs "sahaj yog" ideas. Sfacets 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The second source doesn't mention "Sahaja Yoga", and describes the concept, doesn't discuss the name. I added the reference above (thanks), and moved the section to the organization section. Sfacets 02:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am. There is no evidence that the two carry the same meaning or describe the same concept. To say that the case was lost because "the term had been used before 1970" is an oversimplification, and wrong. Sfacets 02:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You cannot claim that because a term is the same that it always means the same thing. Are Sahaja Yoga practices exactly the same as the concept outlined by Kabir? Sfacets 08:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Your POV is expressed in the WIPO article. Sfacets 08:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually no, I wasn't part of the trial. Sfacets 11:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Despite the reverting of Simon D M and the warning of Wilbeback, I insist this
Nirmala Srivastava has stated that meditation is not thinking "about your problems at all, whatever chakras you have, anything", rather it "means exposing yourself to God’s grace." [10] She has described meditation as "an individual journey towards God." [11]
Is not the exact (correct) quotation. She said:
Don’t worry at what point you have a problem. Say, many people during meditation, I have seen, if they catch somewhere they go on looking after it. You just don’t have to worry. You just let it go and it will work by itself. So you don’t have to put in any effort. This is what meditation is. Meditation means exposing yourself to God’s grace
Either we add the correct one, either we take out this line. I don't understand what is going here ? Thank you per advance PS: And I do not understand why we should discuss and argue for such evidence. Agenor 77 12:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is this website being used as a source? The link http://www.valaya.co.uk/KNOWLEDGEpujaProt1.htm for example, states its origin as being from a "Private archive", nothing else. Unless a good reason is provided to keep this as a source, I will remove it as well as associated content. Sfacets 16:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
And you see this how? By the copyright information? It is obviously a private website. Sfacets 00:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
No, only that it isn't an official website, and is an unreliable source in this case. Sfacets 03:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability This is obviously a Self-published source, and is not reliable, unless it is verified by another source. Sfacets 05:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not adding the information, or using the source. Please read
burden of evidence. You need to provide evidence of the validity of the website as a source.
Sfacets 08:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Nobody accused you of anything here. My issue is with you backing up your assertions with your own material. Also please comment on the edits, not the editor. Sfacets 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Now let's stop the petty back-biting and get back to the subject in hand: "Valaya is in line with the international policy of Sahaja Yoga" http://www.valaya.co.uk/HOME.htm It is also listed by the Canadian site: http://www.sahajayoga.ca/WorldWide/PersonalWebsites.html -- Simon D M 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It also seems Gian has some pretty high-powered customers: http://www.masciangelo.com/INFO_BASE_UK_3.html I think he'd no better than to start making stuff up and putting it onto his sites. -- Simon D M 15:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:V clearly states that personal websites are not acceptable as sources. This is clearly a private (there is a login on the home page, although the site is not very secure, and for this reason pages inside the site have been linked to) and personal website, and there is no evidence that the author is an expert on the subject. User:Windinthetrees 10:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this discussion has gone on long enough and we should ask Will, as a neutral party, to decide. -- Simon D M 14:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Are any of the sources currently used traceable back to talks? Re:the cheerleader - what can I say, I'm a cool guy. Sfacets 11:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
How about the speeches here: http://www.valaya.co.uk/IN-DEEP.htm ? These are word-for-word speeches of the founder with her copyright on them. ---- Simon D M ( talk) 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A few more edits, pleae comment on:
Sfacets 21:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, it's good that the page protection has encouraged you to pay some attention to this page. There are plenty of ongoing discussions here already waiting for your comment. For now let me respond to your specific points: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon D M ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Simon D M 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop spamming us with your yahoo group. Sfacets 11:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless it is spamming - is this relevant to the article? No. Sfacets 11:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, you keep changing the illustrative video for puja from the original http://www.sahajayoga.com.au/shrimataji2006/video8.html to http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=17308564 (some of your edit summaries even refer to the latter as the original, which you must know is incorrect). MySpace is listed as a link that should normally be avoided. On a less technical note, although this is a self-published puff piece, you do see various aspects of SY, and if it doesn't contravene WP:EL it would be good to link it somewhere. BUT, you have to watch for 20 minutes or so before getting half minute glimpse of the actual puja with somebody talking over it. Nevertheless, it was nice to see Derek F on the video who I used to work with at Shudy Camps. -- Simon D M ( talk) 13:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Puja is generally a 2-3 day event - encompassing cultural themes etc... Nothing is written in Wiki policy about not allowing videos hosted on Myspace (this could just as easily have been hosted anywhere else). This video shows a larger picture of what Puja means, and includes interviews with Yogis. A lot more illustrative. Sfacets 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, why do you keep inserting that this link is 'opinions by Steve Hassan'? It is bemusing given that there is absolutely no indication of this on the page, especially so given that you were not able to discern Manocha's authorship of his article even though it was clearly indicated in the byline.-- Simon D M ( talk) 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It is his website, and is unsigned. Sfacets 20:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This RFC, insisted upon by Sfacets, concerns this article which is quoted in this section. It has been discussed here.In brief Simon D M maintains that the article indicates that Ramesh Manocha is the author and that John Eden is the coordinator of the Herbs in Focus section of the website. As evidence he points to Ramesh Manocha being mentioned in the standard byline and John Eden being billed in the same manner on every instance of a Herbs in Focus article for example. Simon D M points out that Dr Wadegaonkar has reached the same conclusion. Sfacets initially objected to this because the author refers to Ramesh Manocha in the 3rd person. Later he objected that John Eden could be the author of the article because no part of the article explicitly says that Ramesh Manocha is the author. -- Simon D M 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the factual basis of the issue has been established, and have therefore deleted the tag. Sahajhist 20:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This RFC, suggested by Sfacets, is over whether there be a Beliefs section including info on Chakras, Kundalini, Self-Relisation, etc in this article or should this be in the Sahaja Yoga meditation page? Previous discussion takes place here and here
In brief, Simon D M maintains that these concepts are relevant to many aspects of the new religious movement Sahaja Yoga, while Sfacets maintains they are specific to one aspect, namely meditation, which currently has a spin-off page.
Simon D M has sourced a number of examples where these basic concepts are applied to other aspects of Sahaja Yoga: Knowledge of chakras and kundalini used to diagnose [43]; anapurna mantra used before taking food or drink [44]; and vibrations used to match couples [45].
Sfacets has responded by seeking to widen the definition of 'Sahaja Yoga meditation' to include all other practices. I will let Sfacets provide his own sources and rationale as I am not aware of any he has provided so far.-- Simon D M 16:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The article was intended as a 'depository' for information about and surrounding Sahaja Yoga meditation, (ie the chakras, Kundalini, Subtle body etc) which cannot be understood without these concepts. Sfacets 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Notice the ' ' scare quotes. I don't see the need to duplicate the information, there is a specific article for the information. Sfacets 11:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
"The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article." from: Wikipedia policy -- Simon D M 13:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The Sahaja Yoga meditation article is separate as such from this main article - it is intended to contain information regarding beliefs, practices etc as followed by Sahaja Yoga. The Sahaja Yoga meditation article is intended solely to discuss beliefs/practices and is not a POV fork - there was no objection to it's creation, and it doesn't duplicate/touch on the same subject as this article. It is a spin-off article, a widely used and acceptable practice on Wikipedia. If you have any ideas for a more descriptive name, per Will Beback feel free to suggest it. Sfacets 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is a spin off from the Meditation section. As such it deals with SY meditation, which is based on Chakras, Kundalini, and various practices aimed at awakening this Kundalini to rise through said Chakras. As such, what is the problem with the title as it currently reads? Sfacets 08:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, since it isn't needed. Many/most of the practices fall under meditation. Sfacets 08:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has already been full circle a couple of times at least. The discussion started because Sfacets would not accept a Beliefs section in the main article because there is a rudimentary one in the symeditation page, and that is actually the subject of this RfC. I suggest we move on my putting the Beliefs section into the main article as originally planned and then having another look at what the SYmeditation page actually adds beyond the disputed charts. If the main article is too long, we should look at what should most reasonably be spun out. It seems the syMeditation article was created without due process and is being presented as a fait accomplis to block development of the main article. Time for the tail to stop wagging the dog.-- Simon D M ( talk) 08:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, I've removed the redirects to the disputed page until such time as you can make up your mind whether it's SYmeditation or SYbeliefs&practices. It's for you to decide as you created it, seem to be exhibiting ownership and seem to be redifining its purpose at every turn.-- Simon D M ( talk) 09:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that Puja comes in under Meditation in a Sahaja Yoga context. I am not exhibiting ownership - you don't seem to grasp the concept of why the article was created - SY meditation discusses beliefs relating to Sahaja Yoga. There is the organization Sahaja Yoga (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) and then there is Sahaja Yoga meditation, a separate 'school of meditation' which encompasses spiritual practices such as Puja etc. There is no due process necessary to create a new article - and there was no opposition to it's creation at the time. The article spinout (did you read the relevant policy?) is intended to take space-consuming content from this article (which was previously very long/large and create a new article which could then be expanded separately. I don't see how you figure this is blocking development of the "main" article. Sfacets 12:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've taken another look on the policy on spinouts and came across this: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another." WP:SPINOUT#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles So even if there were any sense in Sfacets' dichotomy, it would not justify blocking a Beliefs section in the main page. -- Simon D M ( talk) 14:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
How does that back up your position? "may well contain" doesn't imply that it should. Duplicate content isn't advised on Wikipedia. Sfacets 16:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I already have explained. Read^. Sfacets 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Sfacets 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't need sources. If it is a 'false dichotomy' prove it to me. Sfacets 09:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Simon wrote: " if Sahaja Yoga meditation is about all beliefs and practices, why is Sfacets just linking it under the meditaion section?" [46] - I have added the template to the Practices section, and will move the bulk of the section to the Sahaja Yoga meditation article. Sfacets 09:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is a co-religionist? Using inaccurate descriptors like that makes me wonder at your ability to correctly edit articles here. What, so your reason for deleting the template was bogus? Sfacets 21:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[ You did] remove that, as you well know. Sfacets 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You aren't reading what I wrote. I'm not saying that Puja comes under Sahaja Yoga as a practice, I'm saying it comes under Sahaja Yoga meditation, which was introduced long before puja. Sfacets 11:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you haven't (or have, which is an even scarier prospect) because you are discussing something completely different. Sfacets 11:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not coming from RFC and I am not sure whether I understand all the arguments, but to have an article Sahaja yoga: beliefs and practices of which the meditation is a part sounds like a good idea. I also think that the meditation section in this article should be a subsection of beliefs and practices. If there are motivated objections to that then I would like to hear them. Andries ( talk) 12:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? Sfacets 04:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I set the above RfC up, and the previous discussion, to get consensus on adding a new section to this page as requested by Sfacets. Now Sfacets, after unnecessarily dragging out the discusssion by repeating the same POV while ignoring requests for evidence, has gone headlong into a major re-organization of this page without seeking consensus. It appears that having no defence, he had decided upon attack. This strikes me as hypocritical and disruptive behaviour.-- Simon D M ( talk) 11:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, if you want to reorganise this page around your POV that puja etc fall under syMeditation, then firstly you need some evidence to back it up, then you need to get consensus. If you ever manage to do the former (so far there have been no signs of even understanding why it is necessary), I suggest you create a mock-up of your proposed structure on a user page of your own. Unilaterally launching into reorganising the page is far more disruptive that the beliefs section that I added, for which I've had to go through hours of tortuous discussion. -- Simon D M ( talk) 11:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Good to see that you are taking responsibility for the RFC after all. Good on you. None of the edits I made were discussed during the RFC. I made the edits by being bold, because, frankly - the article looked like it had come out of a donkey's A*ç. Instead of reverting my hard work, please be civil and detail your objections here. I will answer your concerns and we can work things out. Let us also see what other editors have to say - which is what an RFC is all about. Sfacets 11:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
My edits were not reckless. Your beliefs section? no: the project's belief section. Again, please detail your issues with my changes here and stop being disruptive. Sfacets 12:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Why should it be? Also, correct me if I am wrong - I integrated information into other sections. Which material has disappeared? I am not responsible for other editor's edits, as I have already stated. Sfacets 12:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
All my edits which changed anything of consequence had edit summaries - so there was no subterfuge involved. That isn't POV wording, it echoes the source I provided. I would appreciate it if you regarded my edits separately from other editors. SY meditation came first - not the organization (as you yourself have pointed out). Therefore the organisation is actually an outcome of that meditative practice. Extrapolate this, and you will realise that puja falls under SY meditation. Sfacets 12:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I know you didn't pass comment - maybe you should have. There is no POV wording involved. Are you seriously suggesting that the organisation came before the meditation? It isn't an extraordinary claim - less even than your clim that the "NRM" came before the meditation. If you can show that the org started before the meditation then fine - otherwise your point is moot. Sfacets 13:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Prove it. If Mataji had followers before she started the meditation, then prove it. We all know this is your opinion. Now back it with some facts. The source contradicted nothing. It proved nothing. If you can show that the organisation started before the meditation then do so - otherwise your argument is flawed. Sfacets 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You first. If you cannot provide evidence that SY meditation started after the creation of the organisation then your point is moot anyway. Sfacets 10:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have argued my point - SY meditation came before SY org. Therefore Puja (which came after SY meditation) part of SY meditation. My edits reflect this (among other things). Also the article looks better than it did before. Did you have a nice lunch? (oh sorry, wondering off topic.) Sfacets 11:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Consensus? Where do you see consensus? I made the changes because nothing was geting done - did you even list the RFC's in the right place? And, as I said - it is now up to you to provide evidence, otherwise your point is moot. Sfacets 11:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You obviously cannot back your claim. Please refrain from reverting the page. Sfacets 12:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I am seeking consensus, otherwise I wouldn't be discussing here. Perhaps you should start discussing the article instead of me. Sfacets 12:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The ball is in your court simon. Waiting for your evidence. Also by reverting you are removing many non-controversial edits - and therefore being disruptive. Sfacets 13:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest mediation. See the relevant section. -- Simon D M ( talk) 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You are obviously at loss to provide evidence backing your claims. If you cannot do so, then the page will remain organized the way it was. Sfacets 00:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should file for mediation. It is pointless to carry on like this. -- Simon D M ( talk) 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Mediation seems like a good idea. Sfacets 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
As an alternative to mediation, we could consider a compromise. I would accept SY meditation as its own top-level section with subsections on the practice and the state (possibly also with a Medical Studies subsection), and the Practices section being renamed Other Practices. It is also acceptable for the SYmeditation material to go on the Sahaja Yoga meditation page, and there remain just a neutrally worded summary on the main page. However, it is not acceptable the existence of the SY meditation page to block a Beliefs section in the main page (that would be like saying there should be no Beliefs section in the Christianity page because there is a theology section in the Eucharist page). Also unacceptable is all the recent POV wording and removal of sourced material, so the reorganisation would have to be based on the current revert to Will BeBack's last version. The reorganisation would also have to be based on consensus. -- Simon D M ( talk) 11:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a 1st draft of the proposed structure. The studies on SY meditation are not under the SY meditation section, this is open to discussion, I just felt that it left the other Medical Applications stuff isolated as can be seen in this alternate proposal. Either proposal could work with this proposed structure for the Sahaja Yoga meditation article. -- Simon D M ( talk) 12:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
So how could SY meditation remain the main heading for a section which comprises multiple sub sections and also be integrated into the SY Meditation article? There would be a lot of duplicate content. Sfacets 13:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That isn't what the article is about though, is it? A spinoff article requires a short introductory paragraph, nothing more. Sfacets 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)