I read this entire file and nowhere did I find any mention of "Sahaja Yoga". It does concern something called a "Sahaja state", which it never defines. This article never mentions "sahaja state". What's the connection? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
See:
Methods: Central theme –‘Thoughtless Awareness’or ‘Sahaja State’by Sahaja Meditation
Sfacets 20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This article says a lot about the beliefs surrounding the meditation, which should be on the Sahaja Yoga page, but not much about the actual meditation. What about the picture, the hand position, the candle, where should the attention be put, etc. -- Simon D M 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The Chakras, Kundalini, Mantras etc are all specific to SY meditation. Sfacets 09:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
All part of SY meditation. Sfacets 12:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You obviously haven't read any of the previous discussions regarding this. Sfacets 20:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1 Shri Adi Shakti: The Kingdom Of God 2 Multiple use of source in criticism section 3 Chakras 4 Unorthodox Scientific, Medical and Health Claims 4.1 Proposals 5 Introduction to Article 6 Reaction to "What is a real YOGA" post 7 New Religious Movement 8 Expansion of 'Sahaja Yoga meditation' section 9 Sahaja Yoga practices 10 Critical websites subsection in EL section 10.1 http://sahajacult.com/ 10.2 http://www.sahajvidya.org 10.3 http://www.sahaja-yoga.org/ 10.4 http://www.newstarget.com/016026.html 11 Quotation requested 11.1 Full quotation provided 12 Why 'Official Response from Sahaja Yoga International to False Allegations' is Libelous 13 Image:Nabisimple.png 14 Mediation active? 15 External links 16 Beliefs The only relevant discussion is about Sfacets trying to add a lot of unsourced info and WBB saying he's not happy with that. Have you been sending me on another wild goose chase Sfacets or is there really some relevant discussion somewhere. If there is, I think you better link it. -- Simon D M ( talk) 15:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This is irrelevant, the spinoff wasn't to disambiguate between the two articles, but to alleviate the content load from the SY article, something neither of you are addressing. Sfacets 02:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see this suggestion. The charts are actually more relevant to the beliefs of SY as a whole, rather than SY meditation in particular. However, they certainly wouldn't fit in the main article whereas they would fit in the SY meditation article. This might not be the way I personally would want to go if we were building pages from the ground up, but considering the current situation, and the strong feelings surrounding this page and the charts, we might make more progress by lettting this page stay with its charts as part of a compromise package. Here is a proposed structure for the Sahaja Yoga meditation article. -- Simon D M ( talk) 11:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
After declaring the SY meditation is a state and not a practice, Sfacets has added nothing to that effect in this article and has continued with the same shifting definitions. After months this article still offers nothing beyond the charts. There's no point creating a page and then not working on it to give it any valuable content, it's nothing but pointless disruption. -- Simon D M ( talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This was previously discussed above but got bogged down. Almost 3 months after its creation, this page has only a few sentences on SY meditation, less than the main page. Beyond that, it only offers the charts that were removed from the main article. The material on SY medical studies was also moved here, but could move back. -- Simon D M ( talk) 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Simon D M ( talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sahaja Yoga is described as a syncretism of different religions that "unites the essence of all religions through direct perception of the subtle, divine reality" [1]. Why do we need to include this when it already on the main page which is linked? -- Simon D M 11:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
See article spinouts Sfacets 11:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
So what's the issue? Sfacets 11:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if the same qote is in both articles. You will find many articles on wikipedia with the same layout, for example Grateful dead has a subsection on 'Deadheads' that uses information found in the article on Deadheads. The section introduces the main article. Sfacets 12:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The headline of http://www.scribd.com/ is "Publish Yourself Online". Apparently all of the material is uploaded by users, essentially like Flickr or YouTube. It is certainly self-published. It's likely that the material violates copyright. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
But does it? Looking for original. Sfacets 06:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You are contradicting yourself - how can a self-published source be a copyright infringement? Sfacets 06:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Sfacets 07:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Look at my last edit, and then comment. Sfacets 07:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, you have claimed that this page is about SY Beliefs and Practices yet you have twice removed the 2 relevant links again:
with an edit summary saying: "you have to make up your mind then. And your website is not admissible per WP:EL". Firstly neither website is mine. Secondly, it's not for me to make my mind up what a page created by somebody else is for, it's for you to provide a consistent rationale, not one that shifts and changes from hour to hour as the need arises. Thirdly, both sites are admissible per WP:EL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon D M ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you deny that you contribute to
http://freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/ ? Or that you own a domain that redirects to this address? I have no objection for the Inform link.
Sfacets
13:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Really? Because there is a court case that says otherwise. [5] puts you as a representative of the website. Sfacets 14:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I would say that contributing to and supplying a domain name are pretty good indicators that you maintain the website. Sfacets 14:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You maintain the website by 1) contributing to it and 2)Providing them with a domain name. Sfacets 22:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure am - if those links are not valid. Sfacets 09:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, would you please explain why you are removing the sourced material on the presiding deities of the various chakras?-- Simon D M ( talk) 13:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to suffer from a lack of focus. Is it about SY the organization or about a form of meditation? A form of meditation cannot have an "official site". That site may have pages about this form of meditaiton, just as other sites do, and all worthwhile pages should be considered for links. But if we're removing self-published links that aren't solely about the meditation [7] [8] then we should be even-handed about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Your links have already been discussed. Sfacets 10:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It is your site - you contribute to it. Sfacets 19:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That's nice. Maybe he/she has a point. Sfacets 08:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
They aren't bare assertions. You have admited to contributing to the website and providing the URL. It is questionable if you do not have access to the file manager utility for that website. Sfacets 09:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It is one thing to have one's image used on websites, and another to actively contribute to the construction of a website (self-published). It is still questionable wether or not Simon is directly responsible for the sites creation. Sfacets 21:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You definitely contributed to maintenance - both my continuously submitting content to be used and by allowing them to use your domain name. I still have doubts you didn't construct the website. Sfacets 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
..And no answer either. And then you go around saying I don't contribute to the discussions when clearly it is you who, once proved wrong deflects the conversation. This isn't "repeating the same unconvincing arguments" - I have provided evidence that you and the people responsible for the website are one and the same. Sfacets 16:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If you really can't be bothered to lift your eyes a few inches up the page, here is what I said: I was treated as identical with the Sahaja Yoga Ex-Members Network "for the purposes of this decision", but it's not my site, never has been and it only became 'my site' in the WIPO case because I was the only ex-member willing to be the fall guy to have the domain name registered to them. I don't think I've ever even paid for the registration, I certainly haven't for the website. The site was set up by the Sahaja Yoga Ex-Members Network of which I was a member. I agreed to act as owner of the domain name, and I'm still listed as such. The Response to WIPO wasn't written by me either, I just made a few suggestions and passed on the communications from WIPO to the people handling the case. There you have full disclosure. I could make www.sahaja-yoga.org point to any site I like, it wouldn't suddenly become my site. The fact that the site was originally on the German tripod [10] (and that remained the case till after the WIPO case), and the fact that I don't speak German, are pretty good indicators that you are way off the mark. This was the point at which you started off on your fanciful interpretation of the word 'maintain' and it'll be no surprise if you circle round to it again, and again, and again ... -- Simon D M ( talk) 16:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Who cares what the domain was linked to before. The fact is now it links to a website that contains your content, not to mention links to your Yahoo groups. You even admit you were a member of the group that created the website. Sfacets 16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The site was hosted by Tripod. It being in German wouldn't hamper any attempt at creating a website by anyone even those 'technologically disadvantaged' since Tripod accounts came with WYSIWYG website creation tools. Sfacets 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I already have - 1) you contributed to the website, both in content and by providing a domain name. 2)You were/are part of the same group who created the website, both by your confession, and established by the WIPO document. Oh and you contradict yourself by first claiming that you have no control over the domain name, and then claiming that you can point it at whatever website you want. Sfacets 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Per that discussion, why are you adding your links? Sfacets 11:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I moved the "Medical applications" applicaitons over from Sahaja Yoga. I think that it was partially copied previously, making duplicate material in the two articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually SY is part of SY meditation, the later having been begun first. Beliefs pertaining the the meditation belong in this article. Content pertaining to the org such as clinics etc belong on the other article. Sfacets 00:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
As stated many times already: what came first is a red herring; no evidence has been provided that the the meditation/organisation dichotomy covers the whole of Sahaja Yoga, while evidence has been provided to the contrary; RfC was created on where the beliefs should go and the only neutral editor to wade through the red herrings and straw men commented it should be in the main article. -- Simon D M ( talk) 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I read this entire file and nowhere did I find any mention of "Sahaja Yoga". It does concern something called a "Sahaja state", which it never defines. This article never mentions "sahaja state". What's the connection? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
See:
Methods: Central theme –‘Thoughtless Awareness’or ‘Sahaja State’by Sahaja Meditation
Sfacets 20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This article says a lot about the beliefs surrounding the meditation, which should be on the Sahaja Yoga page, but not much about the actual meditation. What about the picture, the hand position, the candle, where should the attention be put, etc. -- Simon D M 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The Chakras, Kundalini, Mantras etc are all specific to SY meditation. Sfacets 09:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
All part of SY meditation. Sfacets 12:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You obviously haven't read any of the previous discussions regarding this. Sfacets 20:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1 Shri Adi Shakti: The Kingdom Of God 2 Multiple use of source in criticism section 3 Chakras 4 Unorthodox Scientific, Medical and Health Claims 4.1 Proposals 5 Introduction to Article 6 Reaction to "What is a real YOGA" post 7 New Religious Movement 8 Expansion of 'Sahaja Yoga meditation' section 9 Sahaja Yoga practices 10 Critical websites subsection in EL section 10.1 http://sahajacult.com/ 10.2 http://www.sahajvidya.org 10.3 http://www.sahaja-yoga.org/ 10.4 http://www.newstarget.com/016026.html 11 Quotation requested 11.1 Full quotation provided 12 Why 'Official Response from Sahaja Yoga International to False Allegations' is Libelous 13 Image:Nabisimple.png 14 Mediation active? 15 External links 16 Beliefs The only relevant discussion is about Sfacets trying to add a lot of unsourced info and WBB saying he's not happy with that. Have you been sending me on another wild goose chase Sfacets or is there really some relevant discussion somewhere. If there is, I think you better link it. -- Simon D M ( talk) 15:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This is irrelevant, the spinoff wasn't to disambiguate between the two articles, but to alleviate the content load from the SY article, something neither of you are addressing. Sfacets 02:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see this suggestion. The charts are actually more relevant to the beliefs of SY as a whole, rather than SY meditation in particular. However, they certainly wouldn't fit in the main article whereas they would fit in the SY meditation article. This might not be the way I personally would want to go if we were building pages from the ground up, but considering the current situation, and the strong feelings surrounding this page and the charts, we might make more progress by lettting this page stay with its charts as part of a compromise package. Here is a proposed structure for the Sahaja Yoga meditation article. -- Simon D M ( talk) 11:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
After declaring the SY meditation is a state and not a practice, Sfacets has added nothing to that effect in this article and has continued with the same shifting definitions. After months this article still offers nothing beyond the charts. There's no point creating a page and then not working on it to give it any valuable content, it's nothing but pointless disruption. -- Simon D M ( talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This was previously discussed above but got bogged down. Almost 3 months after its creation, this page has only a few sentences on SY meditation, less than the main page. Beyond that, it only offers the charts that were removed from the main article. The material on SY medical studies was also moved here, but could move back. -- Simon D M ( talk) 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Simon D M ( talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sahaja Yoga is described as a syncretism of different religions that "unites the essence of all religions through direct perception of the subtle, divine reality" [1]. Why do we need to include this when it already on the main page which is linked? -- Simon D M 11:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
See article spinouts Sfacets 11:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
So what's the issue? Sfacets 11:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if the same qote is in both articles. You will find many articles on wikipedia with the same layout, for example Grateful dead has a subsection on 'Deadheads' that uses information found in the article on Deadheads. The section introduces the main article. Sfacets 12:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The headline of http://www.scribd.com/ is "Publish Yourself Online". Apparently all of the material is uploaded by users, essentially like Flickr or YouTube. It is certainly self-published. It's likely that the material violates copyright. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
But does it? Looking for original. Sfacets 06:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You are contradicting yourself - how can a self-published source be a copyright infringement? Sfacets 06:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Sfacets 07:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Look at my last edit, and then comment. Sfacets 07:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, you have claimed that this page is about SY Beliefs and Practices yet you have twice removed the 2 relevant links again:
with an edit summary saying: "you have to make up your mind then. And your website is not admissible per WP:EL". Firstly neither website is mine. Secondly, it's not for me to make my mind up what a page created by somebody else is for, it's for you to provide a consistent rationale, not one that shifts and changes from hour to hour as the need arises. Thirdly, both sites are admissible per WP:EL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon D M ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you deny that you contribute to
http://freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/ ? Or that you own a domain that redirects to this address? I have no objection for the Inform link.
Sfacets
13:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Really? Because there is a court case that says otherwise. [5] puts you as a representative of the website. Sfacets 14:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I would say that contributing to and supplying a domain name are pretty good indicators that you maintain the website. Sfacets 14:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You maintain the website by 1) contributing to it and 2)Providing them with a domain name. Sfacets 22:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure am - if those links are not valid. Sfacets 09:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, would you please explain why you are removing the sourced material on the presiding deities of the various chakras?-- Simon D M ( talk) 13:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to suffer from a lack of focus. Is it about SY the organization or about a form of meditation? A form of meditation cannot have an "official site". That site may have pages about this form of meditaiton, just as other sites do, and all worthwhile pages should be considered for links. But if we're removing self-published links that aren't solely about the meditation [7] [8] then we should be even-handed about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Your links have already been discussed. Sfacets 10:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It is your site - you contribute to it. Sfacets 19:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That's nice. Maybe he/she has a point. Sfacets 08:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
They aren't bare assertions. You have admited to contributing to the website and providing the URL. It is questionable if you do not have access to the file manager utility for that website. Sfacets 09:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It is one thing to have one's image used on websites, and another to actively contribute to the construction of a website (self-published). It is still questionable wether or not Simon is directly responsible for the sites creation. Sfacets 21:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You definitely contributed to maintenance - both my continuously submitting content to be used and by allowing them to use your domain name. I still have doubts you didn't construct the website. Sfacets 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
..And no answer either. And then you go around saying I don't contribute to the discussions when clearly it is you who, once proved wrong deflects the conversation. This isn't "repeating the same unconvincing arguments" - I have provided evidence that you and the people responsible for the website are one and the same. Sfacets 16:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If you really can't be bothered to lift your eyes a few inches up the page, here is what I said: I was treated as identical with the Sahaja Yoga Ex-Members Network "for the purposes of this decision", but it's not my site, never has been and it only became 'my site' in the WIPO case because I was the only ex-member willing to be the fall guy to have the domain name registered to them. I don't think I've ever even paid for the registration, I certainly haven't for the website. The site was set up by the Sahaja Yoga Ex-Members Network of which I was a member. I agreed to act as owner of the domain name, and I'm still listed as such. The Response to WIPO wasn't written by me either, I just made a few suggestions and passed on the communications from WIPO to the people handling the case. There you have full disclosure. I could make www.sahaja-yoga.org point to any site I like, it wouldn't suddenly become my site. The fact that the site was originally on the German tripod [10] (and that remained the case till after the WIPO case), and the fact that I don't speak German, are pretty good indicators that you are way off the mark. This was the point at which you started off on your fanciful interpretation of the word 'maintain' and it'll be no surprise if you circle round to it again, and again, and again ... -- Simon D M ( talk) 16:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Who cares what the domain was linked to before. The fact is now it links to a website that contains your content, not to mention links to your Yahoo groups. You even admit you were a member of the group that created the website. Sfacets 16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The site was hosted by Tripod. It being in German wouldn't hamper any attempt at creating a website by anyone even those 'technologically disadvantaged' since Tripod accounts came with WYSIWYG website creation tools. Sfacets 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I already have - 1) you contributed to the website, both in content and by providing a domain name. 2)You were/are part of the same group who created the website, both by your confession, and established by the WIPO document. Oh and you contradict yourself by first claiming that you have no control over the domain name, and then claiming that you can point it at whatever website you want. Sfacets 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Per that discussion, why are you adding your links? Sfacets 11:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I moved the "Medical applications" applicaitons over from Sahaja Yoga. I think that it was partially copied previously, making duplicate material in the two articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually SY is part of SY meditation, the later having been begun first. Beliefs pertaining the the meditation belong in this article. Content pertaining to the org such as clinics etc belong on the other article. Sfacets 00:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
As stated many times already: what came first is a red herring; no evidence has been provided that the the meditation/organisation dichotomy covers the whole of Sahaja Yoga, while evidence has been provided to the contrary; RfC was created on where the beliefs should go and the only neutral editor to wade through the red herrings and straw men commented it should be in the main article. -- Simon D M ( talk) 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)