Sahajist and Sfacets Wikipedia adventure turning into a fiasco

[Guest guest]

>

> This whole Sahajist and Sfacets Wikipedia adventure is turning out

> into a fiasco. It is a shame that compared to deceitful Sahajist and

> horny, porny Sfacets, ordinary folks like Will Beback are acting far

> more honestly and morally. How come more than two decades of SY

> meditation, footsoaking and treatments cannot rid WCASY approved

> John Noyce of such negativity? And what can i say of Sfacets?

>

 

Dear self-realized souls,

 

Some of you may be wondering why i consider Sahajist (John Noyce) and

Sfacets Wikipedia adventure to be turning into a fiasco.

 

Main Entry: fi·as·co

: a complete failure

 

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

Yes, the Wikipedia adventure is indeed a complete failure as details

of all that ails Sahaja Yoga is being examined in detail by those

against Sahajist, his clones (fake IDs) and horny, porny Sfacets. In

all my life in Sahaja Yoga i have never seen so much dirt being

beaten out after the SY carpet been lifted. i am now exposed to stuff

that was well hidden from most SYs too! If that is not a fiasco then

the main Wikipedia page on Sahaja Yoga definitely is:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahaja_Yoga

 

The public is now exposed to more negativity then it ever was on

Wikipedia. The main reason crusader John Noyce wants to sue Wikipedia

is because their editors are preventing JN and Sfacets from deleting

links and text of critical sites and articles, as they have

repeatedly done before. Wikipedia was forced to put a stop to their

non-stop censorship of anyone criticizing the organization. This

permanent exposure on Wikipedia (appended below) is a huge disaster

for mainstream Sahaja Yoga:

 

" Criticisms

 

A leaflet produced by INFORM says that, although the initial emphasis

is on free involvement, Sahaja Yoga's emphasis on complete devotion

to Nirmala Srivastava has led to a number of problems and

controversies.[4] Sahaja Yogis are expected to accept Nirmala

Srivastava's view that the more you give, in time and money, the

better you will feel. This can lead to Sahaja Yogis cutting

themselves off from relatives and former friends and accepting only

Nirmala Srivastava's advice about child rearing, whom to marry or

when to divorce. Some of those who deviate may be told they are

possessed by evil spirits or may be said to be mentally abnormal and

risk being expelled from Sahaja Yoga. This may bring problems for

those who still believe in the power of Nirmala Srivastava and

fear 'losing vibrations' and the possibility of a form of demonic

possession.[4] INFORM is an independent charity that was founded in

1988 by Professor Barker with the help of British Home Office

funding and the support of the mainstream Churches.[94]

 

As of 2001, according to the author David V. Barrett, the movement

had been criticized because of encouragement of its members to make

donations to pay for Mataji's trips and " expensive properties. " [95]

Barrett further wrote that some former members say that they were

expelled from the movement because they " resisted influence that

Mataji had over their lives. " [95]According to Barrett, Mataji's

degree of control over members' lives has given raise to concerns.

[95]

 

Also in 2001, Australia's AAP reported that a general practitioner

named Dr Bohdan Shehovych had been fined after grabbing a Sahaja Yoga

critic " round the head and dragged him over a backyard fence " [96] The

physician had been part of a group delivering a letter to the critic

from Nirmala Srivastava[96]. In 2004 an Australian medical

practitioner[30] called Dr Bohdan Shehovych was made a World Leader

in Sahaja Yoga and appointed to the World Council for the Advancement

of Sahaja Yoga. [31]

 

There has been a Sahaja Yoga school in Rome[97] that, according to

Judith Coney, has accepted boarding infants from the age of 2[98]. A

1988 Italian television program surreptitiously filmed children

sleeping 6 to a bed and there has been negative press coverage in Le

Figaro, 16/5/91; Paris Match, 30/1/91 and Marie France, February 1992

[99]. Coney also reported the allegation that " when Swiss parents

protested to Sri Mataji about their children going away from the age

of three, thinking that the command to send their offspring came from

the national leader rather than her, she personally reinforced his

orders and, moreover, ordered them to have no contact with their

children for at least a year. " [98]

 

" Cult " allegations

 

Some sources in the press have reported on " cult " allegations

surrounding the movement. In, 2001, The Independent reported that

certain ex-members alleged: " Sahaja Yoga is a cult which aims to

control the minds of its members " [100]. The Evening Standard reported

that Sahaja Yoga has been " described as a dangerous cult " [101],

and " has a dissident website created by former members listing

alleged abuses " [101].

 

In 2005, The Record reported that some critics who feel that the

group is a cult " have started Internet sites to detail their

accusations.. " [102]

 

References

4. ^ a b c d e Information about Sahaja Yoga published by INFORM

94. ^ http://www.inform.ac/

95. ^ a b c Barrett, David V. The New Believers (Cassell 2001) ISBN 0-

304-35592-5 pages 297-298 “Sahaja Yoga, like many other new religious

movements, is involved in charitable social work, including a

hospital and a cancer research centre – both using Sahaja Yoga

methods for healing – a classical musical school, and a shelter for

the poor in Delhi. Sahaja Yoga makes a big point of its teaching

being free: - Amazingly, without any financial support from any

person, Shri Mataji neither charges for Her lectures nor for Her

ability to give Self Realization, nor does one have to become a

member of this organization. She insists that you cannot pay for

enlightenment and to-date she continues to denounce the false self-

proclaimed ‘gurus’ who are more interested in the seekers’ purse than

their spiritual ascent. - But in fact this is one of the major

criticisms of the movement, that the often middle-class members are

encouraged to make regular donations to pay for Shri Mataji’s trips

around the world, and to buy her expensive properties, such as Shudy

Camps Park House near Cambridge, England, in 1986 and an Italian

castle in 1991. (...) Devoted member refer to her as the Divine

Mother, and she has called herself Adi Shakh, Primal Mother of All;

many take her advice on child-rearing, and some ask her to choose

their marriage partners. This amount of influence over her followers’

lives has caused concern in several countries. Some former have said

that they were expelled from the movement because they resisted Shri

Maraji’s influence over their lives.”

 

96. ^ a b " Qld: Doctor fined over yoga dispute " , AAP General News,

Australia, November 12, 2001.

Brisbane's District Court has been told a GP grabbed a man round the

head and dragged him over a backyard fence -- accusing him of

befouling members of an Indian cult. The court was told Dr BOHDAN

MYRON SHEHOVYCH was among a group delivering a letter to the man from

the founder of the meditation religion, Sahaja Yoga. The 52-year-old

doctor from the New South Wales central coast today pleaded guilty to

entering a house at Mount Ommaney in Brisbane' west and assaulting

TERENCE RICHARD BLACKLEY on March 3 this year. The court heard the

group was delivering a letter to BLACKLEY from spiritual leader SHRI

MATAJI NIRMALA DEVI, alleging spiritual and criminal wrongdoings.

Judge KERRY O'BRIEN today told the doctor that someone of his

intelligence should have known better than to behave in that manner.

He's fined Dr SHEHOVYCH $1,500 but did not record a conviction.

 

97 ^ A Wonderful Evening with Shri Mataji

98 ^ a b Coney, Judith (1999) Sahaja Yoga: Socializing Processes in a

South Asian New Religious Movement, (London: Curzon Press) ISBN 0-

7007-1061-2 p159

99 ^ Coney, Judith (1999) Sahaja Yoga: Socializing Processes in a

South Asian New Religious Movement, (London: Curzon Press) ISBN 0-

7007-1061-2 p243

100 ^ " Shri who must be obeyed; She's been hailed as a saint: a

selfless distributor of goodness and light. But, on the eve of her

appearance at the Royal Albert Hall, Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi is

under attack. " , The Independent, London, England, Mary Braid,

Beatrice Newbery, July 13, 2001

101 ^ a b " Monday night with the divine mother. " , The Evening

Standard, London, England, July 18, 2001, John Crace

 

102 ^ " Hundreds fill weekend with devotion, bliss " , The Record, John

Chadwick, July 24, 2005, Bergen County, New Jersey. (Local Section)

The movement has its share of critics, some of whom describe it as a

cult and have started Internet sites to detail their accusations. One

site portrayed Mataji as a manipulative leader who exercised a high

degree of control over members' lives, including arranging and

breaking up marriages. " I have witnessed Mataji order loving couples

to divorce, " one former member wrote on a Web site. " (end)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahaja_Yoga

 

And since Wikipedia has risen all the way to third position on

Google's " Sahaja Yoga " search, it is obviously a disaster as it

cannot be dislodged. Even the 'secret' North American project to

change the name to " Sahaja Yoga Meditation " , in order to circumvent

the anti-SY sites, is going to fail now, thanks to this fiasco. For

all you know, Wikipedia may again top the Google search engine.

 

More fiasco evidence appended below is only a small portion of the

entire Wikipedia adventure .... er, i mean misadventure. It is just

another failed project that have ended in disaster for the Sahaja

Yoga organization ............ and the list goes ever longer. Looks

like decades of bandhans, shoebeats, havans, paper burnings and what

not does not seem to work for an organization that has deliberately

kept humanity in the dark about the Blossom Time for more than three

decades ............... and counting! What makes SYs think that a

dishonest organization has the blessings of the Divine? All signs

indicate that it must self-destruct in order the Truth can manifest

itself. After all, it is Shri Mataji who said:

 

“The Truth, which is absolute, has to express itself in these Modern

Times. And even if it is not accepted it will never die. On the

contrary, if it is not accepted, it will expose all falsehood and

destroy it.”

 

regards,

 

jagbir

 

--------------

 

Contents

1 Allegations & facts

2 Fact not needed

3 Reverts

4 Copyright Infringement

5 Undue weight

6 Revert

7 Material

7.1 References

8 Discussion

9 Request for comment

9.1 Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

9.2 Comments

9.3 Comments by outside editors

10 Current situation

11 Signs

12 The Mystery 2nd Indian School

13 Austrian report

14 Schools

15 Deletion of Sourced Material from Austrian Ministry of Justice and

Judith Coney's book

15.1 " rvt OR "

16 Contradiction or not?

17 Undue weight, minority viewpoint

18 Reverts 2

19 Rome School

20 Undue weight by minority viewpoints

21 " (rmv questionable source - see discussion) " ``

22 Protected

 

 

 

Allegations & facts

We need to find a better way of handling these allegations then

simply deleting and re-instating them. Is there a rebuttal to the

allegations? Were they thrown out of court, or some other resolution?

That would be more helpful. Also, the article is very short, so more

information would be helpful too. How large is it? when was it

founded? and things like that. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:05, 23 September

2005 (UTC)

 

There was no court hearing about the allegations, these remain pure

speculation, and there are numerous witnesses who testify against

these false allegations. I think we should erase the criticisms which

aren't backed by documentation. This is an Encyclopedia, based on

facts, and it is up to the person who makes these claims to provide

proof. Shane 22:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

 

A group of Sahaja Yogis, the so-called Sahaja Yoga Research Group

(which included a self-professed 'expert' on Sahaj History that you

know), carried out an investigation. Read their 'report' here. --

Simon D M 14:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting " This was the last straw... " Sfacets 10:30, 15

November 2007 (UTC)

 

We have verifiable sources for the assertion. Can we get a rebuttal

into the article? That'd be great. We can't just remove sourced

material. Even widespread allegations are encyclopedic. -Willmcw

00:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 

What do you mean by widespread? Willmcw, In the article sahaja_yoga

you reffered to the NPOV document. I would like to cite a paragraph

that shows that shows that some of the views held are those of

an " extremely small minority " (refer to the Undue Weight section of

the WP:NPOV approach to neutrality, and should, strictly speaking,

have no part in this document.

 

The allegations stem from a small minority. Shane 12:41, 15 November

2005 (UTC)

 

How do we know how small the minority is? These charges would seem

less prominent if we had more regular information about the school.

We haven't even indicated how large it is. -Willmcw 21:26, 15

November 2005 (UTC)

PR? on the contrary, I merely placed a link to testimonials refuting

certain claims... Kill Bossy, are you attempting to conceal

information that would deny people the possibility of making up their

own minds? For shame. Shane 23:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 

I checked the link and the testimonials don't refute the allegations,

they just don't mention them. -Willmcw 00:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

ok, perhaps not refute them, but do offer another perspective. Also,

I changed your sentence where you said the testimonials existed on

the school's homepage - There is not (as yet) an official webpage for

the school... Shane 02:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 

Thanks. Since the website is an authorized website of the

organization, some note should be made. I hope I've labelled it

accurately. -Willmcw 02:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sfacets/Shane, you are the one who ought to be ashamed of yourself,

calling obvious PR a refutation of some very serious allegations. I

suggest you look up the word " refute " and try to understand its

meaning. Or was it your goal all along to deceive? Kill Bossy 12:31,

2 December 2005 (EST)

 

---

 

Allegations - look up the word, in fact, here is a definition:

A statement asserting something without proof: The newspaper's

charges of official wrongdoing were mere allegations.

Law. An assertion made by a party that must be proved or supported

with evidence.

You see, I do not write anything based on groundless material. You,

however, appear to be quite good at dredging up gratuitous material

unconnected to any tangible or real evidence.

 

You are right by the way, refutal is the abnegation of factual

statements. I was in error to use that word in this context. For that

you have my sincerest apologies. -Shane 02:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 

I accept your apology, Sfacts. Thanks. Question: If you admit I was

right, and that you could not refute the " factual statements " made on

the page, why do you accuse me of being good at " dredging up

gratuituous material, " etc? Facts don't qualify as gratuituous

material. I suggest you get yourself a good dictionary. Maybe English

isn't your primary language? Also: Suggested reading for you:

htp://www.sahaja-yoga.org/ -Kill Bossy 19:52, 3 December 2005 (EST)

--- The point I made (maybe your understanding isn't good?) was that

the material you present isn't factual in nature.

A fact can be described as:

 

Knowledge or information based on real occurrences

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.

The keywords being " real " and " demonstrated " .

 

It is important to quote impartial and relevant sources to state any

fact - this is the basis of a Universal Encyclopedia.

 

An example, of your obvious inability to cite impartial and/or middle-

ground material is your references to unprofessionaly edited docuents

(like that website you so kindly suggested), or perhaps even worse,

lack of any documented proof. Shane 03:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 

Indeed, Sahaja Yoga isn't " factual in nature, " so as a supporter of

the organization, you're hardly one to lecture me on facts. It's

interesting that you are able to discredit a website that is indeed

professionaly edited (http://www.sahaja-yoga.org/) while promoting

one that bases its beliefs on the unprovable.

(http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/default.asp_) BTW, Please explain

what it is about the website I suggested you visit that isn't

professional in terms of editing, and show me the editing errors.

Perhaps you are more of an expert than I. Also, what does

professional editing have to do with the website? If it's the truth,

editing isn't an issue.

Has it ever occurred to you that victims of sexual abuse may not want

to have their names published on the Internet? Does that mean the

abuse never happened? Would having the victims' names serve as proof

to you? And yet you believe an Indian housewife is God. Get help. And

I'm not just talking about help for your problems with English,

editing, manners and professionalism. You are obviously a very

hostile and disturbed person. We have nothing further to say to each

other. Kill Bossy

You seem to have drifted off subject, ending up somewhere in Japan

perhaps. We were talking (or at least it seemed to me that we were

talking) about POV and factual references. Not about wether or not

SahajaYoga is factual in nature (which contradicts the meaning of

religion, really, which is based on a system of beliefs.)

 

By a professional source I mean one that has both factual

information, and is edited by someone knowledgeable in the field,

preferably someone who holds a degree. Read up on it.

 

You obviously have a problem respecting other people's beliefs. I

have been nothing but curteous (have I ever insulted you, or your

beliefs?) to you and your POV, it is for that reason that I haven't

erased any of your allegations. Stating that I require help because I

believe there is some foundation to the teachings of an " Indian

housewife " is not only insulting and agressive, it is also

prejudicial. Do you go around insulting Christians because they

follow the son of a carpenter? Or the Muslims, because they follow

the teachings of a tradesman?

 

Why make it personal? We are discussing, not fighting. I also have no

problems with English, being a trained linguist.

 

Have you ever heard of the judicial system " innocent untill proven

guilty " ? It is a common factor in both national and international law.

 

Writing up information which is unbacked by facts is considered

slander. Are you being Slanderous, Kill Bossy?

 

I don't consider myself a hostile person (am I the one with the

word " kill " in my Username?) I am certainly not hostile towards any

of your beliefs.

 

Peace. Shane 02:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 

 

I will remove certain content from the critic section, unless sources

are provided. Please discuss. Shane 04:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 

Could you elaborate, please? Which content, and what sources are you

looking for? -Willmcw 09:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Mostly the sources backing up claims to the effect that the

school " provides a substandard education for its students, unhygenic

conditions and supplies an inadequate amount of food for its

boarders " Shane 10:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 

It should be noted that these allegations relate to the first few

years of operation of the school. Irrespective of the accuracy or

otherwise of these allegations, why should these be of relevance for

the school today? Sahajhist 14:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

 

Promotional literature claims the school is under divine protection.

It's under the same divine protection now as it was when the problems

arose. That says something about the limits of the 'divine'

protection. ---- Simon D M (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Fact not needed

Deepak Gupta - The reason I removed your [citation needed] tag (and I

suppose why User:Sahajhist did too)was because the proposition that

there are critics of the school does not need to be demonstrated. One

can only provide sources if there were speculation on the nature of

the criticism... Sfacets 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 

 

Reverts

Look, you can't just go and revert the entire article because you

disagree with the word, " Hindu. " Either edit the sentence that you

don't like, and provide a better source, or leave it alone. But these

blanket reverts have got to stop. --NovaSTL 05:12, 4 November 2006

(UTC)

 

The source is obviously not a very reliable one, and is attempting to

put everything into Hindu context. Sahaja Yoga is not part of

Hinduism. You had added content which ended up being most of the

article based on that one source. Sfacets 05:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 

Then provide another credible source that says something different.

Until then, the sourced information stays. --NovaSTL 05:29, 4

November 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Sfacets 05:31, 4 November

2006 (UTC)

You can't just keep saying, " It's not reliable, " for any source you

don't like. Stop being disruptive. --NovaSTL 08:24, 4 November 2006

(UTC)

I don't like it because it isn't reliable. Big difference. Sfacets

08:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 

Copyright Infringement

This is a blatant and obvious copyright infringment. Please do a

rewrite. Sahajhist 12:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 

Copyright infringement of what? And if you don't like how it's

written, feel free to rewrite it yourself. --NovaSTL 03:24, 6

November 2006 (UTC)

You basically plagiarized the source from which you took the

information. Sfacets 03:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting a source is not plagiarism. Show me an example of what you

think was improper, by quoting from the Wikipedia article, and

quoting that section of the source which you believe is identical. --

NovaSTL 03:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting is one thing. Lifting out whole strings of words and re-

arranging them in much the same manner is a whle other thing.

What made you thing the source was reliable? from the website:

 

THE HINDU UNIVERSE is the website for GHEN (Global Hindu Electronic

Networks). GHEN is one of the many projects undertaken by HSC (Hindu

Students Council). HINDU STUDENTS COUNCIL is a voluntary run

organization committed to realizing the ancient Vedanta truths such

as Vasudaiva Katumbakum (The Whole World is One Family).

 

Notice: Students, Hindu and accompanying mission statement.

 

I have removed the notice and paragraph per reasons given above.

Sfacets 03:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

 

Oh, you want to discredit all of the sources? Well in that case,

there would be no valid source for this article, and it should just

be merged into Sahaja Yoga. Would you rather do that instead? --

NovaSTL 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you just use

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010421/windows/main2.htm as a

source (which was obviously the original source for the source you

provided) which is an actual media source. Is this another way of

trying to push your POV in disfavour of Sahaja Yoga in addition to

calling it a cult? Sfacets 21:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

 

Why was this source ( " Shri Who Must Be Obeyed " deleted? The edit

summary was:

 

Again, it's not about removing criticism, rather than establishing

NPOV based on RELIABLE SOURCES - As usual you are unable to

justify/provide such sources..

Over at talk:Sahaja Yoga I thought we agreed that this was a relaible

source. -Will Beback 11:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

 

Why was this deleted a second time? Folks need to agree to some on

some sources. -Will Beback 22:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

 

Deleted because the full text of the article is not freely available

at the url you gave. Sahajhist 02:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirememt that sources must be freely available. Most

newspapers charge for their archives. -Will Beback 04:36, 11 November

2006 (UTC)

I agree with Will that this is not a valid reason to delete the

contents. Andries 22:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I maintain my view. As Will Beback knows perfectly well, the full

text of the article is available on the web, so why not cite it, thus

allowing readers to read and draw their own conclusions? Sahajhist

04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I added both links and another editor removed one. Readers can

already pay a couple of bucks to read the article. I'll note again

that you previously agreed that this is an acceptable source. -Will

Beback 11:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I note for the last and final time that Will Beback wilfully and

continually distorts other editors' views. I return to the real

world. Sahajhist 11:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's the first time too. Do you have a policy basis for your

assertion that non-free archives can't be used as a source? -Will

Beback 12:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be in Wiki:Commonsense - WikiPossum 10:25, 14 November 2006

(UTC)

Are only books that can be had for free usable as reliable sources?

Are only free newspapers and give-away magazines reliable? I don't

see where a claim of " common sense " applies here. -Will Beback 10:46,

14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just outside opinion: I tend to agree with Will Beback here. Source

doesn't have to be free, and, although the practice of paid websites

isn't always good, they may be used as a source, if they are

credible. An example is Jane's, which is quite a good overview and

news source, available offline and online, but not for free. However,

not all such sources are reliable, and, unless well established like

Jane's, I don't really trust them too much, as have seen major

factual mistakes. But if this is reliable, it fits. CP/M comm

|Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added an {{unreliable}} tag to the article in regards to this

source. Wikipedia policy on sources stresses that news-article-based

sources come from reputable news media. This is not the case with the

independant, which relies on freelance contributors for it's

articles. http://news.independent.co.uk/article294441.ece There is

also the question on how notable this source is. How many readers

does it have? It appears to be a local London tabloid. Sfacets 09:52,

15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. See The Independent. Please remove the

{unreliable} tag. -Will Beback · † · 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? Sfacets 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It silly that no source is good enough if it contains any negative

information. " The paper was named National Newspaper of the Year at

the 2004 British Press Awards. " - Will Beback · † · 22:47, 15

November 2006 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to claim that a leading newspaper in the U.K. is

unreliable. You've given no legitimate reaosn to consider it

unreliable. (Merely hiring freelancers does not make a source

unreliable). -Will Beback · † · 05:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It'snot a leading newspaper (an award doesn't make it a leader in

thefield) it uses freelancers meaning that the authors of the article

inquestion have unknown credentials. But that is irrelevant when

youconsider that it is a small tabloid that circulates in

London.Including it in the article gives it undue weight. Sfacets

01:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Show me a newspaper that never hires freelancers, and where in the

WP:RS that requires we learn the credentials of journalists. The

article in question is apparently written by a staffer who writes

regularly for the paper. The award was for " national " newspapers.

What proof do you have that it is only a local paper? Furthermore,

while it has changed to a " compact " tabloid printing format, it is

still considered a " broadsheet " as far as its editorial quality is

concerned.

Recently, three traditionally broadsheet daily newspapers—The

Independent, The Times, and The Scotsman—have switched to tabloid

size, although they call it 'compact' to avoid the connotation of

that word.Tabloid

In the UK, one major daily broadsheet is distributed nationwide, and

three on a Sunday; of the four major broadsheet quality papers, two

are generally on the right wing politically, and one more left

wing:... The Independent on Sunday (The Independent is now a

compact); broadly liberalBroadsheet#UK broadsheets

If you have any information that actually impugns the reliablity of

the source then please provide it. Otherwise please reomve the

{unreliable} tag. -Will Beback · † · 02:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless a legitimate reason for the {unreliable} tag is made and

discussed, I'm gogin to remove it. -Will Beback · † · 00:35, 19

November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was an oversight, I have removed the template from the

Sahaja Yoga article, but didn't think about removing it here (which I

have now done). You were right - it does appear to be a legitimate

newspaper, and so deserves inclusion. Sfacets 00:48, 19 November 2006

(UTC)

 

Undue weight

I have removed the one time event of a child purportedly having lice

and bad grades, as this is undue weight - please also refer to WP:NOT.

 

" Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving

undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight

to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not

give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to

treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to

the subject. "

" Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has

existed. "

" Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of

information.:

Sfacets 01:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

 

Gee, how many times have you deleted material from this source?

Didn't you say just hours ago that this issue had been resolved? We

both know that there are other reports of problems at the school and

with other SY schools. This is not the sole example, just the best

sourced example. So it does not give " undue weight " to list it. I'm

also disappointed that you'd make such an aggressive edit while you'd

committed to not edit SY articles during mediation. It makes kind of

a joke out of the procedure, but you've never taken it seriously

anyway. -Will Beback · † · 01:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove the content because of the source, the source is

fine - however the content is undue weight because it refers to one

incident in the schools history. I committed to no such thing, please

read carefully, I agreed " to obstain from editing Sahaja Yoga until

we can come to a compromise. The mediation has been dragging on for

far too long (and not going anywhere) anyway. Sfacets 03:39, 8

February 2007 (UTC)

 

The mediation is dragging on because you keep making non-replies and

being " away " . Let's revert this contentious edit and add it to the

mediation. -Will Beback · † · 18:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit is correct and long overdue. Sahajhist 21:08, 8 February

2007 (UTC)

 

Revert

I reverted Will Beback's edits (who also seems to be on a rampage to

criticize any Sahaja Yoga-related article) because no

discussion/consensus was reached for those controversial edits to be

made. Discuss first, edit later. Sfacets 23:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 

There was previous disuccion in the mediation, if you recall. What,

exactly is the problem? withthe material? Was all of it bad? Isn't

removing sourced criticism censorship? -Will Beback · † · 23:24, 1

March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-16 Sahaja Yoga#Complaint

for the other disucssion about this material. -Will Beback · † ·

23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See also the mediators recommendation:

Add all relevant sourced material back to the article. If it is

sourced, and related to the article; it belongs there.

This material is relevant and sourced. -Will Beback · † · 23:32, 1

March 2007 (UTC)

If there's no further discussion I'll restore the sourced, relevant

info. -Will Beback · † · 05:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the fact that there were long discussions

regarding the material that you would re-include in the article.

Sfacets 05:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The mentor advised including all sourced, relevant material. Is it

your plan to ignore that advice? If so, what are your specific

objections to all the material you removed? The claim of " undue

weight " was addressed in mediation, and the reliablity of the

Independent as a source has been settled. -Will Beback · † · 05:44, 2

March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure if you took the time and effort, you will notice the

previous discussions, refer to them, and then come back and discuss

your continued intent to add them to the article. The question of

undue weight was not settled... where?? Oh and the " mentor " also

suggested to " Allow a reasonable amount of time for each party to

reply, until then revert it, and put it on the talk page " > did you

jut not bother reading that part? Sfacets 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So make your reply. So far you've just said " refer to previous

discussions " . Tell me again what you object to about all the material

you reverted. -Will Beback · † · 05:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you detail here which material you wish to add, per advice.

Sfacets 06:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 

Material

The school teaches around 250 international students annually.

Subjects (as followed by the ICSE curriculum) include standard

courses as well as English, German, Indian Classical Music (including

instruments), and Indian Classical dance (Kuchipudi, Kathak etc.)[1]

Hindu festivals are celebrated,, students are re-christened with

Hindu names and become " more Hindu than Hindus themselves. " [2]

 

The school has an Internet-connected computer lab, science lab,

library, art and craft halls, music and dance rooms, and sport

facilities including a gym, skating ramp, basketball field, cricket

pitch, and soccer fields.[3]

 

There have been complaints by parents who claim that their children

were found to be dirty, lice ridden, and wearing tattered clothing.[4]

[5] Complaints about sexual abuse have also been reported.[6][7] The

school has an " aura of secrecy " , with outsiders and even parents not

allowed to enter the grounds. [8]

 

 

References

^ ICSE syllabus

^ " A School for tradition " , The Indian Express, December 24, 2000, by

Sukhmani Singh

^ School's official website

^ " Shri Who Must Be Obeyed " , July 13, 2001, The Independent

^ http://www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/test6.htm

^ http://www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/lance.htm

^ http://www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/sam.htm

^ " A School for tradition " , The Indian Express, December 24, 2000, by

Sukhmani Singh

 

Discussion

What do you object to about the above material? -Will Beback · † ·

06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 

I believe we had already discussed the The Indian Express article.

There is nothing wrong with the Independant as a source - except that

it lends undue weight. The other two links (again) cannot be used as

reliable sources. Is there any reason you are trying to bring back

all these sources after they had alrready been iscussed - at length -

in the past? Sfacets 09:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 

Where did we discuss the Indian Express article? I don't see any

discussion on this page. We need to include all significant

viewpoints, and material covered in a majotr newspaper is presumably

significant.

There has been an issue of bias and non-NPOV when editing this

article, in that critical links and content is systematicaly removed

or hidden. Please improve the article so that it includes all

significant viewpoints. [1]

That sums up the problem here. -Will Beback · † · 21:36, 2 March 2007

(UTC)

Another way of putting it is:

It was reported in the media (sources provided) and as such is

notable.[2]

Isn't that true? -Will Beback · † · 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooooo crazy stalking... The fact is, the material is inaccurate.

Childrean are not re-christened with Hindu names, and you cannot

simply insert the writer's opinion that the children become " more

hindu than hindus " . This is definitely an exceptional claim, per

WP:RS... if you can provide other sources which concur with this then

the material can stay. I dislike that you would follow me around like

you have repeatedly done, this is [[Wikipedia:Harassment|harassment]

(wikistalking) and I have seen other instances where other editors

have complained about your attitude in this regard as well. You are

taking my edits completely out of context in an effort to prove yo ur

point of view. Please stop. Sfacets 02:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

 

The material has been published in a major newspaper. How do we know

it's inaccurate? Why isn't it notable if it's been printed? And

haven't we had a problem with editors removing critical links from

this article? It would certianly appear so. -Will Beback · † · 03:42,

3 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's further discussion I'll add the material back. -Will

Beback · † · 03

26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I question the accuracy of the article - if you can find another

source confirming it then please add it, however just because it

appears in a newspaper doesn't mean it's accurate. Please read

Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Sfacets 04:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. Certainly much more reliable than the

website of the school itself. I don't see why this would be

considered a fringe theory. Do you have a source which calls it

that? -Will Beback · † · 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a majority view - do you have a source that

confirms what the 1st one says? Sfacets 06:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, just that one, reliable source. There's no rule in Wikipedia that

assertions require multiple sources. -Will Beback · † · 06:38, 7

March 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:RS - " Certain red flags should prompt editors to

examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently

important claims that are not widely known - surely the writer's

claim of SY being Hindu is not a widely accepted view. Sfacets 06:46,

7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a direct quotation of the school's director, published in major

newspaper.

Says H. N. Kaul, the school's 60-year-old director, " Some of the

students are Christians and Muslims, but when they come here they

transcend all religions. They become more Hindu than Hindus

themselves. "

I have no way of knowing how widely accepted this remark is, and

neither do you. There's no reliable discussion of this assertion, it

isn't controversial, it hasn't been commented on or refuted in the

press. Note also that it isn't an isolated quote, but part of a

general description of the school which includes many Hindu cultural

practices. Since the school is in India, there's nothing fringe or

surprising about that. Also, since some describe SY as a " a Hindu-

based world religion " , it isn't at odds with the school belonging to

SY. The quote itself is a little odd, seemingly asserting that

Christianity and Islam are religions but Hindu transcends religion.

How would you interpret it? -Will Beback · † · 07:59, 7 March 2007

(UTC)

It is a fringe belief that SY is part of Hinduism, since most sources

would call it an NRM or similar. I would interpret his quote as

having to do with the fact that Hinduism (in essence) encompasses

multiple beliefs in various forms of God. (see concept of God section

in Hinduism). So interpreting the quotation made by the then-director

as actually meaning that the children become Hindus is in question.

Sfacets 08:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So anyone saying it's a " a Hindu-based world religion " is expressing

a fringe idea? Hmmm. As for the quotation, we don't interpret it, we

just quote it.

Hindu festivals are celebrated, students are re-christened with Hindu

names and become " more Hindu than Hindus themselves. "

That seems like an accurate quotation. -Will Beback · † · 21:20, 7

March 2007 (UTC)

Is it a widespread idea? No. Otherwise you would be able to provide

another news source. That it seems like an accurate quotation is your

opinion. Sfacets 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a quotation in a major newspaper. Unless you have some other

reliable source questioning its reliability then it should be

considered reliable. Why did you delete the phrase " No visitors are

allowed " ? It is visible on the sign, and it's also mentioned in

the " The Indian Express " article.Or are you saying that the article

is untrue and that taking the sign at its face value is

an " interpretation " ? - Is the sign incorrect as well? Do you have any

source which says visitors are allowed to contradict the two sources

we have that say otherwise? -Will Beback · † · 00:18, 8 March 2007

(UTC)

I have already given my objections to including the erroneous

information. As for the sign, it is a primary source. Sfacets 00:41,

8 March 2007 (UTC)

You objected but you didn't give any source to contradict the

reliable source. The picture confirms what the article says. I'm

going to restore that material while we're disucssing the rest. If

you find a new source on the matter we can disucss it again. -Will

Beback · † ·

I object, and will revert your edits - if you want to take this

further, feel free to request an RFC. I don't need to give another

source to contradict the source, you should be the one looking for

another source confirming this one, for the sake of insuring that

only reliable content is used in the article. Sfacets 00:52, 8 March

2007 (UTC)

There's a sign which says " No visitors allowed " . There's an article

in a major newspaper saying that outisders are not allowed. All

you've said in response is that the article isn't accurate. You

haven't said what the visiting policy of the school is, or offered

any source. I've met the burden of proof. It's up to you to file an

RfC if you think additional editors are needed. In the meantime,

please don't delete sourced information - it does not improve the

article. -Will Beback · † · 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please restrict your use of automated revert tools for

vandalism only. Tools used incorrectly may be removed. -Will Beback ·

† · 00:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an automated tool. And if it were vandalism you would have a

large warning template on your talk page. Ok then, I will file an

RFC. Sfacets 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Isps gate.jpg was released by you under the GFDL. Why did you

ask for it to be deleted? Do you think that the GFDL can be

rescinded? -Will Beback · † · 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I deleted the image too hastily. I've undeleted it.

Sorry, Sfacets. Bishonen | talk 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

 

Request for comment

A dispute over possibly erroneous content in a news article.

 

 

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Sfacet's statement: I have requested that Will Beback provide

additional sources to confirm the validity of some of the articles

claims (red flag per WP:RS), however he has refused to do so. The

article contains questionable content, and to insure that correct

information enters the article, confirmation by other sources is

needed. Also in question are Will Beback's interpretation of the

source.Sfacets 01:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 

 

Comments

The source provided, The Indian Express, fully counts as a reliable

source. In addition to that I found a photo which confirmed the

information that article contains on visiting. However Sfacets, who

took the pictre, just decided to delete the image, giving no reason.

Considering the range of excuses given to delete material from this

article, the deletions do not appear intended to promote the

neutrality of the article. All properly source viewpoints should be

included. -Will Beback · † · 01:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 

 

 

 

The original discussion centered around Will Beback's interpretation

of quotations in the article. The article contains questionable

material, which IMO is not correct. The purpose of this RFC is to

determine whether or not another source should be produced to confirm

the 1st article's claims, or wether the claims should be removed.

this is the selective material Will Beback wants to place into the

article.

It should be noted that Will Beback rarely, if ever, contributes non-

critical content to this or other related articles. (don't let the

reply to that sound like something off a broken record, Will.)

Sfacets 02:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not discusing the edits you linked to. We're discussing the

material at #Material. Please don't characterize my editing or

mischaracterize my position. -Will Beback · † · 02:27, 8 March 2007

(UTC)

Now that we've both made our comments I suggest that we leave this

area for outside editors to leave their comments. -Will Beback · † ·

02:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The sign at the gate is intended to keep tourists out - since the

area has become quite a prolific tourist attraction. To classify the

warning under the same source which you (mis)interpreted yet again to

mean that parents are not allowed is just another example of your

interpretation of sources to fit your POV. Sfacets 02:40, 8 March

2007 (UTC)

Since you've now deleted the edit for the 3rd time today, here's the

link to it, for reference. -Will Beback · † · 02:46, 8 March 2007

(UTC)

As for the claim I've misinterpreted the source, it says:

Given its revolutionary activities, an aura of secrecy envelops the

school and entry is strictly forbidden. Says Kaul, " We believe in a

vibratory existence - in two kinds of vibrations those that are free

and those that are bottled up. So we don't like the vibrations to be

polluted by outsiders. Sometimes we even tell parents not to come

here. " That's a tall order indeed, considering that students get just

a three-month break every winter.

How is it a misinterpretation to write:

The school has an " aura of secrecy " , with outsiders and even parents

not allowed to enter the grounds.

That seems pretty close to me. -Will Beback · † · 02:52, 8 March 2007

(UTC)

Yes, pretty close to you. Sfacets 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How about:

The school reportedly has an " aura of secrecy " , with outsiders and

sometimes even parents not allowed to enter the grounds.

Is that better? How would you word it? -Will Beback · † · 08:24, 8

March 2007 (UTC)

It may reduce conflict if direct quotations from reliable sources

were used in the article rather than summaries or interpretations of

the sources. For example, instead of saying " The existence of space

aliens is proven by what happened at Area 51.<ref>Doe, John. Area 51:

What Really Happened. (Oxford University Press: 1987), p. 8.</ref> "

try saying: " John Doe, in his book on Area 51, says that " dozens of

alien bodies were recovered. " .<ref>Doe, John. Area 51: What Really

Happened. (Oxford University Press: 1987), p. 8.</ref> Then the

discussion may be about using Doe as a reliable source, if Doe has

been quoted correctly, or if other reliable sources do not agree with

Doe. Buddhipriya 19:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so how about:

The school reportedly has an " aura of secrecy " with no visitors

allowed. According to the school's director, " ...we don't like the

vibrations to be polluted by outsiders. Sometimes we even tell

parents not to come here. "

Would that be better? -Will Beback · † · 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

By inserting some quotes and leaving out other parts of the article

Will Beback is basically removing them from all context (for example

the quote " more Hindu than Hindus " becomes ambiguous when separated

from the surrounding article, and opn to interpretation or " fitted "

to suit an editor's POV.

Further interpreting two separate sentences " Sometimes we even tell

parents not to come here " and " ...with no visitors allowed " to

read " The school has an " aura of secrecy " , with outsiders and even

parents not allowed to enter the grounds " is a good example of taking

something out of context and molding it into a new one.

The second proposition above is slightly better, however I challenge

the factual accuracy of " no visitors allowed " - this is simply

untrue, which is why I was also requesting secondary sources to be

provided to back it. Sfacets 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We have the director saying that outsiders pollute the vibrations, we

have a sign saying visitors aren't allowed. On the other hand, we

have a Wikipedia editor making an assertion based, presumably, on his

first-hand knowledge. The newspaper is a secondary source, the sign

is a primary source which confirms it. Do we report what the school

director and the sign say, or what the WP editor says? No offense,

but WP:NOR forces us to choose the former rather than the latter. As

for the " more Hindu than Hindu " quote, we can give more the context:

that students get Hindu names, play Hindu games, listen to Hindu

music, etc. -Will Beback · † · 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

....And then we have an editor arbitrarily making connections between

the different elements. The photo is a primary source, and needs a

secondary source to confirm it. Not the other way around. The article

does not describe the sign. Claiming that the students are Hindu is a

POV gleaned from an interpretation of the source. Are you asserting

that the students are Hindu? Seriously? The fact that they

participate in what are described as " Hindu " cultural activities does

not give you the liberty to classify them as Hindus - and as I

previously mentionned, " More Hindu than Hindus " is ambiguous in it's

interpretation. Sfacets 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 

I don't think it matters which way we go with it. Either we take the

primary to confirm the secondary or vis a versa. 2+3=5, and 3+2=5. As

for the Hindu stuff, here's the proposed text:

Hindu festivals are celebrated, students are re-christened with Hindu

names and become " more Hindu than Hindus themselves. "

That's derived from the source text:

Children aged six and above, studying in classes one to 12 are re-

christened with names from Hindu mythology - you'll find lots of

Hanumanas, Mahalakshmis, Ramas, Radhas and Viruttamas. While the

uniform for boys is kurta-pyjama, girls wear salwar-kameez. Students

are taught only Indian classical music and dance while Hindi is a

compulsory language up to Class 8. Says H. N. Kaul, the school's 60-

year-old director, " Some of the students are Christians and Muslims,

but when they come here they transcend all religions. They become

more Hindu than Hindus themselves. " Apart from Independence Day, only

Hindu festivals are celebrated - this includes Bhaiyya Duj, Teej and

Navratri. Celebrations are traditional and rather elaborate - for

instance, on Janmashtami, a child dressed as Lord Krishna plays with

other costumed children, finally clambering up to break a matka of

butter. On Dussehra, a proper Ram Lila is enacted, complete with a

grotesque effigy of Ravana, which is created and then burnt by

students. On Bhaiyya Duj, girls dress up and perform aarti and puja,

while special meditations and pujas, morning and evening, are carried

out during the Navratras.

I think that's an accurate summary. We are not classifying them

as " Hindus " . We're directly quoting the school's director. -Will

Beback · † · 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 

It doesn't work that way - Primary sources can only be accepted if

there is a Secondary source there to " summarise, analyse, and/or

interpret " it. (see WP:RS#Primary_and_secondary_sources). The only

problem is that they are not re-christened, that's completely out of

context - it implies that students in the school are renamed upon

entry to the school, that's just ridiculous. You took the " more Hindu

than Hindus " completely out of context - when put together with the

rest of the text (as seen above) it takes on a whole new meaning. You

are not directly quoting the director, you are attempting to fit his

words into your version of reality. Sfacets 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 

How can we better summarize the visitor policy and Hinduism issues,

based on these sources? -Will Beback · † · 11:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If there aren't any suggestions for better summarizing the sources

then I'd assume we're doing the best we can. -Will Beback · † ·

23:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how direct quotes from news sources can be objected to,

as has been covered here already. The opposition to inclusion of

negative press reports is unjustifiable. This unbalanced article

needs a " Criticism " section. This article seriously needs some

additional editors looking at it to prevent bias from either side.

Compare the highly-visible coverage of alleged child abuse in the

ISKCON article. Buddhipriya 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, I would appreciate it if you would let the RFC run it's

course. I have listed by concerns over the source and its

interpretation. 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

RfCs don't have any deadline, so if folks have stoppped commenting

the RfC has run its course. Also, there's another source for the

visitor issue. Children in New Religions Susan J. Palmer, Charlotte

Hardman, Rutgers University Press (July 1999) has extensive coverage

of this and other SY schools. Included is this text:

....[T]he Austrian report on the school in 1995 stated: " People

dropping in at the door are - [in a] more or less unfriendly [manner]-

refused. Because of that refusal of contact, the domestic and

foreign popyulation nearby does not know anything about the teachers,

pupils and the daily routine at the school , which is-regarding the

rustic surrounding-an astonishing fact. " ...Access to television and

radio is not allowed...Contact between the children and their parents

has been limited. The children have been allowed to write home once a

week and receive packages from home twice a year; parents may

telephone from time to time. [sri Mataji]'s model of childhood

centers on detachment from parents and grandparents and isloationfrom

the dangerous effects of contact with the outside world.

So that's a third source which asserts that visitors are not allowed.

Sfacets, you have expressed concern over the interpretation of the

souorces, but you haven't proposed any alternate text. Again I ask,

how can we best summarize the visitor policy and Hinduism issues,

based on these sources? -Will Beback · † · 02:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The RFC has only been open a week. As far as I'm concerned there is

no Hinduism issue - Children are not re-christened, and Simply

inserting the direct quote isolates it from context. I also fail to

see how the visitor issue is relevant - the school is private

property - of course random people aren't allowed to pop in, let

alone the fact that it is a school. However, the most neutral way you

could insert mention of visitors not being allowed in using the

second source would be " An Austrian report in 1995 stated that casual

visitors were refused entry " . If you insist on including the Hinduism

thing, then According to one of the directors, the

children " transcend all religions " , and become " more Hindu than

Hindus themselves " . This puts things in context. As for the re-

christening thing... Sfacets 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

 

We have a reliable source saying that children are called by Hindu

names, etc. So we can describe that one way or another, but unless

you have a source which contradicts it we've got then we'll do the

best with what we've got. If you like we could use your text as a

start (though it doens't use the word " casual " :

An Austrian report in 1995 stated that visitors were refused entry.

An Indian newspaper decribes the school as having an " aura of

secrecy " , and a large sign at the gate warns, " Visitors are not

allowed. " Contact with parents is also limited. According to the

school's director, " ...we don't like the vibrations to be polluted by

outsiders. Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here. "

That covers the visitors issue in a neutral manner. -Will Beback · †

· 07:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the sources includes an official statement from SY:

A statement made by Sahaja Yogis aboutt he school in India says

that " ...many women from the town come to see the children, bring

them presents, and look after them. The whole village enjoys looking

after these children. "

We could summarize that by saying:

An official school statement says that the villagers bring presents

to the students and enjoy looking after them. An Austrian report in

1995 stated that visitors were refused entry. An Indian newspaper

decribes the school as having an " aura of secrecy " , and a large sign

at the gate warns, " Visitors are not allowed. " Contact with parents

is also limited. According to the school's director, " ...we don't

like the vibrations to be polluted by outsiders. Sometimes we even

tell parents not to come here. "

That's more NPOV, right? -Will Beback · † · 09:08, 16 March 2007

(UTC)

No, it doesn't use the word casual, however they use the

phrase " People dropping in " which would mean unexpected visitors. I

also do not see the relevance of commenting on the sign - the

description is POV (Still a primary source). There is a difference

between someone saying " Sometimes we even tell parents not to come

here " and asserting that 'Contact with parents is also limited'. The

way the sentences are put together is contradictory and awkward.

Sfacets 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

 

OK then, so how's this?

*An official school statement says that the villagers bring presents

to the students and enjoy looking after them. An Austrian report in

1995 stated that visitors " dropping in " were refused entry. An Indian

newspaper decribes the school as having an " aura of secrecy " , and

signs at the gate read, " No admission " and " Visitors are not

allowed. " Contact with parents is also limited. According to the

school's director, " ...we don't like the vibrations to be polluted by

outsiders. Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here. "

As for the limited contact, two sources indicate that contact is

limited with parents, including a quote from the director. Phone

calls are limited, letters are limited, care packages are limited,

and there's only one long vacation per year. We could list all of

those things, but it's more economical to simply say, " Contact with

parents is also limited " . -Will Beback · † · 09:50, 16 March 2007

(UTC)

 

Comments by outside editors

News reports appearing in the popular press are clearly fair game and

should be included, particularly since at present the article appears

to be unbalanced in presenting all views fairly. Removal of properly

sourced material of this type could be interpreted as furthering a

coverup of child abuse. Buddhipriya 03:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 

I have no issue which presenting different views, as long as the

sources in question are reliable(not an issue here) and not taken out

of context and represented following an editor's POV (very much an

issue here). Sfacets 03:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am commenting because it appears that there is a RfC on this page.

You may not agree with my opinion, but that is my opinion. For an

example of similar use of press reports to disclose controversy

regarding a Hindu temple, see Siddhivinayak_temple. In the case of

that article there was a similar push-pull over inclusion of news

reports as well as a proposed link to a web site attacking the

temple. As the article stands now, the news reports were judged fair

game but the link to the opposing web site did not stay because it

was not specifically just about the temple controversy. Buddhipriya

03:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, why did you move my comment to a " previously involved " section?

Have I previously been involved in conflict over this article?

Buddhipriya 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't intentional, a copy+paste mistake from another

article. I have removed the subsection, and welcome your input.

Sfacets 03:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the use of press reports as WP:RS here is the text of the

guideline: " Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published

secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents

or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material,

usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists,

and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A

journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or

the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary

sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published

secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish

the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians

who have read and interpreted primary source material for

themselves. " This was the guideline that ultimately prevailed on the

other article I mentioned. Buddhipriya 03:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT clearly states media articles are reliable sources. You may

not like the claim, but it was reported in the media and therefore

passes the standard for inclusion of the claim. The media mention

should be included, but should be presented in a neutral fashion and

attributed to the source. Vassyana 10:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

 

The dispute isn't over the reliability of the source, rather over

Will Beback's interpretation of said source. Sfacets 11:00, 12 March

2007 (UTC)

Actually, your comments that start the RFC section seem to indicate

that you do take issue with the source, demanding additional sources,

while his interpretation of the source is " also " a problem.

Regardless, what would you like to see in the article? Would more

direct quotation of the source instead of paraphrasing be acceptable?

Vassyana 11:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See #Comments above for the most recently proposed text for the

visitation issue. It's almost all direct quotes from either the media

source or the school director. -Will Beback · † · 02:33, 14 March

2007 (UTC)

Please refer to my comments above^ Sfacets 04:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 

Current situation

Why do certain editors repeatedly use old second-hand allegations to

attempt to describe the current situation at this school? If any

current students or staff happen to read this, please join the

discussion. Thank you. Sahajhist 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. All information in

this encyclopedia should be " second-hand " . First-hand information

(AKA " original research " ) is not allowed. -Will Beback · † · 07:30, 8

April 2007 (UTC)

I understand very well how Wikipedia works. I have two questions for

you: 1. So factual accuracy is not of concern to you? 2.You would

prefer to use unsubstantiated allegations merely because they were

used by a journalist in a print publication some years ago? Sahajhist

10:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We want verifiable information. If we didn't use unsubstantiated

allegations made by journalists in print publications from years ago

then what would we use? The unsubstantiated and unpublished

allegations of anonymous Wikipedia editors? If two reliable sources

say a door is red and one Wikipedia editor says it's green then we

should say the door is reported to be red, not that it's green. -Will

Beback · † · 11:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that the current situation should be reported. If that is

not possible according to your rigorous standards, then better that

paragraph be deleted. The present wording is unfair to current staff

and students. Sahajhist 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We only know what the " current situation " is based on reliable

sources. If we can find relaible sources which say something esle we

can report that too. So far no one has provided any sources which

dispute the assertions included in the reliable sources mentioned on

this page. -Will Beback · † · 06:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 

Signs

I've removed a {fact} tag placed by Sfacets asking for a citation for

the signs shown in the photograph. It is disingenuous to deny that

the photograph exists, or that it verified the presence of the signs.

·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I'm not disputing that a photo of the gate exists, I'm asking for

verification that the sign is still up. Sfacets 20:40, 15 November

2007 (UTC) I have restored the citation rqst. Sfacets 20:40, 15

November 2007 (UTC)

 

OK, I've changed the tense so it doesn't read as an assertion that

the signs are still there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 15 November

2007 (UTC)

I removed the cite request again. What nneeds citing? ·:· Will Beback

·:· 20:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How is the fact that signs may have been posted on the gate relevant

on the scale of things? Also it still reads like an assertion, and

will continue to read like an assertion. The threshold for inclusion

in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - source? Sfacets 21:50, 16

November 2007 (UTC)

 

The school has a reputation for being unwelcoming to visitors. The

signs are a part of that. We can verify that the signs were up at one

time because we have a photograph showing the signs. ·:· Will Beback

·:· 22:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not have a reputation for being unwelcoming to visitors. Also

we do not have a photograph showing the signs. Verifiability. Sfacets

22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I can post a fair use photograph showing the signs. ·:· Will Beback

·:· 23:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Explain how that would be fair use? Sfacets 23:13, 16 November 2007

(UTC)

 

Commentary on the image. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:26, 16 November 2007

(UTC)

Where in Wikipedia policy does it say you can upload an image to

comment on it, and that the image is fair-use? Sfacets 23:29, 16

November 2007 (UTC)

 

Wikipedia:Non-free content. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 16 November

2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific and quote the applicable policy? Sfacets

23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 

No need, it's covered. If we need to review it once it's up then

there's aprocess for that. Will the photo meet your requirements for

verification if we include t in the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

23:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Discuss first before you upload possibly copyrighted images. Waiting

for your justification - where in Wikipedia:Non-free content doe it

back uploading a copyrighted image? There are many rasons not to,

such as " Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by

free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia " and " An image to

illustrate an article passage about the image " for example. Sfacets

23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Again, that can be figured out via the PUI process. Will a photo of

the signs be sufficient verification for their existence? (Now that I

think about it, I seem to recall that I may have taken the photo

myself, in which case there won't be any copyright or fair use

issues.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been to the school? Awesome! I fail to see how it can be

figured out via the PUI process. Sfacets 02:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 

PUI is where we deal with questions about the licensing of images. I

still can't quite recall whether or not I took the picture, but if I

do recall that I took it I guess we'll just have to assume good faith

and agree that I did. Is there any way of proving that I didn't? ·:·

Will Beback ·:· 02:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Sfacets 07:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Unless you can verify that there are signs on the gate I will remove

the OR sentence. Sfacets 08:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I already changed the text to indicate that the signs may not still

be up. Are you asserting that the photo doesn't exist, and that I am

making up the existence of the signs? You previously acknowledged

that the sign exists, so I don't understand your problem. ·:· Will

Beback ·:· 08:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about me, it is about having verifiable content in the

article. Sfacets 09:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 

You're the one pursuing it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:42, 17 November

2007 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence until you can provide a source. Sfacets

22:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 

The source is Image:Isps gate.jpg. Would you like me to undelete it

so you can verify the assertion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 17

November 2007 (UTC)

Please read up on primary sources, and the need for secondary sources

to interpret them. Undeleting the image after it consensus was

reached on WP:IFD would be an abuse of your admin privileges. Don't

ask any of your admin buddies for help either. As it stands, you have

yet to 1)provide a source 2)Allow citation requests to be posted so

others can find a source. There is OR in the article, but obviously,

given your COI, that doesn't matter. Sfacets 22:50, 17 November 2007

(UTC)

 

We already have secondary sources asserting that visitors are not

allowed. The photograph of the signs is a primary source that

confirms what secondary sources alerday say. There is no original

research involved in repeating what is clearly visible in a

photograph. You are well aware of the photograph, so your demand for

it to be re-uploaded is disingenuous. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:12, 17

November 2007 (UTC)

OR is exactly what it is, you are suggesting undeleting an image to

comment on it. The sources say nothing about any signs. I didn't ask

for the image to be re-uploaded (that would be copyright

infringement) that was all you. Sfacets 23:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 

No, typing out what is visible on a sign in a photograph is not

original research, especially not when it agrees with what is already

reported in reliable secondary souorces. Do you deny that Image:Isps

gate.jpg shows signs that say " Visitors are not allowed " and " No

admission without permission " ? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 17 November

2007 (UTC)

The secondary sources say nothing about signs. Even if the photo does

show signs, commenting on them is Original research without secondary

sources. Please read this and this. Sfacets 23:43, 17 November 2007

(UTC)

 

Is this sign still at the school gate? Now, in November 2007?

Sahajhist 00:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Describing is not commenting. Saying " the building has a green door "

is not commentary, it's description. As for the continued presence of

the signs, it's hard to say that any particular thing that existed in

the recent past exists at this moment. The usual assumption is that

thinkgs continue unless changed, but the last text in the article was

that there " had been " signs as that does not presume that the signs

still exist. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Description is a commentary. You have added original content into the

article, and I am requesting valid secondary sources to back your

claim. If you cannot provide these sources, then the sentence needs

to go. Sfacets 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Describing the contents of a primary source in a neutral manner is

not commentary. I'd remind you that most of " Sahaja Yoga and related

articles, including this one, are based on primary sources. For

example, " The school has an Internet-connected computer lab, science

lab, library, art and craft halls, music and dance rooms, and sport

facilities including a gym, skating ramp, basketball field, cricket

pitch, and soccer fields " is sourced to the school's website, a

primary source. All of the SY websites are primary sources. ·:· Will

Beback ·:· 01:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The content is attributed to the movement/websites - if it isn't it

should be. Sfacets 01:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Attribution doesn't make a primary source into a secondary source.

·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

 

The Mystery 2nd Indian School

" They are realised souls, there is God who is looking after them,

why are you so much worried about them? Leave them alone! Send them

to the Indian school. Then the mothers are sitting there, teachers

don't like it, no one likes it. They are just gone there. The

mothers. No school allows such nonsense! But in Sahaja Yoga they

think they have the right. What right have they got? Have they paid

for the school? Have they done anything for the school? What right

have they got to go and sit in the school? So the discretion should

be, we have to bring up our children according to Sahaj culture. The

first of the principles of Sahaja Yoga is fortitude. Sahaja Yoga is

not meant for such .... dainty darlings. You have to be soldiers of

Sahaja Yoga. „

—Nirmala Srivastava, [9]

 

 

Sfacets, you have removed this twice claiming that it is not

necessarily the same school, even though 'the Indian school' is

referred to, there has never been any mention of another SY school in

India in 1991, and the same issue of parents visiting is being dealt

with. Now do you have any evidence of a 2nd SY India school or is

this just another " 2nd Bohdan " type complaint? --Simon D M (talk)

18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Stay Civil Simon. The burden of evidence is with the editor seeking

to add content. Sfacets 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 

If there's only one " Indian school " then it's apparent that it is the

school being referenced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 21 November 2007

(UTC)

Nothing to suggest that there aren't more schools... Sfacets 21:44,

21 November 2007 (UTC)

How many Indian schools were there in SY at the time of that

quotation, 1991? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Beats me... Again, burden of evidence. Ask Simon. Sfacets 22:10, 21

November 2007 (UTC)

Since Srivastava says " the Indian school " it's apparent there's only

one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

....or perhaps her words are taken out of context and she is referring

to another school without naming it. Sfacets 06:15, 22 November 2007

(UTC)

 

If you have any evidence to support that then please provide it.

Otherwise the clear meaning is that she was referring to the one

school SY had in India in 1991, ISPS. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:29, 22

November 2007 (UTC)

Burden. Of. Evidence. Sfacets 06:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Right So what evidence do you have for the existence of two SY

schools in India in 1991? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:54, 22 November 2007

(UTC)

Did you fail to read what I just wrote? Sfacets 07:42, 22 November

2007 (UTC)

You said there is a burden of evidence. So where is your evidence of

two or more schools? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:12, 22 November 2007

(UTC)

Have you read the section on burden of evidence? Sfacets 08:16, 22

November 2007 (UTC)

You're the one making the assertion that there were multiple SY

schools in Inidia in 1991. Is there any evidene to support that

assertion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeking to add anything to the article, and I'm not asserting

anything. Sfacets 08:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the same line of reasoning as your similar claim that there

is more than one " Dr. Bohdan Shehovych " in the Australisn SY. And

I'll remind you again that the same reasoning can be applied to every

assertion. There's no evidence that there is only one " International

Sahaja Public School " , or that there is only one " Shri Mataji " . If

you demand proof in one case then we should all demand similar proof

in the other cases. However the whole thing smacks of disrupting

Wikipedia to prove a point. Please stop being disruptive and asking

for impossible proof. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:40, 22 November 2007

(UTC)

All you need to do is establish proper context for the speech.

Sfacets 08:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The citation provides the context. It was said during a puja in NYC

in 1991. That's the context. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:49, 22 November

2007 (UTC)

The context for the quote on the school in India. Sfacets 12:35, 22

November 2007 (UTC)

 

Sfacets, please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Simon D M (talk) 09:29, 22

November 2007 (UTC)

 

http://www.sahajayoga.org/questionsandanswers/#children only mentions

1 school for children in India. --Simon D M (talk) 14:19, 22 November

2007 (UTC)

 

Coney also refers to there having been only one SY school for kids in

India on page 159 of her 1999 book. Case closed. --Simon D M (talk)

17:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Quote? Sfacets 23:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Why are you removing the quotation from Coney about the school? Your

edit summary said that you're waiting for a quote, but the quote

request above appears to be on an unrelated issue. ·:· Will Beback

·:· 01:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the context that the quotation was lifted from...

Sfacets 01:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You haven't yet asked about the context of this quotation, you asked

about the context of another quote, one from Shri Mataji. Also, lack

of context is not a reason to delete a properly sourced quotation.

Lastly, the book is mostly online. See here for the context: [3] ·:·

Will Beback ·:· 01:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

True, I did mix up the two... the edit summaries were misleading. But

the reason is the same - I would request the context surrounding the

quotations, since the pages (and surrounding pages) cited are not in

the online preview of the book. Sfacets 02:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 

And what policy allows sourced material to be removed because an

editor wants to read what was in the source on the page before

citation? I'm not aware of any such policy, and if there were it

would nlead to gridlock as a disruptive editor could always ask to

see one more page. The reference is available online. It is

disruptive to ask for material that isn't part of the citation. ·:·

Will Beback ·:· 02:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The reference isn't available online. It needs to be verified.

Sfacets 02:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 

What do you mean it isn't available? I provided the link to the

reference. Are you unable to acces the internet? If you want to read

other parts of the book then I suggest you find the book in a

library. There's no requirement that sources have to be online, and

the other parts of the book are not being used as a reference here.

·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't available in libraries around where I live - I have checked.

Yes, I cannot access the internet, too many buttons. Did you not read

what I wrote above? The content I requested is not available online.

I am simply requesting surrounding paragraphs to be submitted here,

to establish context - it isn't a big deal, but it is necessary,

since Simon's edits have displayed a tendency for taking things out

of context. Please remember to remain civil. Sfacets 07:21, 24

November 2007 (UTC)

 

Sfacets, you can view the page on Google books, just search

for 'school'. If you want the whole book and you don't want to pay,

get it on interlibrary loan, I'm not typing out the whole book for

you. Your refusal to obtain one of the most important academic

sources on SY is no reason for removing sourced material. --Simon D M

(talk) 08:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again I cannot view the page on google books. I'm not asking for

the whole book, just passages to ascertain/verify the context, which

is necessary given the history of your edits. Sfacets 08:22, 24

November 2007 (UTC)

 

The " content requested " is irrelevant, as it is not part of the

material used as a citation. Lack of " context " is not a cause for

removing legitimate material. If Sfactes can prove that the quotation

is taken out of context in such a way to distort it's meaning, then

he should do so. But until then please don't remove source material.

If Sfacets has complaints about another editor's edits he should take

it to the proper forum. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:24, 24 November 2007

(UTC)

What I'm asking for here is 1)The quotation from JC showing that

there was only one school in India in 1999, and 2)Material showing

the context from which the citations were taken, ie p159, 166. It

isn't a difficult thing to provide. Also I notice that you are

throwing the word disruptive around a lot (as you often do whenever

you are unable to provide a valid argument to back your point) - I

will ask you yet again to please stop misrepresenting my position as

an editor. I am not disrupting, I am simply attempting to get some

context, given that many previous edits containing quotations were

taken out of context. Sfacets 08:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Let's address one thing at a time. The quotation from Coney is on the

middle of page 166. Page 165 has nothing to do with it. There

no " context policy " . If you don't have a legitimate objection please

stop reverting the addition of neutral, sourced material. ·:· Will

Beback ·:· 08:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a verification policy however. I am seeking to verify that

the context is preserved. Sfacets 09:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Sfacets, considering how much time you spend sanitising references to

SY in WP, I can't understand why you don't just buy a copy.

Incidentally, you can search inside via amazon.com as well. If you

want to buy, amazon.co.uk may well be cheaper. Please don't ask me to

buy it for you for Christmas :-) --Simon D M (talk) 15:24, 24

November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, I see you continue to remove the quote although you've been

given sources which are available to you. Please direct us to the

passage in WP:VER that supports your position. --Simon D M (talk)

11:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon has still to produce the quotation backing his claim. It should

be fairly easy, given that it is limited to one page, and is probably

a matter of words (enough to ascertain that there was only 1 school).

What's the problem? Does or doesn't she verify that there was only

one school? Sfacets 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 

" Turning now to full-time education in the movement, there have been

two Sahaja Yoga schools to which followers from all over the world

have sent their children. The school in Rome has accepted boarding

infants from the age of two as well as offering summer courses. The

school in India has accepted children from the age of four. Thus,

often very young children are separated from their natural parents

for prolonged periods, as they usually stay in India for nine months,

returning home for the other three months of the year. " You asked for

a few words, you got the whole paragraph from p159. It would be far

easier for all if you just assumed good faith. Now that you have the

context you asked for, please restore the relevant sourced text you

have so often deleted. --Simon D M (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2007

(UTC)

This doesn't show that there was only one school in India. Your

previous statement " Coney also refers to there having been only one

SY school for kids in India " is misleading. Sfacets 11:38, 26

November 2007 (UTC)

 

Please review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Also I notice that here you not only

demand sources, but backup with context, and then refuse to accept

it - yet here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sahaja_Yoga#Reorganising_the_Page

you refuse to give sources saying that arguing your point is enough.

Your position is looking more and more ridiculous. --Simon D M (talk)

11:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Again with your Copy+paste... it's getting old. I demanded quotations

of the sources for verification. The quote you gave did not verify

your claim. Apparently you need to get the point. Sfacets 12:00, 26

November 2007 (UTC)

 

The resolution of this issue with Coney's quote is clear as long as

you understand that 2 - 1 = 1. But maybe you would like to dipute

that as unproven, ask for sources, then context, etc. (PA removed) --

Simon D M (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am growing tired of your incivility Simon. Curb it down. I did what

you suggested - now we just need a page number. Sfacets 15:10, 26

November 2007 (UTC)

 

If you mean for the Coney quote, I've already given it twice, p159.

If not, be clear what you do mean. I also don't know what you mean

about you having done what I suggested. Regarding lack of civility,

observe the plank in thine own eye before pointing out the splinter

in that of another. --Simon D M (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 

It's impossible to prove there's only one school in India, just as

it's impossible to prove there's only one person named " Shri Mataji " .

However, until it's proven that there are more than one we should

assume there is one one. If we fail to make that simple assumption

then all of the SY articles will be in jeopardy as we won't be able

to assume that the people and places mentioned in sources are the

same ones we're thinking of. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 26 November

2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, why are you continuing to delete this while at the same time

complaining that non-SY views are getting undue weight?--Simon D M

(talk) 13:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Austrian report

This was deleted with the edit summary: " sentence deleted due to

imprecise supporting reference " [4]

 

An Austrian report in 1995 stated that uninvited visitors " dropping

in " were refused entry.[ref]Children in New Religions Susan J.

Palmer, Charlotte Hardman, Rutgers University Press (July 1999)

How much more precise does the reference need to be? Also, it'd be

better to comment on these without deleting the material. If someone

wants a page number they can ask for it without disturbing the

article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 

this is a collection of essays. So author and title of essay are

surely required, plus page number. I suggest also that we need

details of the " Austrian report " being cited. Sahajhist 23:08, 24

November 2007 (UTC)

If it's an essay I agree we should have the author and essay title,

though that's not a reason to delete the material. Since it's a

secondary source we don't need to know what the primary source said.

·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added the essay title and author, and the page number, and

restored the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 24 November 2007

(UTC)

....So in fact all the Austrian report is doing is citing Judith

Coney? Sfacets 23:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Have you read the Austrian report? Can you provide a citation for the

assertion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Since that part is unsourced, and since unsourced material isn't

allowed to stay in this article, I'm going to remove that addition

until we can find the source for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:00, 25

November 2007 (UTC)

The ref you provided reads

 

" Growing Up As Mother's Children: Socializing a Second Generation in

Sahaj Yoga " by Judith Coney in Children in New Religions Susan J.

Palmer, Charlotte Hardman, Rutgers University Press (July 1999) p.117

 

You listed a citation (by J COney) allegedly found in the austrian

report. You are not actually referencing anything. Either attribut

the ref to Coney or provide a correct citation. Sfacets 05:06, 25

November 2007 (UTC)

 

I don't understand what you're saying about the Austrian report. The

citation is an essay found in a book called Children in New

Religions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So why even mention the report? We don't reference every book which

uses other author's citations... Sfacets 10:38, 25 November 2007

(UTC)

I still don't understand your complaint. Let's get back to my earlier

question - can you provide a citation for your assertion that the

Austrian report quotes Coney? As far as I can tell it's the other way

around: Coney is quoting the report. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 25

November 2007 (UTC)

My complaint: You aren't referencing the Austrian report, you are

referencing Judith Coney. I don't need to provide a quote, you

already did that: read it. " Growing Up As Mother's Children:

Socializing a Second Generation in Sahaj Yoga " by Judith Coney "

in " Children in New Religions Susan J. Palmer, Charlotte Hardman,

Rutgers University Press (July 1999) p.117 " You are using a citation

found within a source. Why mention the middle man at all? If the

Austrian report quotes Coney, then 1) Let's have the quote and 2) Why

on earth are you attributing one author's work to another's? Sfacets

21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Children in New Religions is a collection of

articles/essays. " Growing Up As Mother's Children: Socializing a

Second Generation in Sahaj Yoga " is one of the articles in that book.

The " Austrian report " is quoted in that article. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

22:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is Sfacets deleting half of the citation? He says to see the talk

page, but I don't see any explanation here. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

00:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

^Read above. Your reference is passing through an intermediary source

(the Austrian report) to cite a quotation that may or may not have

been written by Judith Coney. Sfacets 00:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Above where? Anything " may " have happened. What we know has actualy

happened is that Coney's artilce was published in a book, which is

what we're using for our citation. I can't see any logical reason for

deleting the name of the book or the page number. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

00:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your latest change makes a lot more sense. Thank you. Sfacets 00:31,

27 November 2007 (UTC)

 

What is the {citequote} for? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:51, 27 November

2007 (UTC)

What is the exact quote from Judith Coney's article? Sfacets 08:30,

27 November 2007 (UTC)

 

What's the problem with it? It's accessible online. ·:· Will Beback

·:· 09:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. Can you provide a link? Sfacets 09:23, 27 November 2007

(UTC)

 

[5] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Was that so hard? Thank you. Sfacets 10:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 

 

Schools

I gather that there is now more than one Sahaja Yoga school. It might

be worth adding a paragraph or at least a sentence mentioning the

other schools and whatever is verifiably known about them. For

starters I gather there is now a school in Italy. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

08:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 

See the quote I put into

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Sahaja_Public_School#T

he_Mystery_2nd_Indian_School

There was a School in Rome where Guido Lanza was headmaster, but it

moved to Cabella after the trouble with Guido. There is also a school

for kids in the US and a music school for adults in India. There were

plans for a SY University, but they haven't come off yet.--Simon D M

(talk) 11:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 

The 'music school for adults' mentioned above presumably is the Shri

P. K. Salve Kala Pratishthan [[6]], an academy refered to in Sahaja

Yoga. There are schools in at least three European countries, also

one in USA, and several in major cities in India. Sahajhist 15:07, 27

November 2007 (UTC)

 

Are there any websites or other sources that list the schools? ·:·

Will Beback ·:· 18:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

not that I'm aware of. Some of the schools have websites, but all are

password-protected, so no point in listing them here. Sahajhist

21:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I found sources for four schools: one in the U.S., two in Europe, and

the music academny in India. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 27 November

2007 (UTC)

 

Deletion of Sourced Material from Austrian Ministry of Justice and

Judith Coney's book

Sfacets, I think these 2 sources are some of the most reliable

sources we could ever get on the subject at hand, and they are better

placed than you with respect to COI to give a view on what is

notable. Why do you keep deleting material from these sources?--Simon

D M (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Just because they are reliable sources doesn't mean you should add

everything they say on the matter. Sfacets 13:31, 28 November 2007

(UTC)

 

Very little has been put in from the Austrian report. Regarding

Coney, the comments were notable enough to be put into a book about

Sahaja Yoga as a whole (yes the NRM), not just the ISPS. You edit

summary mentions undue weight, but among low COI highly reliable

sources these are all that I am aware of. Feel free to let us know of

others. --Simon D M (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The report adds nothing to Coney's 'findings' - because... it is a

report. You are taking things out of context again with your biased

selection of quotations, even if it means adding totally irrelevant

information to the article, such as the colour of the student's skin.

Sfacets 13:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I don't see why being a 'report' means it adds nothing. The

implication of the reference to skin tone was obvious. Also why did

you remove the reference to the School in Rome? --Simon D M (talk)

13:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it reports findings, doesn't produce them. That is the

definition of a report. Sfacets 13:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel for obfuscatory

arguments now. Do you think the findings of a report reported by the

Austrian Ministry of Justice come out of thin air? " a report is a

document characterized by information or other content reflective of

inquiry or investigation " . --Simon D M (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2007

(UTC)

No, not out of thin air... from findings by author's like J. Coney.

Think about it. This is a state report. Sfacets 14:07, 28 November

2007 (UTC)

 

Given that the Austrian ministry's report came out 4 years before

Coney's book, that's not very likely. Think about it. You're going to

need reliable sources to discredit the report, the mere fact that it

is a 'state' report is not enough. Again it's a case of you having to

provide sources, not just POV. Also why did you remove the reference

to the School in Rome? --Simon D M (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2007

(UTC)

Which report is this Austrian report? You need to discuss your edits

here before you insert them in the article - you are going way off

subject. Sfacets 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 

The report was fully identified in the material that you have

removed: Report on the Sahaja Yoga School, Ministry of Justice of the

Republic of Austria, May 1995. One does not need to discuss before

inserting sourced material: BOLD, revert, discuss. You recommend a

more cautious practice than that but practise more recklessly

yourself, can you not see the hypocrisy of this? Also how is the the

beating of children in the SY School and the allegation that

mentions, en passant, that attendance at SY schools has not

necessarily been only on a voluntary basis, way off subject? --Simon

D M (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's amusing that Sfacets removed the Controvery heading from inside

the article, when he is the one doing his level best to delete all

the sourced controversial information. Sfacets, you need to explain

why you are removing this notable on controversial information that

comes from the most reliable sources we have. I append some of that

content.--Simon D M 13:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

 

The Austrian Ministry of Justice's 1995 Report on the Sahaja Yoga

school comments that " Despite the altitude, eight months of sunshine

a year and outdoor activities and sports in the open, the European

children appeared pale which was unexplainable to the visitor " [10].

 

Coney also reports that another child arrived home having lost a

stone in weight, and so changed in appearance that his mother could

not recognise him, although the school had consistently reported that

he was 'doing fine'[11]. Coney also reports that there have

been 'instances of children having been beaten' leading to the

temporary dismissal of the Headmaster[12]. Nirmala Srivastava herself

had the following to say on corporal punishment:

 

" Bhoots can sometimes only go away with slapping. I have seen

especially with children it happens. Two slaps on the face and

they're alright. Because they're bhoots you see and they have to go

away. „

—Nirmala Srivastava, [13]

 

 

 

Judith Coney reported that there was a school in Rome that has

accepted boarding infants from the age of 2[14]. A 1988 Italian

television program surreptitiously filmed children sleeping 6 to a

bed and there has been negative press coverage in Le Figaro, 16/5/91;

Paris Match, 30/1/91 and Marie France, February 1992[15]. Coney also

reported the allegation that " when Swiss parents protested to Sri

Mataji about their children going away from the age of three,

thinking that the command to send their offspring came from the

national leader rather than her, she personally reinforced his orders

and, moreover, ordered them to have no contact with their children

for at least a year. " [16]

 

 

Please read Wikipedia policy on over representing minority

viewpoints. The quote of Nirmala Srivastava (taken out of context by

Simon's careful ministrations, the usual) doesn't have anything to do

with the school. Also realise that Coney " reported " on a period in

the school's history, and that some of her " information " is no longer

relevant. Sfacets 13:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

 

If you would like the article balanced with other reliable, COI-free

sources, please cite them. The quote from Mataji shows that the

beatings of the pupils, reported by Coney, were not necessarily

diametrically opposed to SY ideology, hence the reappointment of the

Headmaster. I can provide context for the quote below. --Simon D M

14:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

" I've definitely got better understanding and maturity as far as my

knowledge about human beings is concerned because they are

- when I was born they were strangers to me - just strangers, imagine

that Adi Shakti should say this, but it's true! Despite I have

created you, I was absolutely a stranger. But now, I've grown, I've

understood you very well, I know you are my children, I know how much

you love me and how much you are close to me.

 

( " Why is he crying so much? " ... " He wants to go to the toilet " . Let

him go " . " He wants me to go with him " . " He should go himself. " Let

him go, this is the thing you see, these children are very obstinate.

Its bhootish isn't it? Let him go. He won't listen. Better go See.

Alright take him down. What to do, you see, very obstinate. They're

bhoots. Such a big boy can't go to the toilet. Just to disturb,

that's all.)

 

You must really slap him now, if you give him two slaps now, his

bhoot will go away. Two slaps and next time he won't do it. You see

at this time you must slap, not very hard but let him know that you

don't like it. Bhoots can sometimes only go away with slapping. I

have seen especially with children it happens. Two slaps on the face

and they're alright. Because they're bhoots you see and they have to

go away.

 

Now whatever I have said to you yesterday about children be careful.

You have to make your children assets and not liabilities, on Sahaja

Yoga. So try to train them up properly.

„

—Nirmala Srivastava, [17]

 

 

Attaching this quote to something Coney wrote is your Original

Research. The quote mentions nothing about the school. Sfacets 14:17,

30 November 2007 (UTC)

 

No but it gives context to the beatings. BTW, still waiting for the

other reliable, COI-free sources and/or other reasons to suppress

Coney's findings about the schools. --Simon D M 14:28, 30 November

2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't - it is completely separate and as usual you are taking

things out of context to fit in with your POV. Sfacets 14:37, 30

November 2007 (UTC)

What POV is that? As far as I'm concerned all that's being said is

that Coney reports beatings have occurred and there is clear evidence

that Mataji has recommneded corporal punishmnet to exorcise kids of

bhoots (possessing spirits). As the school is supposed to practise

Mataji's ideas on education, it is very relevant and puts the

headmaster's actions in context. The whole issue of

beating/exorcising kids is certainly notable. --Simon D M 14:52, 30

November 2007 (UTC)

It is your POV/OR that the two are connected. Sfacets 21:58, 30

November 2007 (UTC)

 

Mataji who has declared herself to be the omniscient Adi Shakti, who

has claimed that her every word is a mantra, recommends that SYogis

should hit children. A SYogi, who is the headmaster of the SYogi

school, which is based on Mataji's ideas of education, hits children.

And Sfacets, who has serious COI issues, says he can't see a

connection. --Simon D M 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that you are the one wih COI issues - to the point of

making baseless and arbitrary connections between two different

things. You are trying to turn this article into an attack article.

Sfacets 22:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

 

So there's no connection between Mataji's advice and practice in the

School? Then why are the extracts from Education Enlightened linked?

Why does the school site proclaim: " Based on the teachings of Her

Supreme Holiness Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, Sahaja Education " ? --Simon

D M 08:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 

" rvt OR "

This material was deleted with the edit summary, " rvt OR " .[7]

 

Coney also reports that there have been 'instances of children having

been beaten' leading to the temporary dismissal of the Headmaster

(ref)Judith Coney, Sahaja Yoga: Socializing Processes in a South

Asian New Religious Movement (1999) p164(/ref).

How is this original research? It is cited and attributed. ·:· Will

Beback ·:· 21:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 

My bad. Sfacets 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this the reason you've left an unexplained warning on my talk page

about OR? --Simon D M 08:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Sfacets 10:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 

What is the reason then? I've asked you there but you haven't

replied. --Simon D M 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Contradiction or not?

Sfacets, now you are repeatedly inserting a statement that Coney's

report that children have been taken as young as 4 is contradicted by

the newspaper article saying that children were being taken from 6.

From the tenses used it is clear that the former referred to the

period of time up until Coney's study, the latter referred to the

situation in 2000. They do no contradict because they refer to

different periods of time. Consider these statements: 1) " people have

been hanged for murder in the UK " 2) " people are not hanged for

murder in the UK " . They are both true and there is no contradiction. -

-Simon D M 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Perhaps you should specify the dates... Sfacets 13:55, 30 November

2007 (UTC)

 

Perhaps you should remove your inaccurate references to a

contradiction. I see no need to unnecessarily burden the article with

info on dates, but you can do so if you really think it is

worthwhile. --Simon D M 14:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed it myself but you are still re-inserting it. Is there any

chance of an explanation or is it just another of case of you

carrying on your merry way without regard for either the facts or the

talk page. --Simon D M 10:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Undue weight, minority viewpoint

I would encourage Simon D M to read the relevant WIkipedia policies

concerning over expressing minority viewpoints in an article. The

article should be composed the ratio the different viewpoints hold.

Sfacets 09:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 

As stated above, Coney (1999) and the Austrian Ministry of Justice

report are the 2 most reliable sources we have. They are not flat

earthers. The view that 9 months is a long time for a 4 or 6 year old

to spend away from their parents is not a minority view. On the other

hand you are inserting POV wording like that 'vibratory

awareness' " enables practitioners to detect and treat subtle

imbalances in themselves and others " - now that is a minority view,

like the view that the Earth is flat. --Simon D M 10:11, 4 December

2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources - maybe. Minority viewpoints? Definitely. Sfacets

10:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Back to the bare assertions. --Simon D M 13:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile I note your lack of argumentation - and that, as usual, you

fall back on insulting me or my religious practice. Sfacets 13:37, 4

December 2007 (UTC)

 

I was the last to contribute constructively, the onus is now on you. -

-Simon D M 13:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The references to anything written by Judith Coney, I believe should

be excluded since, according to sources online, she is largely

influenced, if not mentored by Simon Dicon Montford. So by referring

to this author, he is pushing his own barrow. As is widely known,

since being asked to leave Sahaja Yoga, Montford has a personal

vendetta against Sahaja Yoga. Sources available online say that Coney

was never genuine in her investigations of the movement and only

wrote the books for academic kudos.

 

I quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OR " Our original major

content policy, neutral point of view (NPOV) encourages editors to

add undisputed facts, including unbiased accounts of various people's

views. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their

own views into articles, and demands that Wikipedia balance the

relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence

in the relevant field. " Note the terms " undisputed facts "

and " unbiased accounts " . This means the editors must agree on the

validity of the references. I dispute the validity of using Judith

Coney because of her close relationship with Simon Montford. By using

her reference, Montford is distorting the article by inserting his

own views.

 

For the record I have removed the allegations contained in the

additional schools section because of the undue prominence of

allegations in this article.Try-the-vibe 14:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Hi Try-The-Vibe, welcome to the talk page. Judith Coney's mentor was,

if anybody, Barker. What sources are you relying on? Not all

sources are equally reliable. See WP:RS. There is nobody more

prominent in the study of this particular new religious movement than

Judith Coney. --Simon D M 15:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the weight due to various viewpoints, it appears that

Coney's view of the school is shared by articles printed in major

newspapers and a neutral report by a government agency. Coney's work

mentioning the school has been published in several reliable

publications. Of course the whole article shouldn't be about the

viewpoints of Coney, the newspapers or the Austrian government. But

those viewpoints do appear to be the most widely-held and should be

given the most weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 4 December 2007

(UTC)

For the record, Judith Fox (nee Coney) is no longer in academia and

no longer involved with the study of new religious movements. She

conducted her sociology research into Sahaja Yoga in England in the

early 1990s as a student of Professor Barker (University of

London), completing her thesis in 1996, and turning the thesis into

the book cited here and published in 1999. Sahajhist 21:59, 4

December 2007 (UTC)

 

I'm not sure what her maiden name has to do with anything, but I

don't see anything in her bio that would discredit her as a reliable

source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

her published writings on new religious movements were before her

marriage, and therefore under her maiden name. Sahajhist 23:42, 4

December 2007 (UTC)

I think Coney might have been a name from a previous marriage, rather

than a maiden name. Not that it matters. --Simon D M (talk) 10:33, 5

December 2007 (UTC)

Ah... so you do not deny that Coney is at least largely influenced by

you, Simon. For sources I am relying on reviews of her book and a

website which details your very dodgy past and current anti-Sahaja

Yoga agenda. I'm sure you can Google it.

 

I found out that Simon Montford appointed Judith Coney as the

administrator for one of his anti-Sahaja Yoga blog sites. Apparently

she polices opinions aired on it and deletes comments by people who

mention Montford's questionable past.

 

Montford and Coney have a close relationship and this is a Conflict

Of Interest (COI) in him using her as a reference. The fact that

Simon's nose is out of joint for having been asked to leave the

movement is another COI for him. Through his websites and influence,

Montford has created a virtual " mud raking machine " . To put it

simply, he does not do objective research.

 

It is not a question of whether or not something has been printed, or

as you say - reprinted in different places. What I am questioning is

the value of trawling for references which reflect negatively on the

movement, instead of trying to provide an objective article. To quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OR again, editors are supposed

to " balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on

their prominence in the relevant field. " .

 

Barker is a Professor of Sociology at the London School of

Economics, the same school that Simon Dicon Montford works for. Isn't

that a coincidence.

 

Barker has stated that " Social scientists focus on information

that can be empirically tested. Qua social scientists, they cannot

judge the truth or falsity of theological statements. " This is

another argument against Coney being used as an authority on the

movement. She has completely ignored the validity of the religious

experience available through Sahaja Yoga meditation, which can be

proven through personal experience. One of the preconditions for

attaining this experience is sincerity and Coney has been criticised

for not having this quality.

 

To summarise, Judith Coney is not a good authority on the subject of

Sahaja Yoga, having not done an honest job of the research. And she

has a close relationship with Simon Montford, an avowed vilifier of

the movement.

 

Montford's motivation for making edits to this page can also be a

topic for further discussion.

 

Try-the-vibe (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

 

No, the motivations of editors is not a legitimate topic of

discussion. The posting above contains what appear to be aither

unsourced derogatory material on a living person that violate BLP, or

personal attacks on an editor that violate NPA. Either way if they

are repeated the editor who posts them may be blocked. Please focus

on the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:04, 5 December

2007 (UTC)

This is not an attack, it is a legitimate discussion about Conflict

Of Interest. The material I have sourced is not derogatory, it is

historical documentation. Other discussions have been made about

living persons suspected of having a COI, why not an editor of

Wikipedia?

 

A certain editor is not being objective and this is an issue which

affects the quality of this article. While each edit may be

referenced, there is a consistent attempt to present a strongly

negative point of view.

 

Please do not dismiss all the points I have made in my last post.

Calling this a personal attack is just a cheap diversion.

 

Try-the-vibe (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

 

This article talk page exists to discuss the article, not the

editors. As for accusations of COI, it appears that several editors

here may have some interest in SY outside this project. Rather than

delving into the COIs of each editor, I think we'd spend our time

more wisely in discussing the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:38, 5

December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, not that it really matters, ttv is referring to info

from a page on a site that is even condemned by official Sahaja Yoga.

When JC wrote her thesis on which her book was based, I had no

contact with her whatsoever. I did suggest JC as a neutral party who

might be willing to act as administrator for the old sahaja-yoga

, but I was in no position to appoint her. I've never had a

close relationship with JC, never even met her, I've never worked for

LSE and I don't have any websites. At the time JC's book came out,

the only criticism I heard from Sahaja Yogis was that she'd been 'too

objective' which had stopped her from coming round to their way of

thinking. There'd been a similar disappointment many years before

with Phillipa Pullar's book. --Simon D M (talk) 10:33, 5 December

2007 (UTC)

Further for the record, I've just been reminded that when acting as

moderator of the old SY , JC made one or more Sahaja Yogis

temporary moderators giving them access to areas of the

they shouldn't have had access to including private information on

the members.[8] No doubt she thought she was doing no harm, but it

shows that she was very far from doing my bidding and was sympathetic

to SYogis. After several abuses by Sahaja Yogis, she encouraged the

ex-SYs to accept a new Sahaja Yogi moderator, who went on to

vandalise the irretrievably. SahajHist can confirm all

this. I suspect you've never read JC's book, you should get hold of a

copy. It really goes out of its way to be non-judgemental about

SYoga. --Simon D M (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am only drawn to question the motives of a certain editor because

of the highly selective references taken from articles and deliberate

emphasis on exclusively negative points. In short, a certain editor's

agenda needs to be questioned because of the one sidedness of his

prolific contributions resulting in a thoroughly one sided article.

Try-the-vibe (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Again I insist you stop debating motivations and agendas. That is

inappropriate and doesn't improve the article. Let's move on to

discussing the changes in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:33, 6

December 2007 (UTC)

Alright WBB, let's discuss some changes. On the basis of certain

references which have been highly selective with a deliberate

emphasis on exclusively negative points, I request that all further

edits be discussed here on the talk page first. Try-the-vibe (talk)

01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 

 

Just to set the record straight on something that Simon brought up.

 

Simon says he doesn't have any websites. And yet I found the

following on Whois.net:

 

Registrant Name:SD Montford

Registrant Organization:Sahaja Yoga Ex-Members Network

 

In the past, Simon Montford has claimed to be a lecturer at the

London School of Economics in order to make his assertions against

Sahaja Yoga appear credible. Yet, at the time of the allegations he

was in no way, shape or form part of the academic staff of that

institution. The Edinburgh University website currently lists Simon

Montford as a " visiting worker " .

 

For someone who likes to take the moral high ground against a

movement he opposes, this kind of deceptive behaviour is

disappointing. Try-the-vibe (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 

ttv, as I've explained many times, a domain name is not the same as a

website. I've never claimed to have ever worked at LSE in any

capacity, although I did give an unpaid talk at INFORM once. Nor have

I ever worked for Edinburgh Uni in any capacity. Your complaints

against 'unfair accusations' ring a bit hollow after your tirade of

completely unfounded accusations. --Simon D M (talk) 07:43, 6

December 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you expect anyone to take you seriously now. You've

been exposed as a liar and you say " business as usual " .Try-the-vibe

(talk) 11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 

My statements above are clear, produce reliable sources to the

contrary if you can, otherwise lay off the personal attacks which are

off-topic. --Simon D M (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Coming back to the main issue, the problem is that Coney is the only

RS we really have. The article cannot be based primarily on

questionable sources such as a self-published website that is

promotional in nature. --Simon D M (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 

So now you're claiming not to be working at Edinburgh Uni either!

Have you checked their site? Your name is there. The argument that a

domain name is different from a website is really splitting hairs.

The fact that you registered the domain indicates that you are the

founder of the anti-Sahaja-yoga website. In any case, this is common

knowledge.

Having touched on your emotional reasons for having a vendetta, it is

clear that your presence as an editor here on Wikipedia can only be

viewed as your own personal attack on the movement. Personal attack -

get it? You are attacking the movement for personal reasons!

Mentioning this is right on topic of addressing the quality of this

article. I'll lay off when you lay off.

Regarding JConey, it is very convenient for you to call her

investigations objective since they completely coincide with your

POV. However, if they really are objective, she would have described

her own verification of the experience of self realisation,

thoughtless awareness and flow of vibrations. As a student in

sociology her analysis was blinkered and this is what other people

have criticised her for.

Take a look at the history of your posts, Simon and you can see that

the statements above are completely consistent with the way you

operate on Wikipedia. I refer to the listing of references which have

been deliberately sourced to back up your POV, taking sentences out

of context from references in order to express your POV, and the use

of insinuation. You like to pile up negative references into a

paragraph and link them together in order to express your anti Sahaja

Yoga point. And if anyone else creates an effective paragraph which

may be well referenced, I've seen you deconstruct the point by re-

arranging the sentences into other parts of the article. What you do

is sneaky, underhanded and absolutely un-objective.

Try-the-vibe (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Shock! Horror! Another person with my name! Don't confuse the moon

with the finger pointing to it. 'Common knowledge' among Sahaja Yogis

covers a lot of things for which there is no evidence. Here in WP,

evidence matters, and things like (PA removed) --Simon D M (talk)

11:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

By common knowledge I mean amongst anyone who has an interest in

Sahaja Yoga, positive or negative. Your many aliases on the Internet

are also widely known. Try-the-vibe (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2007

(UTC)

 

 

Reverts 2

This edit: [9] removed 4,500 bytes from the article. Please explain

those deletions. Some of the deleted material has been in the article

for a long time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Most of that material has been there for less than one week, and does

not reflect a consensus. The removal of allegations from the list of

other schools has already been explained. There is undue weight given

throughout the article to allegations and material specifically

selected with malicious intentions. Try-the-vibe (talk) 02:00, 6

December 2007 (UTC)

 

The intent doesn't matter, just the outcome. Please bring the

specific deletions you want to make to this page. I'll restore any

deletioons of sourced material that haven't been. That's most of

them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've restored the material except for the list of other schools.

Now which specific items are involved in the undue weight problem?

·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In the above cases, deception is the intent and misrepresentation is

the outcome.

I've taken off the material which was not agreed to by consensus.

Just because it is referenced does not automatically mean it is OK to

add. There are the considerations of undue weight and context, which

must be discussed.

The list of schools is there for reference. It is not a list of

schools with any mud that can be raked up added as a summary about

that school. This is a misrepresentation.

Try-the-vibe (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 

PLease don't make changes without discusing them first. You said

yourself: " I request that all further edits be discussed here on the

talk page first. " Well then, please discus them first. ·:· Will

Beback ·:· 06:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, why do you keep replacing all the edits which were put

there in the last week without consensus? They are the ones that need

to be removed. Do I need to ask you to do it for me?

Try-the-vibe (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 

TTV, it is perfectly acceptable to add material without 1st getting

consensus, see WP:BOLD. After it was removed there has been

discussion on this page along various lines, eg Sfacets suggested

that the Austrian Ministry of Justice's report was inadmissable

because it was a 'report' and because it was produced by the Austrian

state (go figure). We have heard various accusations against JC which

are all unfounded, unsourced and unworthy of repetition. The most

sensible objection has been 'undue weight', but it was based on an

incorrect idea of the meaning of 'majority' and 'minority'. All this

unflattering material is from reliable sources so I think you are

going to have to live with it. If you want to balance it out with

more positive material from reliable, or even self-published,

sources, you are welcome to do so. --Simon D M (talk) 07:53, 6

December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson Monty. So let me see if I've got this straight.

It's OK for you to add anything you like and argue the point

afterwards, reverting my balancing edits. But it's not OK for me to

revert what you do without prior discussion? That sounds a bit one

sided.

 

How about what you did on the main Sahaj page - revert everything

that two other editors did and then immediately call for a moderator

to freeze the page how you like it. Very sly Simon.

 

Consensus is bunk then and you advocate an edit war.

 

I advocate the following. If the Austrian report is unobtainable and

therefore impossible to reference, no one else can check the context

of the quotes you take or even check if you are just making up new

ones.

 

Question about Judith Coney: what has she written about the

experience of meditation in SY? If she was truly objective she should

have at least tried to experience it. The reason you quote her so

much is because she has the same POV as you, and as everyone knows,

you only like to express your POV.

 

So, I need to make a decision now. I need guidance from an

experienced editor. Hmmm... what would Simon do? I know - revert

everything I don't like and ignore everything anyone else says! Try-

the-vibe (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Most of the material I've added has been under discussion for a long

time without any credible argument being made against it. Actually it

was Sfacets who reverted the Sahaja Yoga page and then asked for a

freeze, so you can take up the issue of slyness with him. Citing

reliable sources cited in other reliable sources is standard academic

practice. As I understand it JC did throw herself into SY to a large

extent and had to take measures to ensure this didn't go too far, see

her book for details. The POV expressed in JC's book is neutral, not

the same as the POV I express because I am willing to openly say that

I think SY is mistaken in its fundamental beliefs and that this leads

to various untoward consequences. However, I have not pushed this POV

at all on WP, I've only sought that a fuller picture of SY is

represented including its religious aspects and some of the less

flattering aspects. I too would appreciate advice from more

experienced neutral editors and I have sought it via RfCs etc. --

Simon D M (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because no one answers you within 24 hours, does not give you

the right to just keep on adding quotes from your favourite source

willy-nilly. The history of Sahaja Yoga page is there for all to see

and you were the one who reverted it just before you requested the

moderation, which resulted in the freeze. Your pants must be on fire!

Try-the-vibe (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the facts are publicly available: Sfacets reverted at 14:04,

Sfacets requested block at 15:12, Simon D M reverted at 16:01,

Nishkid64 blocked at 18:00. Sfacets said he was requesting the block

so that discussion could proceed, but since the block went into

effect he's made little effort in that direction, and that's not

solely due to the fact that he's been blocked twice himself due to

unacceptable behaviour. Go figure. --Simon D M (talk) 10:19, 7

December 2007 (UTC)

You called the moderator immediately after you reverted the page. How

many times have you been blocked from Wikipedia yourself? Only just

last week you were banned! Try-the-vibe (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2007

(UTC)

 

Where is the evidence? Blocked once, over 3 weeks ago, for reverting

the removal of notable material from reliable sources. --Simon D M

(talk) 12:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tell it to the judge, simon. Try-the-vibe (talk) 05:00, 12 December

2007 (UTC)

 

 

Rome School

There has been a Sahaja Yoga school in Rome[10] that, according to

Judith Coney, has accepted boarding infants from the age of 2[18]. A

1988 Italian television program surreptitiously filmed children

sleeping 6 to a bed and there has been negative press coverage in Le

Figaro, 16/5/91; Paris Match, 30/1/91 and Marie France, February 1992

[19]. Coney also reported the allegation that " when Swiss parents

protested to Sri Mataji about their children going away from the age

of three, thinking that the command to send their offspring came from

the national leader rather than her, she personally reinforced his

orders and, moreover, ordered them to have no contact with their

children for at least a year. " [20]

 

The above, highly notable and well-sourced, information has been

almost completely removed from the aritcle. I would be interested in

hearing the reasons for doing so. --Simon D M (talk) 08:02, 6

December 2007 (UTC)

 

it closed several years ago. MonitorMan (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2007

(UTC)

Can you produce a source for this? Perhaps an announcement on the

official website with an explanation of why. --Simon D M (talk)

14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

and this article is about the ISPS in India. MonitorMan (talk) 10:05,

6 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but the section was about other SY schools. Maybe the page

should be about the bigger topic of SY and Education or SY and

Children. --Simon D M (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just add the whole book Simon?Try-the-vibe (talk)

12:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 

It's not all relavant and it would be a copyright violation. --Simon

D M (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

you mean like the copyright violations on your SYRC website?

MonitorMan (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got me there, although I've always found it a bit strange that

God should want to hold copyright and receive royalties. --Simon D M

(talk) 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga is provided free of charge. Money is raised from

donations and tapes.

 

Of course, you may know better how God should and should not operate.

(personal attack removed)

Try-the-vibe (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

See the Money page at www.sahaja-yoga.org --Simon D M (talk) 12:48,

11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Sfacets 12:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Simon, that URL has been created to misrepresent Sahaja Yoga. The

owner of the domain is cyber-squatting on the name because it is

similar to the official one. The content is full of insinuation and

inaccuracies. It is the website of one person who attacks the

movement for personal reasons. The owner of the domain is acting out

of revenge for being rejected from the movement because of his own

misdeeds. He typically likes to use the Internet to remain anonymous

in his cowardly claims, and has (PA removed). It hardly needs to be

said that the contents of that website can not be used to back up any

claims for this article. The owner of that domain (PA removed). Try-

the-vibe (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 

WIPO disagreed with you about the cyber-squatting. The webmaster

would be interested in hearing about any inaccuracies. Many have

contributed to the site, that I can tell you. Regarding anonymity,

I'm about the only person here who isn't anonymous. --Simon D M

(talk) 09:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no argument on the similarity of the domain name. Regarding

your name, Simon D M is just one of your aliases. Might not even be

your real name. Try-the-vibe (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Similar domain name reflects similar subject matter. --Simon D M

(talk) 18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Undue weight by minority viewpoints

I have removed the header, since it is misleading regarding the

content placed beneath it. What is the name of the AUstrian report? I

doubt it is " Report on the Sahaja Yoga school " . The article is

extremely unbalanced at the moment, and over-represents minority

viewpoints - critical or not (although Simon apparently would like to

categorize them all as critical). Please stop re-inserting your edits

without obtaining consensus here. Sfacets 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 

I'm not sure how we can call any viewpoint about this subject

the " minority " viewpoint. An overview of all the reliable, 3rd party

sources about this subject shows that all of them are critical. If

there are other 3rd-party sources that we aren't using then please

let's include them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, I've got no problem with you removing the 'Controversy'

heading, I just think there needs to be some heading other

than 'Overview' to cover issues like the beatings. I'll replace it

with 'Concerns' until we can agree a better heading. --Simon D M

(talk) 10:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, there's no heading there now so pick one we can agree on.

And it's plain bad manners to ask for a citation request, then, when

it is fulfilled, delete the labouriously typed text and restore the

citation request (along with the usual deletion of notable material

from the only RS available). --Simon D M (talk) 18:27, 7 December

2007 (UTC)

 

As far as I can see there can be no heading - you have included too

many differing viewpoints. If you want to add a citation, then don't

use that as an excuse to restore unconsensed material. Sfacets 02:42,

8 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Personally I thought " Critics clutching at straws " was pretty good.

Try-the-vibe (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it's currently under 'Overview'. I can't believe

you're happy with that but it's no big deal. --Simon D M (talk)

12:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm prepared to compromise. How about " Overview of critical

references prepared by a rejected ex-member " Try-the-vibe (talk)

01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 

 

" (rmv questionable source - see discussion) " ``

A large amount of sourced information was removed with this summary.

But I don't see any discussion that led to a consensus to remove any

sourced material. Without a consensus we should not be delting

sourced material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Questions have been brought forward, (both here and elsewhere) on the

relevance and reliability of material using J Coney as a source.

Sfacets 10:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

 

I don't see any proof. If bringing forth questions is sufficient to

negate sources then any user could just ask questions and delete

sourced material. There's no consensus that Coney is a biased or

unreliable source. She is well-credentialed and her books are

published by highly respected publishers. Until there's a consensus

here or on the reliable sources notice board then the material should

stay in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

 

She is also a moderator for an attack site against the movement. On

the contrary, until it is established that her work is reliable, her

sources should not be used in the article. Wikipedia is about

verifiability, so if no other author shares her opinions, Coney is a

minority viewpoint, and should be used sparingly, if at all, and only

in conjuncture with otherwise verifiable facts. Sfacets 10:59, 11

December 2007 (UTC)

 

You keep saying that, but you haven't shown a single posting or

action of hers that shows bias. There's no evidence, just your

statement. That's not enough to disqualify a peer-reviewed source

that meets the highest standards of scholarship. If sources disagree

we should include both views, not throw them both out. The only

charge of hers that I've seen a dispute about is whether a parent

said her child came home dirty, which is rebutted by another parent

saying her own child was clean. Where are the sources that dispute

what Coney says? I don't see any. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:16, 11

December 2007 (UTC)

That's not a rebuttal. Different child, possibly a different year,

possibly a different section of the school, possibly a different

standard of cleanliness, etc. --Simon D M (talk) 22:09, 11 December

2007 (UTC)

What? Have you even read WP:BLP? Sfacets 20:03, 11 December 2007

(UTC)

Yes, I've read BLP. Where are the sources that say Coney is biased or

unrelaible? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

By comparison, I note that " questions have been brought forward "

about the reliability and neutrality of Dr. Manocha. His appears to

be a minority viewpoint, and without corroboration from neutral

scientists perhaps his work shouldn't be used. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

12:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a slightly different case because evidence has been brought

forward of Manocha's COI and he makes no disclosure of it. On the

other hand there is no evidence of Coney's COI and Coney goes into

detail in her book about the nature of her stance toward her subject

matter. There is a public archive of Coney's activities on the

vandalised , it's all out in the open. Sfacets' attacks on

Coney are in contravention of WP:BLP and he should remove them. --

Simon D M (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be consensus on the value of a reference. As has been

discussed further above, Coney has not provided an objective analysis

of Sahaja Yoga. Check the reviews of her book on Amazon, most

feedback points out that her analysis is very superficial. As has

been mentioned, she is also an associate of Montford who has a

demonstrably one-sided opinion and only uses her reference to support

his bias. Try-the-vibe (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 

as Judith has herself noted (in an email to myself), her research was

conducted in the early 1990s, and in England. Sahajhist 07:13, 12

December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone needs to remember that WP:BLP applies to article talk pages

and to all living people. Amazon reviews are not reliable sources. I

still haven't seen any proof of this alleged association either. None

of this is sufficient to impeach an otherwise respectable source. ·:·

Will Beback ·:· 08:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Willbeback, will you comment on what I have said. SDMontford is

consistently selecting references which create a strongly negative

slant. Is this something you approve of? Try-the-vibe (talk) 12:25,

12 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Protected

I have protected this article due to the edit warring. Guy (Help!)

18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 

it should be noted that this 'impartial' Admin protected the page

only after the negative material was reinserted by Simon D M. Looks

like legal action against Wikipedia will be needed. What say others?

Sahajhist 21:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Retrieved from

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Sahaja_Public_School "

 

 

 

---------------------------

 

Deceitful Sahajist joins horny, porny Sfacets incivility at Wikipedia

 

User talk:Sahajhist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

CheckUser evidence has confirmed that you have used multiple accounts

abusively, see user:WikiPossum and user:MonitorMan. I would warn you

that any repetition of this behaviour may lead to an immediate block

from further editing. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Sahajhist is my old ID. MonitorMan is my new ID. Sahajhist 13:15, 9

December 2007 (UTC)

I see you've blocked my new ID indefinately so its back to the old

one. Tiresome. Sahajhist 15:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

" Old ID " ? Monitorman began editing on November 19, 2007[1] (by

participating in a thread to which Sahajhist had already contributed

[2]). Since then " Sahajhist " has made 23 edits, not including

today's. Changing usernames is OK, using multiple ones at the same

time in the same articles is not.

 

Sahajhist 12:45, November 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Sahaja Yoga (revert -

really Simon!)

58.109.99.153 14:39, November 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Sahaja Yoga (rvt

(yawn))

WikiPossum 15:04, November 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Sahaja Yoga (rvt -

no yawn)

Please remember that the rule is " one editor, one account " . Please

read and comply with WP:SOCK. Using multiple accounts to participate

in a mediation,[3], to make snide remarks,[4][5], to promote yourself

[6], or to disrupt an RfC[7] is just plain deceitful. ·:· Will Beback

·:· 20:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

 

you have been busy. Do you have a life in the real world? (still

posting as)Sahajhist 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sahajhist "

 

 

Dear self-realized souls,

 

It looks like Sahajist (John Noyce) is as deceitful as Sfacets is

horny and porny. John Noyce has always used multiple IDs to mislead

others - ALWAYS! That is his deceitful way of " loading the dice " in

his favor. He has no qualms about being dishonest as it is not easy

to get caught on the Internet. But folks, he is against guys who are

internet savvy and have tools like CheckUser to nail cheats. And when

Will Beback nailed him John Noyce could only pathetically lash back.

 

i have claimed in previous posts that John Noyce uses multiple IDs to

deceive the unsuspecting. So i will be archiving this Wikipedia

article as evidence of what i have known for years.

 

This whole Sahajist and Sfacets Wikipedia adventure is turning out

into a fiasco. It is a shame that compared to deceitful Sahajist and

horny, porny Sfacets, ordinary folks like Will Beback are acting far

more honestly and morally. How come more than two decades of SY

meditation, footsoaking and treatments cannot rid WCASY approved John

Noyce of such negativity? And what can i say of Sfacets?

 

Just a few days ago on Dec. 5, 2007 John Noyce had the temerity (and

lack of both intelligence and judgment) to defend his horny, porny

pal Sfacets. He sent Violet an email:

 

>

> 2. If you look more carefully at sfacets' bittorrent

> upload page, you'll see that what Jagbir is objecting

> to in his usual colourful language are in fact

> adverts. These adverts have absolutely nothing to do

> with sfacets whatsoever. Check it for yourself. I'd

> say Jagbir needs to apologise for jumping to

> conclusions.

>

 

i waited for nearly a week to positively confirm John Noyce's lack of

both intelligence and judgment about his horny, porny friend Sfacets.

Instead of asking Sfacets to remove his links from the X-rated page

 

http://www.btmon.com/comment_author/sfacets

 

John Noyce is asking an apology from me???!!!! Both John Noyce and

Sfacets do not have the common sense and shame to do what any self-

realized soul would do - remove all links at that X-rated page. As

far as John Noyce is concerned " These adverts have absolutely nothing

to do with sfacets whatsoever. " In other words, those obscene, X-

rated images should in no way reflect on Sfacets or his state of self-

realization. Since that is the case John Noyce, how about advertising

Sahaja Yoga at bittorrent with a nice photo of Shri Mataji? i think

Sfacets has space for that on his page.

 

regards to all,

 

jagbir

 

 

 

>

> Sfacets pokes a spear into Christ's abdomen and taunts the

> Savior: " I am John Noyce's accomplice who also keeps deleting the

> links and am as active as the devil in preventing humanity from

> receiving your message of the Last Judgment. "

>

> Hope that makes your day Sfacets,

>

> jagbir

>

>

> Note: Sfacets, all these posts are being permanently archived at

> http://sahajayoga-shrimataji.org/ so that future generations will

> know exactly what transpired during the winter of Shri Mataji's

> life. As the designated night-soil carrier of Sahaja Yoga i would

> value your opinion and feedback if i am up to task.

>

 

And thanks Sfacets for behaving in an uncivilized manner at Wikipedia

which scores highly in my reports on Sahaj Love. So keep up the good

Sahaja Yoga work you are doing in public with John Noyce. Surely WCASY

will one day share Shri Mataji's Will with both of you .......... or

at least with John Noyce.

 

But it is your horny nature er, ............ i mean porny too, that

disturbs me Sfacets. i know you are a tetesterone-laden 24 year-old

roaming the Melbourne campus for relief, but why do you want us to

watch all these X-rated t*ts, pu**ies and ar**s with you?

 

http://www.btmon.com/comment_author/sfacets

 

Well, that is another feather in your illustrious cap John Noyce. So

when can we expect you and co-author Sfacets to publish " The Kama

Yoga of Sahaja Sutra " ?

 

jagbir