Jump to content

Talk:Sahaja Yoga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Will Beback (talk | contribs) at 11:45, 30 October 2006 (→Removed links and critical material: yes, and the rest?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive
Archives
  1. Oct 2005 - 3 June 2006

Note to anonymous editors

To the anonymous editors, please read the archived discussion(s) to see what has been previously discussed before adding content... and feel free to talk about ways to improve the article. Sfacets 19:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with Sfacets. The medical section has been continually vandalised in recent weeks for no apparent reason. Also, discussion should be signed. sahajhist 7:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This article does not follow WP:NPOV policy. It has bias towards Sahaja Yoga. It is necessary that sites critical of Sahaja Yoga be included in the external links to meet the WP:NPOV policy. --Thomaskmfdm 08:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The article is carefully written in neutral language, and assertions are referenced. sahajhist 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article is written in neutral language and that assertions are referenced, My objection is that the article in its current form does not discuss criticisms of sahaja yoga at all. Links to the pages of critics are also omitted even though the official response to their allegations is included.--Thomaskmfdm 08:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Religious Movements" homepage

The article concerning Sahaja Yoga is outdated (2000), and is not a reliable source, since it states as fact hearsay from other websites. There is no information on the author of the document, we do not know if Tamara L. Clark is in fact a specialist on the subject or just a first year student. Sfacets 06:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed in Sahaja Yoga in the past six years that would outdate an article? Are we holding all links and article authors to the same standard? -Will Beback 07:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sfacets regarding this student-authored page. In response to Will Beback's question, much has changed and is continuing to change within the Sahaja Yoga movement. This is not however the place to discuss those changes. Sahajhist 18.05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an ideal place to discuss changes in Sahaja Yoga. The article doesn't mention them at all. I note that other links also date back many years; if these changes are significant should those links be dropped too? So far as I can tell the Religious Movements page seems thorough and well-researched. Many external links and sources do not list any author - should those be removed too? -Will Beback 10:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other links are apparently primarily official country/center websites, and belong in the article by default-dealing primarily with the general presentation of Sahaja Yoga.

It doesn't matter how well researched the RM page seems, if the author isn't a specialist on the subject, then it cannot be admited as a valid source... Sfacets 13:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an inapproporate standard. The article in question has dozens of footnotes. -Will Beback 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes mean nothing if the conclusions drawn from their study are not made by a specialist...

Sfacets 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in WP:EL that says only links to articles by specialists are permitted. I ask again, how is the article out of date and what changes have occurred in Sahaja Yoga to render it obsolete? -Will Beback 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:EL: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources."

From WP:Reliable sources: "Beware false authority

Look out for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. Web sites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web."

Sfacets 00:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the standard you wish to apply to every link and source? If so, there will be no links, no sources, and no articles. -Will Beback 04:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that a reference dated 1996 was just added. If articles from 2000 are out of date then surely even older articles are also out of date. -Will Beback 05:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous! Academic articles from the medical literature given in the References section, are of permanent use and need to be treated differently from links to webpages based on outdated information and hearsay. Please understand the difference. sahajhist 15.49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Message to Sfacets: please clean up the citation numbering in the Medicine section. Thanks. sahajhist 15.57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What information is outdated? Is it a secret? -Will Beback 06:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sahajhist: Yup on it...
Will Beback: Yes - very secret. I don't know... look it up somewhere! Can't be that hard. Also - There is no Cabal. Sfacets 08:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you two are the ones asserting that these mysterious changes have occurred which render unfavorable links obsolete while leaving older, more favorable articles timely. Unless you can give a better explanation I'd say I'm getting the runaround. -Will Beback 09:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the link is still out according to WP:Reliable sources... Consider this: if Sahaja Yoga is an NRM, started 40 or so years ago, 7 years is a long time - a lot has changed, and as Sahajhist mentioned above, this isn't the place to discuss the changes, rather compile information on the subject... wouldn't know where to begin otherwise. Sfacets 12:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Compile information". Yes, exactly. History is a major part of the information about a group. It's illogical to say that a lot has changed in 7 years, yet the past is irrelevant, that a 10-year old article is still relevant but a 6-year old paper is outdated, and that articles by nameless individuals (also from 6 years ago) that don't site any authorities are better than articles by named individuals who list numerous sources published on an academic website. No one pointed out anything in the "Religious Movements" article that is actually wrong. It appears to me, who knows absolutely nothing about the recent changes, to be detailed and well-researched. Please prove me wrong. -Will Beback 12:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless you can prove that the article was written by an expert, according to Wiki policy the link stays off. What is contested are the conclusions drawn in that article, unverified original research, based on the author's questionable knowledge of the subject.

As for the changes,

Sfacets 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's self-evident that an author who writes such a detailed, fully-researched article is an expert. Therefore the link suffices. There is nothing incorrect about it, it is newer than several other links and sources, and it fulfills the NPOV requirement of including the full range of viewpoints. Thanks for working together to resolve this matter. -Will Beback 13:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any first year could have written the article complete with interpretations and included the long list of sources. It is unverified personal research, inadmissible by Wiki policy. Please read the policy if you are unsure what I am refering to. Thank you, have a nice day. Sfacets 13:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to think that it is written by a first year student - you're just assuming that without evidence. The authority is the "The Religious Movements Homepage Project@The University of Virginia", which is a respected institution.[1] They have an editor and advicsory staff, so the article in question passed through a review process, one of the key requirements for a reliable source. The director of the project is an expert in the field of new religious movements. All of that is sufficient to establish that this is a reliable source. -Will Beback 22:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be sure it did in fact pass through review? It could be nothing more than a collection of freshmen assignments, noted individualy. Or anything. You're just assuming that it went through a review process. Sfacets 01:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question was prepared as a course assignment by an undergraduate student at the University of Virginia in 2000: 

          Created by Tamara L. Clark
          For Sociology 257: New Religious Movements
          Fall Term, 2000

This was compiled as a student assignment being based on web resources available to the student in 2000. It was never intended to be an authoritative summary. If it gets replaced by a newer survey sometime in the future we can revisit the issue. Until then it should not, in my view, be linked to. Sahajhist 13.05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, are the credentials of the other sources for this article? Shall we delete everyone who doesn't have at least a master's degree in comparative religions? Every article older than 5 years? Every article that uses footnotes? We can do that, if you think that we nned to set such high standards. -Will Beback 08:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would greatly help the editing process if editors such as Will Beback would understand the difference between peer-reviewed articles from the medical literature, and an undergraduate student essay. Sahajhist 20.05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is published as part of a well-respected academic project overssen and edited by a PhD with particualr expertise in the topic. -Will Beback 09:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Religious Movements Homepage Project

The particular article, regardless of who wrote it is an apparently official assessment by the Religious Movements Homepage Project. So are Sfacets and Sahajhist attacking the credentials of the project? From the homepage about the project.

Begun nearly a decade ago in conjunction with a course on New Religious Movements that Prof. Jeffrey K. Hadden had taught at the University of Virginia for more than twenty years, the Religious Movements Homepage Project has grown into an Internet resource for teaching and scholarship that is widely acknowledged as among the finest in the world.
The founding editor of the Religious Movements Homepage Project, Jeff Hadden, passed away in 2003. The new editor-in-chef is Douglas E. Cowan, Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Sociology at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Working with an advisory board of internationally recognized scholars of new religious movements, Prof. Cowan will be overseeing the ongoing development of the Web site, and all correspondence regarding the Religious Movements Homepage Project should be directed to him.

Paul foord 14:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT in any way an 'official assessment' as Paul foord asserts - what a ridiculous notion! What we are assessing here is an undergraduate student project from the year 2000. One of many produced on that course at that time. Thats all. And btw, there have been no revisions to the site since mid 2005, probably due to the fact that Assoc Prof. Cowan has moved from Missouri to Canada. The site remains primarily one based on undergraduate student research from the period 1995-2001. Sahajhist 07.53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No one has pointed out any inaccuracies in the article. If there aren't any then I don't see why there's so much resistance to it. -Will Beback 22:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What has been pointed out are the conclusions the author draws based (mainly) on reasearch done on website sources, and what is contested are her credentials to do so, and more importantly the validity of including a link to her study which is questionable. Sfacets 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using websites as sources is not a problem. We do so all of the time. We also do not require specific credentials. These are both strawman arguments. If there are no significant errors in the article then let's include it as it has a lot of nformaiton not represented in other links and sources. -Will Beback 23:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How are they strawman arguments? Your arguments are irrelevant seeing that the claims raised (erroneous or not) in said article are not admissible under WP:Reliable sources. Using websites as sources is not a problem, no - if said websites are in fact a) Official websites dealing specifically with, and about the subject or b) Authored by someone with suitable credentials.

Sfacets 01:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the exact language of WP:RS which rpevents us from using this article as an external link. I am not aware of anything in there which makes works by students, and published by an expert in the field, illegitimate. -Will Beback 03:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentionned above, "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources."

Sfacets 03:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again I ask, what is inaccurate? Where is the original research? What novel conclusions does the author make that are objectionable? -Will Beback 03:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you get it yet? That there are inaccuracies doesn't matter, since the author hasn't been established as a specialist in the area. Going through them one by one would be an absurd waste of time, but you are welcome to cross reference them if you feel like it. Sfacets 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The authot of an external link does not need to be an expert. -Will Beback 05:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am not aware of any original research intha article. Can you point to it? -Will Beback 05:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we come to WP:EL - links to be avoided - "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." Sfacets 05:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so where's the original research in the article? What conclusions of hers are novel and unverified? If you can't point to anything wrong with the article then there's nothing wrong with it. -Will Beback 05:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are unverified by the very fact that we know nothing of the author's qualifications. Check out Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Beware_false_authority specifically "Evaluating Sources". Sfacets 08:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This dicussion is like a merry-go-round and, like that amusing ride, we're not getting anywhere. The carousel of vague reasons why this link is inadmissible includes these objections: we don't know if the information has been verified, the information could have errors in it, we don't know what the qualifications of the author are, the information is out of date, the article has has too many footnotes, and then back around again. But we're going around so quickly that we never focus on any one of them. There's no evidence that the article is actually inaccurate, out of date, unverifiable, or unsupported, but blurry assertions to that effect keep whizzing by. As much fun as this discussion is, I think we need to move it to a new level and probably to a new page (see #External links: practice versus organization). Let's recognize that we're at a momentary impasse here and consider a different, though related, issue below. Perhaps we can get some focus and forward progress on a new track. -Will Beback 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This link, http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sahaja_yoga.html was removed again, with the comment "rmv source by author of unknown credentials (see talk))". As it happens, we don't know the credentials of the authors of any of the weblinks, official or otherwise. If this link is removed again I will remove all the weblinks which don't list the credentials of the authors. -Will Beback 02:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was removed again, sice we still haven't established the credentials of the Author. The other links do not draw conclusions (we have already been through this) about the subject and do not claim authority on the subject. They are informational links. Other links link to medical articles published by medical journals. Sfacets 02:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles which draw conclusions. May I ask what conclusions are drawn by the article in question? I'd furhter note that the credentials of even the author of the medical articels are not apparent. Can you prove that they have expertise in this topic? -Will Beback 20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links: practice versus organization

We have (thanks the hard work of many good editors) two separate articles, Sahaja Yoga and Sahaja Yoga International. One covers a practice or belief system and the other covers an organization. Most of the external links, whether "official" or "critical", pertain more to the organization than the practice. Therefore, I propose we move them to Sahaja Yoga International, leaving only the medical research papers and anything else excluvely relevant to meditation and yoga. -Will Beback 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who has worked extensively on both Sahaja Yoga and Sahaja Yoga International I wish to record my disagreement with this unnecessary proposal. Sahajhist 22.32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, how can there be official yoga sites? The "offficial" websites belong to SYI, right? -Will Beback 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually know what you are talking about? Sfacets 23:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that most of the external links pertain more to the organization rather than the practice of Sahaja Yoga and that moving the official and contested links to the article Sahaja Yoga International while leaving the medical research papers and other relative information on the Sahaja Yoga page, as suggested by Will Beback, is appropriate. If a consensus is unreachable perhaps a seperate page dedicated to criticisms of Sahaja Yoga is necessary.--Thomaskmfdm 07:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...And we should follow your (obviously) biased opinion? The websites link to the practice of Sahaja Yoga in different countries. Sfacets 10:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The initial set of links in this article are by anonymous authors, who have unknown crednetials, etc. Since there is an article about SYI, that is where official websites belong, as well as websites that are critical of the organization. Websites that simply talk about the practice belong here, but must be held to the same standards as other websites. -Will Beback 16:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those links don't require credentials - they are Sahaja Yoga sites & make no new claims, and are not writing a critical essay on the subject or drawing any conclusions. All of the international sites deal with the practice of Sahaja Yoga meditation, as opposed to the organisational side of the SYI organisation. Sfacets 21:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are, in fact, offical SYI sites and so they really should be in the SYI article. The practice, like any proactice (mediation, confession, stretching) has no "official" sites. Furthermore, I don't believe we should have a long list of non-English sites. This Wikiepedia is for English speakers, so the links should be in that language. -Will Beback 01:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. Under Wikipedia's External link policy, foreign language sites are to be avoided; also, Wikipedia is not a link directory. Further, most of these sites appear to have commercial intent, and little or no useful info. Note that external links should be to sites that contain "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". Most of the info from these sites that is not already in the article can and should be added, and the links ommitted. -- Mwanner | ][[User talk:Mwanner|Talk] 01:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the comment about 'commercial intent'. The other comments have merit, and I have therefor trimmed the links section, excluding non-English sites, and limiting English sites to major ones only. Sahajhist 11:56, 10 October (UTC)

Mwanner - Where do you see commercial intent? Also the links link to sites with relevant information with regard to the practice of SY in the respecrive countries. Agree with 'trimming' the non-essential sites. Sfacets 02:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Major sites"? How does a site that is "under construction" count as a major site? How does a biography of the founder (when we already have an internal bio) help tell readers about the practice of SY? -Will Beback 20:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The founder of Sahaja Yoga (for obvious reasons) plays an important role in the historical development of SY. I have removed the under contruction site, but I see no reason for there not to be a link towards a biographical site that complements both 'the founder's' and SY practice. Sfacets 22:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have a link to the founder's biography in the first paragraph. External links about her should go in that article. -Will Beback 23:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Someone has been going around and creating multiple articles about Sahaja Yoga-related activities, but I do not believe that each of these is deserving of separate articles, so I recommend that they all be merged into Sahaja Yoga. Specifically:

Does anyone have an opinion on the matter, or know of additional articles which should be included? --NovaSTL 10:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


That someone was probably me. They all deserve independant mention, Yuvashakti (as a stub) still needs information on the Rajiv-Yuvashakti programme [2] (of which I know nothing about, so cannot add). Vishwa Nirmala Prem, as an NGO deserves mention (it is a newly created stub, sources and more info are forthcoming). International Sahaja Public School, has been the subject of many articles and sources, and SYI (see afd debate). Sfacets 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I note that similar subjects, like Transcendental Meditation cover both the practice and the organization in the same article. -Will Beback 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because TM has a veriety of practices such as Maharishi_Vedic_Medicine and Maharishi_Vedic_Science which branch from the TM organisation. If you want to think of it that way, SYI could be considered a branch of SY (or vice-versa).

Sfacets 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just the point, I think. SYI doesn't promote any other practices than SY, and SY is only promoted by SYI. That's why there's no need for separate articles. -Will Beback 21:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't the point, because (as is mentionned on the SYI article) SYI coordinates different projects such as a hospital, NGO etc. Sfacets 05:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yuvashakti is an term used internally within Sahaja Yoga, not externally. So I agree with deletion. The other three entries have merit as independent entities. Sahajhist 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a single source listed for Yuvashakti. Unless we can find some reliable sources (which apparently have to be written by graduate students within the last three years) then the article should probably be stubbed or merged. -Will Beback 05:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvashakti is a term being used more and more frequently, and not just in Sahaja Yoga, but also in India. Do a search. Sfacets 05:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the authors of the article to provide the references. -Will Beback 06:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering to content, not sources. Sfacets 08:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever you meant it is still the case that the article is totally unreferenced. As you know, unsourced material may be removed. -Will Beback 09:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have since added sources... what part of the article in unsourced? Sfacets

BBC program

I have moved the reference that "Sahaja Yoga is manipulative and has broken up families" which is one editor'stake on the broadcast to the link section to avoid influencing the reader. Sfacets 21:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this link be more relevant to Sahaja Yoga International and Nirmala Srivastava?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)

Sahaja Yoga International

Anyone know what happened to the text of this entry? If the cryptofascists on the Wikipedia board want to delete a long-standing entry there's nothing mere mortals can do (obviously) but the text should have been merged into the Sahaja Yoga entry BEFORE deletion. Anyone know the official complaints procedure? Maybe a WikipediaWatch blog should be started... Sahajhist 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. Please don't call your fellow editors names. -Will Beback 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask nicely, I'm sure an administrator would be happy to make the deleted text available. -Will Beback 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a personal attack, notice the plural form of "cryptofascist". Sfacets

Enjoy your games guys - I'm returning to the real world. Sahajhist 00:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To whom was the comment directed? -Will Beback 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the flowers and the bees, and the trees (and maybe to the possums, they feel left out sometimes, poor things). Sfacets 00:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those are "on the Wikipedia board"? Whatever, please act in a civil manner. -Will Beback 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a beautiful day. Dont let it slip away... JoeldeM 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content and invalid sources

I removed unaacked content/content backed by invalid sources, including the link discussed in detail above, as well as links to websites that 1) Didn't back the claim and 2)Are biased sources. Sfacets 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biased sources are allowed. Otherwise none of the "pro" sites would be allowed. How are the sources otherwise invalid? -Will Beback 00:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Biased external links are allowed. You can't use those links to back up claims made by Dr. so and so. Sfacets 01:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't external links, they're sources. Can we establisht the lack of bias of every source now in the article? -Will Beback 03:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sources critical of Sahaja Yoga should be restored. Sources whcih are critical of Sahaja Yoga are not invalid links. Organizations involved with Sahaja Yoga are biased in favor of Sahaja Yoga. Should we also remove these biased sources? --Thomaskmfdm 11:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a confusion here between sources and external links. Sources, by definition need to be unbiased to back a fact, whereas external links are 'allowed' to be biased so long as they adhere to WP:EL policy. Sfacets 11:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every source is biased in some way. Even the New York Times is biased. The view here seems to be that any source (or external link) which is critical of the subject is unacceptable. This is a strong case of Wikipedia:Ownership. Unless reasonable criticism is allowed we may need to seek further dispute resolution. -Will Beback 19:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however the NYT source is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Other websites may not be so reliable. Nobody is censoring reasonable criticism - but you've got to find that reasonable criticism, so that it conforms to either WP:EL or Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Sfacets 22:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu" is used as a reliable source in dozens of Wikipedia articles. Yet it has been repeatedly removed from this article with a variety of spurious reasons. -Will Beback 23:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spurious reasons? Knowing wether or not the source is valid is spurious? Just because it is used in other Wikipedia articles doesn't make it a valid source. Sfacets 23:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the reasons have include that it is outdated, but with no explanation of what material is obsolete, that it has too many footnotes, that it was written by an undergraduate, etc. None of those are legitimate reasons to remove a reliable source. At the same time supportive websites have been kept that are just as old, that are anonymous, that show bias towards the subject, and that themselves cite no sources. That is a double standard. -Will Beback 23:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I seem to recall sources being removed because they weren't up to standards, since they didn't reliably back up information. Fair enough. The very reason that link was removed was because doubts were raised on it's validity as a reliable source. You need to disambiguate between external links and sources - these are not the same thing. None of the 'supportive websites' are being used to back controversial content. How do they show bias? Sfacets 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a catalog of the removal of critical links and text from the article over the past year, usually with no edit summary and sometimes with misleading edit summaries.

  • [3]
  • [4] (Removed irrelevant links (please see discussion page for reasons)
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7] (Removed Uni of Virginia link, because, as you say, it in no way refers to Sahaja Yoga as a cult or sect.)
  • [8] removed links to Rick Ross institute website (see talk page)
  • [9] removed links to Rick Ross institute website (see talk page)
  • [10]
  • [11] (removed irrelevant and misleading link)
  • [12]
  • [13]
  • [14]
  • [15]
  • [16]
  • [17]
  • [18]
  • [19]
  • [20]
  • [21]
  • [22]
  • [23]
  • [24]
  • [25] rm unsourced example
  • [26]
  • [27]
  • [28]
  • [29] revert
  • [30] revert
  • [31] revert to reinstate medical text + refs
  • [32]
  • [33] deleted old webpage
  • [34] rvt - I think he meant outdated - see talk
  • [35] rmv link to unverfified personal research - author has not been established as an expert.
  • [36] (WP: Words to avoid, change POV sentencing remove uneeded reference (what does it reference?))
  • [37] (Potentially libellous comments deleted)
  • [38] Cleanup + remove sentence with faulty link to Audiostream that doesn't work
  • [39] rmv source by author of unknown credentials (see talk)
  • [40] (revert - see talk)
  • [41] (Integrated content from SYI)
  • [42] deletion of unproven defamatory statements
  • [43] restore external link structure.
  • [44] rmv unsourced and potentially libellous comments
  • [45] rmv invalid sources, see talk.
  • [46] rmv link per WP:EL "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research"

The reasons given for removing the "Religious Movements" article, in summaries and on this page include:

  • deleted old webpage
  • rvt - I think he meant outdated - see talk
  • rmv link to unverfified personal research - author has not been established as an expert.
  • rmv invalid sources, see talk.
  • ...outdated (2000), and is not a reliable source, since it states as fact hearsay from other websites. There is no information on the author of the document, we do not know if Tamara L. Clark is in fact a specialist on the subject or just a first year student
  • It doesn't matter how well researched the RM page seems, if the author isn't a specialist on the subject, then it cannot be admited as a valid source...
  • Actually the link is still out according to WP:Reliable sources... Consider this: if Sahaja Yoga is an NRM, started 40 or so years ago, 7 years is a long time - a lot has changed, and as Sahajhist mentioned above, this isn't the place to discuss the changes, rather compile information on the subject...
  • Well unless you can prove that the article was written by an expert, according to Wiki policy the link stays off.
  • How can you be sure it did in fact pass through review? It could be nothing more than a collection of freshmen assignments, noted individualy. Or anything. You're just assuming that it went through a review process.
  • It was never intended to be an authoritative summary.
  • This is NOT in any way an 'official assessment' as Paul foord asserts - what a ridiculous notion! What we are assessing here is an undergraduate student project from the year 2000. One of many produced on that course at that time. Thats all.
  • What has been pointed out are the conclusions the author draws based (mainly) on reasearch done on website sources, and what is contested are her credentials to do so, and more importantly the validity of including a link to her study which is questionable.
  • That there are inaccuracies doesn't matter, since the author hasn't been established as a specialist in the area. Going through them one by one would be an absurd waste of time, but you are welcome to cross reference them if you feel like it.
  • They are unverified by the very fact that we know nothing of the author's qualifications.
  • Yes, it was removed again, sice we still haven't established the credentials of the Author. The other links do not draw conclusions (we have already been through this) about the subject and do not claim authority on the subject. They are informational links.
  • I removed unaacked content/content backed by invalid sources, including the link discussed in detail above, as well as links to websites that 1) Didn't back the claim and 2)Are biased sources.
  • Biased external links are allowed. You can't use those links to back up claims made by Dr. so and so.

I believe that some editors here have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, that they are exhibiting Wikipedia:ownership, that they are not following the principles described in Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest, and that they are not editing in good faith. Virtually every critical remark or website about this topic has been repeatedly removed. It is incumbent on the regular editors of this article to insure that it is NPOV, which requires including balanced criticisms. By systematically removing all they have made it impossible to to have an NPOV article. -Will Beback 03:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far you have been unable to verify your sources, or provide any relevant argument on why these sources should be kept. Most of the edits above either explain why they were removed, or direct the reader to the talk page where discussions are/were being held on whether or not they should be included. If you feel the need to include critical sources, please follow Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and WP:EL. Your own obstinate disregard for Wiki policy seems more apparent, because you haven't even been able to justify why the sources should be maintained per aforementioned policy(ies), and have persistently hammered your own views on the matter (ie that the links should be included) even when it is apparent that you are alone in this view, have been unable to justify yourself per wiki policy (other than attacking editors per Wikipedia:ownership), and seem unable to contribute the the article in a collaborative manner. Sfacets 03:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken that I am alone in supporting this link. If you read over this very talk page you'll see there are more editors supporting this link than opposing it. Will you participate in mediation to resolve this issue? -Will Beback 05:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


These are weblinks, either sources or external links, that have been deleted, most repeatedly, from this article.

None of these are usable in any way? -Will Beback 07:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify which ones you would consider using as sources (and to back which statements) as well as which ones you would use solely as external links?

Sfacets 07:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They've pretty much all been deleted from both positions, indicating that you, Sahajhist, or others find them unacceptable. Again, are none of these usable as either sources or external links? -Will Beback 17:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ok:

The only links from those above that seem reliable, would be the BBC radio program, the article from the Independant, and freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga, but then again, it depends how you would use them, as External Links, or as sources? The last link for example is not admissible as a source for eg.

I think we have already been over why the http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sahaja_yoga.html article isn't a relable source.

Have I missed any? Sfacets 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Independent article and the freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga (AKA /www.sahaja-yoga.org) site are legitimate sources why have they been removed repeatedly? Could Sahajhist please comment? He's been an active deletionist as well. We need to come up with a stable set of links that can be used so that these constant deletions don't keep recurring.
I'm glad we're working towards consensus. -Will Beback 00:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sfacets 05:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How about these? The first was added and then deleted by you:
Is user:Sahajhist active? I'm hoping we can find a consensus here and he was doing some of the deleting. -Will Beback 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the possums. They'll know. JoeldeM 05:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. No idea. WikiPossum 08:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will Beback's suggestions seem to be all circa 2000. Is there nothing more recent? WillNotBeBack 05:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Nuts" and "Kooks" are just the beginning, as I mentioned. Check out the photo gallery for an example of what I mean.

Evening Standard - London July 18, 2001 - As I mentioned, this was being used inappropriately as a source(read up). According to WP:EL and WP:Reliable Sources, links should not be posted to websites containing original unverified research. http://members.tripod.com/toutsursahajayoga/origins.htm is exactly that.

http://www.lifepositive.com/spirit/new-age-catalysts/nirmala-devi/nirmala.asp This doesn't realy add to any content posted as yet, I was planning to use it as a source when I add more content (which I plan on doing soon)
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/devot/sahaja.html - Unverified original research, author unknown
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/images/SahajaYoga_tcm68-21070.pdf - who was this written by?

Sfacets 06:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we don't require our sources to be verified, nor do we require known authors if the material is published by an established organization. The "INFORM" pamphlet (the PDF) is published by Eileen Barker's group. Barker is an expert on the field of new religious movements. So you will accept the Lifepositive site as a source? What is the problem with the Evening Standard? How do we know it's a disreputable newspaper? -Will Beback 09:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Barker is certainly an academic expert in the field of new religious movements, but her use of INFORM as an anti-NRM service has been controversial. That INFORM pdf you quoted seems to be undated. Sahajhist 09:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's dated March 4 2005. Do you agree with the discussion that Sfacets and I have had up to this point? Let's get out all of our objections now and get a consensus on which links are acceptable. -Will Beback 10:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cant seem to find that date you mention in the pdf. Can you guide me to it please? Sahajhist 10:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in the text. When I load the file into Acrobat reader I check the "document properties" under the "file". Are the other sources acceptable, as agreed to by Sfacets? -Will Beback 11:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sahaja_Yoga&oldid=84602875"