Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 5

The hand/head picture chart

Personally Sethie doesn't see the need for having this in an encyclopedia article, and if it stays in, Sethie proposes we move it to under the practices section- so at least it has some connection to the article.

However, Sethie's vote is to remove it. Sure it looks cool and what does it add? Sethie 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The ability to feel 'sensations' corresponding to the different chakras on hands and head are an integral part of SY meditation, and therefore essential to the article. This would not be a part of the pratices, rather would belong in the chakra section since it is related to the chakras rather than the accompanying practices... ˜˜˜˜

That's good to know that this idea is core and it would be nice to have a source for that. Let's include it in the article if it is the case! and give it more emphasis. However, the question remains, does having a picture of the places where the imbalances are and whcih chakra they correspond to encylopediac? Sethie 01:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If feeling sensations is an integral part of this subject then we should mention it more fully in the article. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have waited over a month for anyone to say why they feel the hand/chart helps the article and have heard no response. Removing. Sethie 17:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The chart visualises section "Position on head and hands", it should be restored and more explanation may be added that feeling sensations and knowing this chart is indeed the integral part of Sahaja Yoga practice. --Ajvanari 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What's our source for it being integral? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Any Sahaja Yogi can confirm that. This information can also be found on the official website: http://sahajayoga.org/chakrasandsubtlebody/ --Ajvanari 19:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I see they are mentioned, but I don't see that they are called "integral", or even given a primary place in the linked article. Also, are the chakra placements in SY different from standard chakra placements? If they are standard then we should cover this in the Chakra article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Chakra article the chakra placements may be added sourcing SY teaching, as I'm not sure if they are same to traditional study of chakras and if they were described before SY at all. As for them being integral to SY, the "Chakras" section of the presentation, and especially the last paragraph (starts with "The chart will help you to interpret your sensations....") specifically explains sensations being important in SY. --Ajvanari 21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes it seem more like a minor detail rather than a major tenet. A problem with these chakra charts is that they tend to overwhelm the text. Can we simply describe what's important about the information? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand Will's point about how much detail should be in the article; however the location of the chakras on the hands, head (and the limbs, feet also) are an important part of the diagnostic aspects of Sahaja Yoga meditative practice. I vote for restore. Sahajhist 12:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If they are integral, I would like to see them idea mentioned in the article, and as of yet, I have not heard a single reason why the charts should go in the article..... Sethie 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, there are two separate questions. One is whether the sensations and chart are integral to SY, which is an easily verifiable fact, not a POV, anyone can visit any SY center in any part of the world and the first thing you'll be introduced to is how to feel sensations with your hands ("vibrations") followed by explanation which finger sensations correspond to which chakra. This is absolutely integral to SY and any public SY program will feature the chart (which, though, will likely be closer to the one already included in the top of the article).
The other question is whether this particular image is needed in the proposed place, here I will leave it to others, but I wouldn't see a problem if it went to the practice section, cause after all this is practice, as opposed to theory.--Ajvanari 22:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of the hand centres to 'diagnose' the chakras in the body is a major part of SY. If it seems that the information is overwhelming the article, perhaps a new article should be created for the sole purpose of oitlining/describing the chakra system in SY... Sfacets 07:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I was disapointed to see you reinstered the charts.... your edit summary says "See discussion" but you make no mention of doing so in your discussion. The discussion here was leaning away from including them.

Please respond to one of these before re-adding:

However, Sethie's vote is to remove it. Sure it looks cool and what does it add? Sethie 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are integral, I would like to see them idea mentioned in the article, and as of yet, I have not heard a single reason why the charts should go in the article..... Sethie 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Sethie 18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning behind re-inserting the charts was that you had removed them because there was no further discussion, a situation that has since changed... I believe that I did answer your questions (and so did other editors above):

"::The use of the hand centres to 'diagnose' the chakras in the body is a major part of SY. If it seems that the information is overwhelming the article, perhaps a new article should be created for the sole purpose of oitlining/describing the chakra system in SY... Sfacets 07:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That there is not yet much mentionned in the section about the place this system holds in SY is more to do with the section being incomplete rather than the system not being an integral part of SY... Sfacets 19:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say you re-inserted them based on innacurate mind reading!

I removed them not because there was no discussion, but because there was and is still no real discussion of why the charts themsleves should go in. No one is disputing mentioning the use of the charts. And, no one has, as of yet, made a single arguement or given a single reason for the inclusion of the actual charts.

Look if you think it'll make a better article to have the charts- I am open, tell me! "The charts are very important to SY" doesn't convince me one iota that there inclusion would make a better article! It convinces me that we need more info about the charts. Sethie 05:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Charts, again

Long version: To Sfacets and Sahajist

For over TWO MONTHS, I have tried to engage in dialogue about whether the charts would make a better article or not. Neither of you have replied and merely ignored my queries and attempts at dialogue and stuck them back in.

You have said, "Oh it is important to Sahaj Yoga" but have failed to address why it is important to THIS ARTICLE.

I have no opinion on Sahaj Yoga and here I am wasting my time trying to discuss things with two very obviously biased editors. I have asked three or four times, "How does this make a better article" and your only replies have been to reinsert the pictures.

Either engage in dialogue or leave this page. Seriously.

Talk or leave. And I mean actual talk.

Wikipedia is based on creating concensus, not people dropping by and shoving stuff into articles and then disapearing or not addressing concerns.

I have been extremely paitent and given A LOT of time to answer my concerns with this.

I would ask both of you to review WP:CON and actually dialogue about this. To quote myself: Look if you think it'll make a better article to have the charts- I am open, tell me! "The charts are very important to SY" doesn't convince me one iota that there inclusion would make a better article! It convinces me that we need more info about the charts.

I am open. Let's talk. Otherwise, please leave.

I don't like to go around reverting edits, however I have given you TWO months to give a reason for their inclusion. I am still opposed to it, and since you have given ZERO reason for their inclusion, on this page, the current concensus is 1-0.

Come on Sfacts you're an admin, I expected better of you. Sethie 17:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Short version: I am not going to be have my concerns ignored by two people with a clear POV who aren't willing/able to discuss my concerns. Participate or leave. I am open to changing my position about their inclusion/exclusion. I am not open to my concerns not being respectfully addressed, by two editors who are members of the organization of the article we're discussing! Sethie 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly here for the long term. And for the record, I agree with WillBeBack's attempted compromise. And btw Sethie, if you must undo yet again, please take care to leave other edits in place. [[User:sahajhistsahajhist]] 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Without even reading what you wrote, thank you for showing here on the talk page. Sethie 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You know I saw that I would be undoing another edit or two and I did feel regret about that. I might have been a bit more cautious under different circumstances. 23:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

as Sfacets added the charts, I'll leave the two of you to interact. My comments remain as above. sahajhist 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The 16 gunas (attributes) of a Guru ?

Greetings ! I just want to know What are the 16 gunas (attributes) that one qualify in order to be considered a true guru (Satguru) ? Thank you.

This isn't a general discussion page, just a place to discuss this article. However you might find some relevant information in our articles on Guna and Satguru. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Dispute over whether or not to include hand/head diagnosis charts inside the article as shown in this version [[1]]

Brief statement by involved parties

This version [[2]] looks to me like an article not for describing or explaing about the group, but as a means of expressing and sharing the actual information and practices of the group. I have asked for a reason for the inclusion of the hand/head chart for two months and have recieved no answer, other then the continued re-insertion of the charts, by two Sahaja Yoga practitioners! They assert that it is very important to the tradition but have added no further information (other then the charts) I am wondering if the chakra chart needs to be taken out as well? Sethie 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The article does not share the 'practices of the group', rather is presents practices that the group would like to be publicly associated with it. One of the most important practices of the group - the worship of Shri Mataji - is completely left out. This is a far more significant aspect of the group than charitable activities for example. --Simon D M 15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

This is a sharing of spiritual Knowledge and how and when the information needs to be conveyed is best judged by the parishioners. Not all the practices can be expressed in words. for e.g. when Hanuman opens his heart and you see Sri Ram in his heart. Opening a heart can not be expressed in words , It has to be felt and whatever is written takes you to the level where you can feel and know the truth from your inner spirit. This Text are just to accelerate to know the truth .Thanks for pointing out but leave it to the practitioners what to include and what not to include. (King_48141) My primary concern as an editor is with the text of this article (which I believe currently to be a reasonable consensus view). I have no view on inclusion of the charts per se. Certainly these charts are available elsewhere on the web for those interested in practising this meditation. sahajhist 23:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I created the diagrams/charts because editors brought up the fact that while there is information on Sahaja Yoga as an organisation there is little/no information on the meditation practice. A while back the article was split into two, one being "Sahaja Yoga International" - describing the organisational part of the movement, and the other being "Sahaja Yoga" describing the Meditation itself.

The real issue then seems to be whether we want/need to include information on the meditation - and if this doesn't fit into the article then perhaps we need to separate the article again perhaps keeping this one and creating another one such as "Chakras (Sahaja Yoga).

Apologies to Sethie if he feels that his points were not taken notice of - busy times :) Sfacets 07:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Statments by uninvolved parties

• The article does look a bit odd as it is. The top of it looks like an extension of their literature department and at the end of the article there's a bunch of critism. Head of gold and feet of clay. Perhaps the article should show a sample or two of the type of pictures, only as thumbnails on the article, that one would likely encounter should one visit their website but more than that just turns it into a text book IMHO. It needs more outside-looking-in perspective. Regards Bksimonb 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be an idea to include some of the so-called 'miracle photos' that are used in Sahaja Yoga as evidence of Mataji's divinity, although critics claim they are just poorly taken photos. You can see a long list here: http://imageevent.com/sahaja/miraclephotos --Simon D M 17:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the head/hand charts are too specific for an encyclopedia article. The article without them provides enough information for people to become aware that the topic is a meditation exercise related to chakras. Those interested in learning the details of all that is involved, how the meditation works, the complete theory behind it, etc., can follow a link to sites that are dedicated to providing this information in full. At issue is not the value of the meditation, nor whether the diagrams are essential to understanding it, but simply the limitation that "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook." For comparison, look at the article on "Slapping" (electric bass technique), "rock climbing," and "database design," each of which articles is not a tutorial, but does include links to at least one tutorial site. VisitorTalk 08:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

so... Sfacets 05:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, I appreciate your appology.

Yes, I was frustrated at repeating what seemed an essential question and not getting an answer to it and seeing action being taken without addressing that question.

And as of yet, no one has responded to my question!!!!!

You say, "The real issue then seems to be whether we want/need to include information on the meditation - and if this doesn't fit into the article then perhaps we need to separate the article again perhaps keeping this one and creating another one such as "Chakras (Sahaja Yoga)." I hear that for you this is the real issue.

For me, it isn't an issue at all. I have added some information about the techniques and would welcome more of such. So to respond to your concern, I would welcome more information about all the different techniques.

As for my conerns.....

Would you please re-read:

"Dispute over whether or not to include hand/head diagnosis charts inside the article as shown in this version 24

[edit] Brief statement by involved parties

This version 25 looks to me like an article not for describing or explaing about the group, but as a means of expressing and sharing the actual information and practices of the group. I have asked for a reason for the inclusion of the hand/head chart for two months and have recieved no answer, other then the continued re-insertion of the charts, by two Sahaja Yoga practitioners! They assert that it is very important to the tradition but have added no further information (other then the charts) I am wondering if the chakra chart needs to be taken out as well? Sethie 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)"

And in your own words re-state what you hear me expressing concern over? Sethie 06:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"...This version 25 looks to me like an article not for describing or explaing about the group, but as a means of expressing and sharing the actual information and practices of the group"

I read what you wrote and proposed a solution, which was to create a new article which would encompass both the practices and beliefs in Sahaja Yoga - I gather that your concern is that there is no accompanying text explaining the charts - and that you also do not see the relevance of said charts in the context of the article. For that reason I suggested creating a new article which would go into depth describing the beliefs of the group. The reason (probably, I can't really remember - this was a while back) that I didn't include an accompanying passage to the diagrams/tables was because the article, as Bksimonb says, looks "odd"- possibly because there are parts, as you pointed out, that don't quite fit into the article. So my proposition stands: create a new article "as a means of expressing and sharing the actual information and practices of the group". Hope this clarifies my position - I don't believe the charts are "too specific for an encyclopedia article" as VisitorTalk suggests, but concede that they probably are for this article. Sfacets 09:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"I read what you wrote and proposed a solution, which was to create a new article which would encompass both the practices and beliefs in Sahaja Yoga - I gather that your concern is that there is no accompanying text explaining the charts"

nope.

"and that you also do not see the relevance of said charts in the context of the article."

sorta close, and nope.

Hence your solution doesn't address my concerns and I don't feel like we're actually have a discussion.... a feeling which is becoming very familiar on this particular topic Sfacets.

I will try and make it really clear:

I do not see how having the actual charts in ANY article is encyclopediac and/or makes a better article. sadly, Sethie 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not? It shows the beliefs of the group, doesn't it? As I said.Sfacets 21:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the RfC I posted you would see some reasons I posted "Why not," however I am becoming more and more skeptical that you are really reading what I write here.

Never mind. I'll just let the concensus from the RfC decide this, enough attempts at dialogueing with you. Sethie 21:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess you'll just have to assume good faith. Sfacets 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about charts

For the 500th time will you just freaking answer this question: Why does having the actual charts, in ANY article make a better article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethie (talk • contribs).

IMHO, we're on dangerous ground if we're going to continually remove each other's comments from this page. That said, I agree with Will that comments should be confined to edits wherever possible. Sahajhist 22:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the charts (with modifications to size/formating), since it appears that no consensus has been reached here for their removal. Sfacets 01:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're joking?

No, you're not, you did it.

Me, who doesn't care about Sahaja Yoga, two disinterested people come here via the Rfc say no. You, a Sahaja Yogaist, say yes, without any justification, despite my continious asking for one......

If you see this as "no concensus" or worse- the above response as reason for inclusion, maybe it's time you remove yourself from this article for awhile. Sethie 01:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like mediation is our next step here. Sethie 01:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you removed the charts before any consensus was reached to do so. I have responded as best I could to your none-too specific questions, and yet you failed to accept any of my answers, instead choosing to "shout" out your exasperation [3], perhaps because you decided that you didn't like my answers. A month later, still no concensus reached, I re-insert the charts (which shouldn't have been taken out in the 1st place) and preto! along comes Sethie to remove them again. If there was no COI in the 1st place, there definitely was the second time.

I am still waiting for concensus for the charts to removed, and suggest you do the same. Sfacets 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There was never a consensus to include the charts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have filed for a mediation.

If 3 people who are not involved with a group vs one who is (and btw who made/reformated/put work into the image in question!) doesn't seem like a clear consensus to you- then we are speaking a different language and need someone to help us bridge this language barrier. Sethie 04:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

this talk page is getting awfully long. Can someone do the necesssary please? Sahajhist 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The archive of previous discussions can now be found here. Sfacets 04:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality notice

It seems to me that substantial progress has been made in recent months in achieving an article that reflects the diverse perspectives of the regular editors, and indeed the text has been stable for some months now. Therefore I propose removing the 'neutrality' notice at the top of the main article. Any comments? Sahajhist 03:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything significant that needs attention and so I endorse removing the tag. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would propose replacing the neutrality notice. Indeed, this article is designed by sahaja Yoga practicioners as it doesn't even mention that in several countries, including France, this is considered to be a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.136.97.42 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WillBeBack is not a Sahaja Yoga practitioner; the French government report you refer to has been significantly modifed; and signed comments are prefered here. Sahajhist 15:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the neutrality notice return. The article needs to give a more complete picture of Sahaja Yoga including the religious aspect. --Simon D M 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are specific issues you think need to be addressed, then you may list those here and restore the tag. It was removed because there were no active discussions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this as an example. CP is not entitled to use the title Sir because he is not a citizen of one of the 16 Commonwealth realm countries (not the same as Commonwealth countries) , see Wikipedia entry on Sir for moreInfo. He is an honorary knight (see List of honorary British Knights). Commonwealth realm countries recognise the British monarch as their head of stata - not the case with India. These are the facts yet they won't stick to this page. Even the article cited by SFacets contradicts his position by stating "honorary members and clergymen do not use the accolade of knighthood". --Simon D M 09:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep that discussion at Talk:Chandrika Prasad Srivastava#"Sir". Are there other issues related to this article that we can address here? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the religious element of Sahaja Yoga is seriously underplayed. Mrs Srivastava formed a new religious movement and proclaimed herself to the the Adi Shakti - the Supreme Goddess. Sahaja Yogis travel across the globe just for the chance to worship her as such, or as one of the other 'deities' (eg Krishna, Christ, etc) which are seen as aspects of her. Sahaja Yoga has always been shy of outwardly proclaiming their true beliefs, and try to draw people in with more palatable presentations of Sahaja Yoga, for example as stress relief. Take for example their corporate training spin-off CEL: http://www.evolutionary-learning.org/html/about_us.html . A concerted effort to hide religious elements, let alone millenarian aspects (Mataji is seen as the Comforter/Holy Ghost/Golden Lady - Mother of the Second Christ/Kalki). This article is much the same - with only a few stray references to the religious element. The one website to openly espouse the Religious/Millenarian aspects - http://www.adishakti.org/ - is relegated to the "Critical Sites" section. Thus, by it's focus on the publicly palatable face of SY, this article points the reader away from what Sahaja Yoga really is. This is great for Sahaja Yoga, but not really the aim of Wikipedia.--Simon D M 10:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Saint Joseph of Arimathea, this is great and all, however do you have any sources to back your claims? Original Research isn't admissible here. Sfacets 12:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Which of the things I have said are you saying needs a source? Presumably you can accept that Mataji formed an NRM. The fact she has proclaimed herself to be the Adi Shakti is well known to you, and can be seen from her own words quoted at www.adishakti.org and http://www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/divaquote.htm . See a picture of Mataji being worshipped as Krishna on this page: http://www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/ritestxt.htm which explains the puja circuit that you must know about. What is it exactly you are objecting to?--Simon D M 13:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you criticizing? Sfacets 14:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See above. Sahaja Yoga is not just a meditation technique associated with a charitable organisation. It has a theology, rites of worship, liturgy, soteriology, eschatology, etc. All these are skipped over in the article in favour of the bland and publicly palatable. At the very least a section on beliefs is necessary and a section on practices in which meditation is only a prominent sub-section. The Food section could be another subsection. --Simon D M 14:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that some of the material on the meditation and the practices is now in Sahaja Yoga meditation. If you have sources for the material you mention then we can include summaries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See wiki article on puja for general info on the practice. I note the Finnish Wikipedia page on Sahaja Yoga has a section on puja. Sources of info on SY puja are below.

A recent puja description: http://www.shrimataji.org/india-2006/story/107

Protocol: http://www.valaya.co.uk/KNOWLEDGEpujaProt1.htm

Supposed outcome of failing to observer proper puja protocol was Mataji's threat to destroy the universe because she was not met at the airport by enough people. This is reported on pp112-4 of Coney's book which can be seen here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=EIdhyctgq0wC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=mataji+puja+sahaja+protocol&source=web&ots=N7dELV0WeK&sig=ao_8V5F0UfTY5YVjWnoqLE4jfvg

Pujas are also venues for mass arranged marriages: http://www.sahajayoga.in/NewsInDetail.asp?NID=192

(actually, the arranged marriage system would be a good section in its own right)

Sale of DVDs of puja talks: http://www.sahajayoga.org/store/sy_dvds.pdf

Sayings of Mataji on pujas: http://www.sahajvidya.org/SahajVidya/0_Files_SahajVidya/P/Puja_sec_val2.pdf

Sayings of Mataji on protocol in general: http://www.sahajvidya.org/SahajVidya/0_Files_SahajVidya/P/Protocol_sec_val2.pdf

Pujas described by Mataji's critics: http://www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/ritestxt.htm

More from critics on financial aspects but perhaps more importantly the various kind of pujas that take place:

http://www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/mneytxt.htm#Celebrations%20&%20Pujas

I can't understand why the Sahaja Yogis here are so coy about pujas when other Sahaja Yogis have posted up video of Sahaja Yoga pujas for all the world to see on their official websites eg: http://www.sahajayoga.com.au/shrimataji2006/video8.html

--Simon D M 11:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Could this possibly mean that they aren't coy? Sfacets 22:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of serious objections I have put up the proposed section. --Simon D M 18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

from reading this it seems to me that Simon is simply doing everything he can to blantenly discredit Sahaja Yoga. You should remember that it isnt the purpose of wikipedia to judge, but rather to present it exactly as it is done/said. thus CP should still be said as with Sir- but and it should be stated that although he is refered to as this, the title Sir is only meant for those who actually live in Commonwealth states. I also believe that you should list the Official Sahaja Yoga response under external links and make a link to it in the Cult Allegations section. I have googled it and found the response here: http://www.sahajayogafacts.org/default.asp -Devindra Payment comment added by 24.80.193.138 (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly you need to deal with the issues, not just attack those whose views you don't like. My aim is to make this article about 'Sahaja Yoga' not 'what Sahaja Yogis would like you to know about Sahaja Yoga'. Pls give examples of the 'judgement' you refer to. CP is not a Sir, see the discussion on the page devoted to him. The official SY response to critics is already linked to at the bottom of the page, it is too poor a source and too libellous to go anywhere else. I'm surprised you want to promote such an embarrassing page. Anyway, I'm glad we can agree for the moment that the page is not neutral and the neutrality notice should stay. --Simon D M 10:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey I never said that the response was good or whatever what you said means I'm just saying it should be put there. Anyways I do agree that the page is neutral, what I was saying is that you seem to be trying to point out every single little flaw you can. Nothing is perfect. Its probably as neutral as it can get, atleast until new information can be added. -Devindra Payment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.193.138 (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've barely touched on the criticisms of Sahaja Yoga so far, I'm concentrating on trying to get some kind of representation of what Sahaja Yoga is when you dig beneath the public facade of stress relief and charitable works. We all know that SYoga is a religion revolving around devotion and surrender to Mataji. The wikipedia should reflect that. --Simon D M 17:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

am removing POV notice now as there is at least some representation of SYoga's religious elements, even if the millenarian elements are not yet covered. --Simon D M (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Split

An editor posted a proposal to split out an article to tbe titled "Sahaja Yoga International", with the note: suggest page be split into one on the yoga, one on the organization.[4] However he may not be aware that that article was already deleted and he material merged here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaja Yoga International. Are there any significant new sources on the topic that would justify recreating the article? If not, we shouldn't split it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be better to allow some of the emerging cultural, educational and social welfare organisations being set up by Sahaja Yogis to have their own entries, rather than being all merged into one omnibus article. Sahajhist 09:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Tha may be true, but such a split would first have to go through deletion review, WP:DRV. I'm going to remove the split tag until there's enough interest to pursue it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Those interested in the split may want to review Article spinouts. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jreferee, I think this may be an option for the longer sections in thus article, for example the 'practices' section. Sfacets 12:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Someone asked for this section to be tidied up. I agree. So I have removed (IMHO) extra and old links. Obviously only a small selection of available links can be included, and the resulting listing needs to be balanced and uptodate. If anyone disagrees, please add your comments. Sahajhist 01:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored two that are still active. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

that U of Virginia page is looking very dated, esp its links. Sahajhist 10:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It still has interesting information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Hinduism

WikiProjects exist to improve articles. Their scope is often wide, encompassing articles that may have only a minor relationship. There is no harm in attaching an article to a project, and some benefit.

In this instance, Yoga is one of the six schools of Hinduism. Furthermore, Kundalini and Dharma are Hindu concepts. Finally, Shakti is a Hindu deity, and the founder of SY is an incarnation of her. So there are several reasons to connect this article and related topics to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my thinking. Thank you! IPSOS (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've no objection to the link, but it should be noted that Sahaja Yoga, whilst based on Indian yogic practices, is beyond exising religions, including 'Hinduism' Sahajhist 10:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

One member has described SY as "a Hindu-based world religion". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that SY is a new religious movement that is largely based on Hinduism (including folk traditions and modern interpretations), certainly moreso than any other religion. Most of the festivals celbrated are Hindu festivals. Most of the deities worshipped are Hindu deities and even those that are not (eg Jesus) are held to be incarnations of some Hindu deity (eg Mahavishnu). SY puja is based on Hindu puja and SYogis wear Indian clothes for this. Pilgrimmage is made to various Hindu sites in India, moreso than any other religion or country. The mass arranged marriages are based largely on Hindu marriages. Most of the children are named with Hindu names. Etc, etc ... But SY is no way as Hindu as a NRM like the Hare Krishnas. --Simon D M 12:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga isnt based on Hinduism. It includes aspects of many religions, the main reason it seems so Hindu related is because: a) Nirmala Shrivastava is Indian (though her parents are Christian), and b) there is just so much Hindu culture. Though yes I think it would be good to atach it but do what Sahajhist said, though a little less defiantly. -Devindra Payment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.193.138 (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly SY is based partly on Hinduism, certainly it is based more on Hinduism than any other religion, it is easy to argue that SY is based largely on Hinduism. This is not because 'there is so much Hindu culture', there is also a lot of African culture, Australian culture, native American culture, Siberian culture, polynesian culture, etc, etc but they don't figure in SY at all. Regarding what SahajHist said, most religions think they are beyond other religions. --Simon D M 11:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All Religons believe they are beyond the other religons, or they think the other religons are devil worshippers or something. -Devindra Payment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.193.138 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"See also" links

• Dharma
• Nirvikalpa

These terms appear only vaguely related to this topic. Can any explain the relationship? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• New Religious Movement

would be more relevant. --Simon D M 15:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That term is already linked in the intro, so there's no need to add it to the "see also" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

there's still no justification for these "see also" terms. I deleted them and they've been added back by an editor who apparently missed this discussion. We still need a justificatoin for their inclusion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Cult

isn't linked in the intro. --Simon D M 17:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Epilepsy

I removed epilepsy as the source says[5] "No reliable evidence to support the use of yoga as a treatment for control of epilepsy." I left the cite in there, but there needs to be a source that supports this.Ticklemygrits 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank for pointing it out - I replaced it with another source:

Bhagavatheeswaran Rajesh, Divakaran Jayachandran, Govindan Mohandas, Kurupath Radhakrishnan. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2006, 12(4): 367-371. doi:10.1089/acm.2006.12.367.[6]

Sfacets 14:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I still have problems with it SF: "Conclusions: If confirmed through randomized trials involving a larger number of patients, this YMP may become a cost-effective and adverse effect-free adjunctive treatment in patients with drug-resistant epilepsies.". I'd be much happier if it said "claimed to", but the source is betterTicklemygrits 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not happy with that at all: "Results: At 3 months, a reduction in seizure frequency was noted in all except 1 patient, six of whom had ≥50% seizure reduction. Of 16 patients who continued the YMP beyond 3 months, 14 patients responded at 6 months; 6 of them were seizure-free for 3 months. All eight patients who continued the YMP beyond 6 months responded; three of them were seizure free for 6 months.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ticklemygrits (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It really needs to be claimed. It doesn't even have a control group.Ticklemygrits 15:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints, including those that find insufficient evidence. I've added a summary of the "Yoga for epilepsy" finding. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that's good Will. I don't have a problem with it being in the article, just it listed as being 'proven' or 'scientifically proven' without proof of that. I'm fine with the your changes.Ticklemygrits 11:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Titles

Please see the discussion at Talk:Chandrika Prasad Srivastava#"Sir". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion and external link

Why was this deleted?

• In 2004 the general practitioner [Dr BOHDAN MYRON SHEHOVYCH] was made a World Leader in Sahaja Yoga and appointed to the World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga. [7]

And why do this domain name keeping getting changed?

• http://www.sahaja-yoga.org Sahaja Yoga: Facts and Warnings from Ex-Members

This is disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the user should discuss before adding information - there is no secondary source showing that the subject of the article is the person mentionned. The link is changed as per previous discussions. Nothing disruptive about it - it just needs to be done correctly. Sfacets 09:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The link is to a Sahaja Yoga site. Are you saying that such sites are not reliable sources for this article? Are you saying that all material must be discussed before bing added? If so that is entirely contradictory to Wikipedia philosophy.

As for the sahaja-yoga.org link, we never agreed on a change. The domain name was awarded to that group following litigation. IIRC, your only reason for changing it was your speculation that it would load a fraciton of a second faster, which isn't a sufficient reason. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source is needed. The real location of the website is freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga and not sahaja-yoga.org. Sfacets 22:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, are you saying that sahajayoga.org is not a reliable source for assertions in this article? That is the source for the assertion in question. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

By my count, sahajayoga.org is used as a source for this article 14 times. If it is not a reliable source then we need to remove those citations and any assertions for which they are the sole source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, or rephrase the sentences so that it is clear where the information comes from. Sfacets 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So would it be acceptable to you if we say:

• According to the official Sahaja Yoga website, in 2004 the general practitioner [Dr BOHDAN MYRON SHEHOVYCH] was made a World Leader in Sahaja Yoga and appointed to the World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga.

Do you think we need to do that for the other 14 assertions as well? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because as I said, there is no reliable secondary source linking the two people. Are they the same person? Sfacets 00:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

How many men named Dr BOHDAN SHEHOVYCH are there in the SY movement? If we can show that there's more than one then we can worry about keeping them straight. However it's a sufficiently unusual name that we should asume it to be the same person. I'm going to restore the assertion and its source until we can find a second Dr. Shehovych. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea - neither do you. A secondary source linking the two names is necessary. Please do not add OR content. Sfacets 02:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are not "two names". If there's evidence that there are please share it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove that they are the same person? It is up to the editor who seeks to add information to back it up. Sfacets 03:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove that one mention of a "Nirmala Srivastava" refers to the same person as another mention of a "Nirmala Srivastava"? This objection does not appear to be based on any rational issue. No one is asserting that there is more than one SY member named "Dr BOHDAN SHEHOVYCH". We have reliable surces for the material. I can't believe you want everything sourced from "sahajayoga.org" to be removed, but that is the logical consequence of your action. Is that what you want? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything needs to have reliable secondary sources - or specify where the information comes from. Sfacets 13:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And you say that "sahajayoga.org" is not a reliable secondary source, and that anything sourced only from it should be removed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what a secondary source is... Sfacets 23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think "sahajayoga.org" is an unreliable source? Apparently. That being the case I'm going to delete the citatoins to it and add {fact} tags to anything that doesn't have a 3rd-party citation. I invite you to restore them when you can find "reliable secondary sources" for the assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please just look us the definition of secondary sources. Sfacets 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the article would look like with the "sahajayoga.org" citations removed.[8] If Sfacets believes we must remove all citations from it then that's what we'll have. I believe that it is a reliable source for issues about SY, and should be allowed. However we should be consistent one way or the other. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the point - as long as the information is attributed (eg "according to the organization" etc.) the information is fine to stay. Unattributed content, or unsourced content is not. Sfacets 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so now you're requiring that we attribute every assertion cited from "sahajayoga.org". That would have an equally dramatic effect onthe article, and would allow this text you previously forbade:

• According to the official Sahaja Yoga website, in 2004 the general practitioner [Dr BOHDAN MYRON SHEHOVYCH] was made a World Leader in Sahaja Yoga and appointed to the World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga.

I think that 14 cases of attribution will make the article less readable, but I'm willing to go along. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it wouldn't - since my original point stands. Most of the content you tagged was already attributed. Sfacets 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So then you'll allow:

• According to the official Sahaja Yoga website, in 2004 the general practitioner [Dr BOHDAN MYRON SHEHOVYCH] was made a World Leader in Sahaja Yoga and appointed to the World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga.

Since it's attributed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, since the person in question is not otherwise notable. Sfacets 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He's obviously notable within the the SY organization, since he was made a World Leader. If he wasn't notable, his existence and position wouldn't be noted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets knows full well that there is only one Australian Sahaja Yogi called Dr Bohdan SHEHOVYCH. He knows full well it was the same person wrestling with Terence Blackley who became World Leader. In fact, if you google "Bohdan SHEHOVYCH", only one Bohdan Shehovych comes up! It is ludicrous that a simple sourced addition needs such a merry dance to get through. Looking through these talk page archives I can see that this merry dance has been going on for a while. Does Wikipedia have any process whereby a mediator can keep such nonsense under control? --Simon D M 10:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dharma and Puja

I unlinked puja, because puja in a Hindu context is different than puja in the context of SY. Dharma is relevant - the mere fact that it is part of "Vishwa Nirmala Dharma" is proof of that. Sfacets 04:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that this is the same kind of dharma? Is there any source for the connection? Is there a translation for "Vishwa Nirmala Dharma"? (I've asked about the Pujas below) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Vishwa Nirmala Dharma is usually translated as Universal Pure Religion, although the Nirmala is an obvious reference to Mrs Srivastava as well. I don't think the term came into existence before the 1980s, if it did I'd like to see some evidence. Before then, as well as afterwards, the organisation was generally known as Sahaja Yoga. VND is little more than a synonym, note the suggestion here: http://www.whois.ws/whois-org/ip-address/sahajayoga.org/ and here: http://www.inforel.ch/index.php?id=i1108 . VND is referred to as a religion on these pages: http://www.sahajayogafacts.org/ http://vishwa-nirmala-dharma.org/ So really both Sahaja Yoga and VND refer to the same religion or new religious movement. VND is also the name of SYoga tax-exempt organisation in some countries eg the US. This is not always the case, the 'charitable' body set up in the UK was called the Life Eternal Trust, but this was probably before the term VND came into existence. Dharma is also used in a way similar to 'morality' in SYoga. The Dharma wikipage is much less relevant than the Puja wikipage because Dharma has so many diverse meanings (one book I read counted 22 in Buddhism alone). Thus the Religion page would be more relevant than the Dharma page. --Simon D M 10:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pujas

Is there more than one kind of puja? The article about it describes a rite that appears similar to what is depicted in SY videos. The article indicates that there are many kinds of pujas. Furher, SY calls the rites that it performs "pujas". Do we have source that describes the difference, if any, between SY pujas and other pujas? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SY puja is a development from Hindu puja. Most of the ritual elements described in the Puja article apply to SY puja including: meditation, chanting, scripture reading, offering food, prostrations, application of a tilaka mark on the forehead with vermillion (kumkum), conclusion with aarti, prasad, bhajans (religious prayer songs) and food. The idea that all this, or the totality of SY healing/cleansing techniques, falls under the category of meditation is absurd. --Simon D M 10:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone can provide a source that differentiates SY pujas from Hindu pujas then I think we should restore the internal link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you want to add the information, the burden of evidence is upon you to prove that it is the same. Sfacets 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the same standard apply to every internal link? Shall we unlink meditation, yoga, dharma and all other terms that don't have definitive sources showing that the concepts in the Wikipedia articles are the same as the practices and beliefs of SY? If so I expect it will mean we unlink virtually every linked phrase. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right - there is no way that it could work - I will re-link the term. Sfacets 02:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. Now we need to prove that there isn't more than one "Nirmala Srivastava" and more than one "Bohdan Shehovich". According to one viewpoint, we'll need to remove those names from the article until we can establish that there aren't other people with the same names. How shall we prove it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many sources showing that Nirmala Srivastava is th founder of SY. Judith Coney's book for example. Sfacets 04:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Which Nirmala Srivastava are you talking about? There could be more than one, just as there could be more than one "Bohdan Shehovich" (according to you). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Sfacets is talking about the Nirmala Srivastava mentioned on this webpage: http://www.iosho.com/oBook/The%20Life%20Of%20Osho/05-24-hindus.htm who couldn't possibly be the same NS. Or could she? But seriously, there is another NS mentioned on this page: http://home.iitk.ac.in/~vaibhavs/ and another here: http://www.d4desi.com/matrimony/matriprofile.asp?param=100002 and another here: http://cities.expressindia.com/local-news/archivefullstory.php?newsid=172353&creation_date=2006-03-05 etc etc etc So it seems you can find multiple Nirmala Srivastavas on Google but ONLY ONE "Bohdan Shehovich" of any description. How long must we continue with this filibuster? --Simon D M 11:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets is asking us to prove the unprovable, see: Negative proof --Simon D M 11:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If the name is as common as Sfacets claims, then the spelling must be very uncommon, because another one doesn't come up on the whole of Google. Yet he suggests that there just happen to be 2 GPs of the same name from Australia in Sahaja Yoga, that both are senior enough to be entrusted with hand-delivering Mataji's letters or being World Leader, and that offical SY sources don't bother to distinguish between the two. As he & SahajHist are both in SY and both have connections in Australia they could confirm this very easily but they don't because you know it's stupid. In fact both John Noyce) and Bohdan are listed as Australian representatives on the Sahaja Yoga Media Project: http://talks.sahajayogaonline.com/welcome.html Case closed. --Simon D M 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I recently reverted Simon D M's edits - please discuss here before making large multiple edits. Sfacets 18:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You removed multiple small edits, some of which have already been discussed here eg the fact that the Bohdan referred to on the 2 webpages is the same as you well know. Others are just simple points of fact eg that you had cited the Sahaja defenition wrongly. Another that Mataji came to the UK in 1972 in non-controversial and well-known and sourced widely. The rest were things that should never have been in the article and were put there without any evidence being presented. The unrepresentative quote in the references was a liberty and you know it. The claim that Coney has said that Mataji founded a NRM at Nargol is false and you can provide no evidence otherwise. Re puja costs, you also cannot substantiate your claim that money for pujas is for costs. --Simon D M 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please comment above re the discussion on "Bohdan Shehovich" Sfacets 18:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Also edits like this one are unacceptable - you canot use an unreliable source such as freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga especially given that you are the registered owner of said website. Sfacets 19:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read the page you'd see it reproduced a photograph of a letter from the Metropolitan Police concerning the SY World Leader in question. I am not the registered owner of the website, but of the domain name that points to a website that sits in the folder above the website in question. I am the the owner/webmaster/administrator of neither of these websites. I note you have even removed the later edit about the same World Leader's threatening behaviour even though it came from the offical SY website. It looks like you are just removing anything that shows SY in a bad light no matter where it is sourced yet at the same time sitting on a high horse and handing out warnings, etc.--163.119.105.27 09:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What it links to is a heavily edited scanned documents that says nothing but "Mr G. Lanza is on the immigration list" - which could mean anything. Reliable sources are needed - all we have here is your word that you aren't the webmaster - the site certainly contains enough of your content. I can be on a moral high horse - especially in this case - I don't link to any self-created website and insure that reliable sources are provided - or that the information is attributed. Sfacets 10:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Check this out Sfacets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete

This is the section on criticism. You want any info from a critical site banned from that section. OTOH you are happy with pro-SY sites being quoted in the rest of the article. The edit you reverted said that this has been reported and that evidence has been produced. This is more than for most of the stuff on Mataji. Can you even verify her birth date from her birth certificate and passport? Some people find it odd that her birth date happens to be the same as the 'Enlightenment' date of her former guru Rajneesh. Or are there 2 standards of evidence, one for the pro-SY and one for the anti-SY? This page is badly in need of balance and I point to 2 main things: 1) the religious and superstitious elements of SY are being purposefully hidden (look how long you've taken to accept a puja link); 2) all criticism of SY is being stifled (look at you laughable attempt to conjure up another Bohdan). --Simon D M 11:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your conspiracy theories. Information on Shri Mataji's life is widely found, in third party sources as well. Do you see me deleting the criticism section? In a word, no. This is because some of the information is sourced with reliable sources. I will repeat that - reliable sources. Very even-handed of me. Please also read (in the linked article you provided above) "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views". Sfacets 11:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets has removed critical material so often that I don't have time to count them all. Please don't misrepresent the recent past. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed with reason, as you well know. I have always backed any removal/addition with arguments. Sfacets 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if that were true, some arguments are so flimsy as to be unworthy of the name. --Simon D M 13:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your opinion. Very useful and constructive as always. Sfacets 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not my theory, please point out one reliable 3rd party source that isn't drawing their information on Mataji's birth date from her own claims. Anyway the argument was Reductio ad absurdum. You are happy to report Mataji's various claims but not the claims of her critics. You accept X reliable source says these criticisms have been made, rather than pointing directly to the criticisms being made - that's not the same as stating the criticisms as fact, just saying that they have been made. Your insisting on a 3rd party to confirm what is directly evident is simply a case of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete You operate no such 'high' standard when it comes to the claims of SY. --Simon D M 12:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no controversy surrounding the issue. (Except that imagined up by yourself). Again, if the critical claims check out source-wise they are kept. Please read above for discussion on reliability of sources and attribution. Sfacets 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, check this out: WP:UCS and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRINGE#Sourcing_and_attribution especially the section on parity of sources. --Simon D M 14:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I have been talking to you about! Good that you looked it up. "Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's ban on original research. In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for reliability. This includes references, citations, and external links". I'm expecting reliable secondry sources from you now. Sfacets 14:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And the section on parity of sources that I particularly pointed you towards says: "Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources... if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer review journal. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may generally include material gleaned from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Verifiable critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not peer reviewed since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed. Parity of sources may mean that certain obscure fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported or criticized in alternative venues from those that are typically used in publishing about mainstream topics." --Simon D M 14:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You left out "If an article is written about a well-known, mainstream topic, fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review should not be included in the article". Also see the example given"Creation science". Sfacets 15:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct, it is irrelevant because Sahaja Yoga is not "a well-known, mainstream topic". --Simon D M 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Or rather, your opinions are not a large or widespread fringe theory. Sfacets 15:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not share our views of this religious group, especially views which are disparaging. We're just here to write an encyclopedia article, not debate about the merits of a belief system. However I'd agree that SY is not a "well-known, mainstream topic". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I won't even start with what Simon thinks he is. (Find the grail yet Simon?) I removed the libelous comment above per Wiki guidelines. Sfacets 23:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're attempts to provoke are uncivil. --Simon D M 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

hello Simon. I see you're still trying to be the great expert on Sahaja Yoga. As usual, well off line. A lot has changed since you were expelled in 1990. In particular, the administrative framework is quite different from what you assert above. Sahajhist 05:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was only expelled some weeks after having left as part of a group of a dozen or so people, as you may well have heard on the Sahaja Yoga mailing list before you abused the trust of the members and vandalised it. I'm well aware that things have changed. I wasn't aware that I'd made any assertions about the administrative framework. This page is about Sahaja Yoga not me. You and Sfacets have been systematically sanitising these pages. This must stop. Sahaja Yoga is a religious movement devoted to the worship of, and submission to, Nirmala Srivatava. I am aware of announcements about the desirabilty of appearing to be an innocuous stress relief program, but not about any real change. If there has been such an announcement, perhaps you could cite it. --Simon D M 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

new website link on NGO

New NGO Link: www.nirmalprem.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatla.subhash (talk • contribs) 07:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

website is currently under construction --Simon D M 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Wording for Extraordinary Claims

Incidentally, it's worth noting that the study you are 'reporting on' in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=prev&oldid=173673348 is basically claiming alchemical transmutation which has never been shown to happen outside of a nuclear reactor or star. If anybody took this seriously it would be the study of the century, and Mataji would be on the cover of Time. That hasn't happened. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you should be careful how you report such extraordinary claims. --Simon D M (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your opinion. Sfacets 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. Changed characteristics of water doesn't imply changed molecular/atomic structure. Water (apart from pure H20) contains many elements. The summary of the finds at the SY website lists the different elements in the 1st and second state of the water. Sfacets 11:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If the level of iron has changed, that is alchemical transmutation, unless it magically appeared out of nowhere - either way it would be the experiment of the century. --Simon D M (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion, again. Take it up with the scientist who made the study. Sfacets 12:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Bohdan Shehovich"

Why does sourced material on the World Leader Bohdan Shehovich keep being removed? We discussed it above but I think all the objections have been addressed. The council of world leaders is the head of the organization. They are obviously very important to SY. More important, I'd say, than some musical groups. Yet information about the council and its leaders keeps getting deleted. Please explain the reasoning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to hear why the info on ex-World Leader Guido Lanza is being removed. As you guys well know he is a much more notable figure, having been a World Leader in SY for around 2 decades from back in the time when there were only 3 of them, he arranged many marriages, he ran the Rome School, etc. Who apart from Mataji, CP, Warren Reeves and maybe Gregoire is more notable? --Simon D M 21:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The objections haven't been addressed - and all that is being removed is Simon's opinion that someone with the "same unusual name" is mentioned on the site. The information on Guido is also based on Simon's Original Research - all that he is offering as proof of Guido's denial of entry into the UK (the only perhaps remotely notable point) is a heavily edited low-res scanned image allegedly from the UK police hosted on a Critical website (which Simon is involved in editing) which states only that Guido is "on the immigration list" - which could mean anything. The preceding contet is copied from the Yahoo group that Simon maintains. Sfacets 23:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Is your objection to the Bohdan Shehovich material still that there are more than on person by that name active in SY Australia? If so, then how can we prove that any individual isn't another person? For example, how do we know that one mention of a "Nirmala Srivastava" or "Shri Mataji" refers to the same person as another reference to those same names? And what is the complaint about mentioning Guido Lanza? (I agree that unsourced assertions shouldn't be included - I'm talking about sourced assertion). If your concern is that they aren't notable then we need to review the inclusion of less notable people and groups in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

All we have is two people with the same name. As I said above, there are many sources connecting "Nirmala Srivastava" or "Shri Mataji" to SY, whereas there is nothing showing that 'Bohdan' is the same Bohdan in both sources. I have nothing against adding info on Guido, if reliable sources are provided (although I don't see how he is notable, or how notability inside or outside the organization can be shown) and the information is relevant to the subject of the article. Sfacets 23:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

According to what source are there two people named "Bohdan Shehovich" who are doctors in Australia and involved in Sahaja Yoga? How do we know that there aren't five, or a hundred? There is no way of proving it. Likewise, there is no evidence that there aren't five people named "Nirmala Srivasta" who are involved in Sahaja Yoga. Can you prove that there is only one such person? I think we need to treat both cases the same. Both are unusual names, and in neither case are there actual indications of separate individuals within SY having the same names.

IMO, this objection is so ridiculous that it goes beyond careful editing and qualifies as disruption.

The subject of the article is SY, an organisation now overseen by the World Council (WCASY). The actions and membership of the WCASY are of central importance to the group, and therefore to this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one seeking to add information, the burden of evidence is on the submitter. A secondary source is needed to establish the connection between the "two individuals" called Bohdan. It would be Original Research to conclude that since the people share the same name they are the same person, and also potentialy libelous to do so. The organization isn't overseen by the world council. According to the purpose outlined on the website, "The purpose of this body is to stimulate the further growth of Sahaja Yoga and to provide support to the efforts of all the national collectives". The actions undertaken by the council are internal to the organization, and therefore are non-notable outside it, making mentioning their names unnecessary, since non of these people have been shown to be notable outside the organization. Sfacets 04:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Many topics about SY are not notable enough to be mentioned outside of the organisation. Should our standard for inclusion be 3rd-party sources? That would certainly make the related articles much smaller, especially the Sahaja Yoga meditation and International Sahaja Public School articles. If this standard is the consensus of the talk page I'll start removing everying that isn't shown to be notabl outside SY.

Regarding 'the "two individuals" called Bohdan', we can fix that in the same way we fix 'the "five individuals" called Nirmala'. Unless we can solve them then we'll need to remove both. Again, we'll need to have a consensus for that policy. So far, I think you're the only one asserting the existence of a second Bohdan. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, primary sources can be used if attributed. Unlike Bohdan, Nirmala Srivastava is notable in that she has been the subject of many academic sources - most of which establish/confirm that a person named Nirmala Srivastava started the SY movement. I'm not asserting that there is a second Bohdan, that would require a secondary source. I don't seek to add anything about Bohdan to the article, therefore the burden of proof isn't on me. Sfacets 05:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are asserting that there is a second Bohdan. You refer to the "the "two individuals" called Bohdan". I assert there are five individuals named Nirmala. If you want to add anything to the article about a persona named "Nirmala", thene it is your burden to prove that the Nirmala in one reference is the same person as another Nirmala.

Regarding notability, the World Council is the highest and final authority in SY. Higher, apparently, then any of those five people named Nirmala. If you don't think it is notable because it is not covered in a 3rd-party source then we should delete all the parts of Sy that aren't similarly notable. Which is it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice the " " scare quotes. Drawing the parallel between verifying a notable person who has been the subject of articles and someone who has been the subject of 1 article is ridiculous. You are jumping to extremes, as usual when you are unable to logically back up your argument - ignoring what I previously wrote, and soon you will take some drastic editing measure to prove your point. I am not asserting that there are two Bogdans, but if you want to find sources proving your asserting re: the 5 Nirmala Srivastavas - go right ahead. Sfacets 05:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly not ridiculous to assert there is only one Dr. Bohdan Shehovich in the Australian SY. On the contrary, it is ridiculous to assert the opposite, as you are doing. Note that you are deleting all references to him. If if we don't assert they are the same persons, we should at least be able to mention "them". One of them is on the highest authority in SY. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You can mention the 'world leader', but connecting him with the subject of the newspaper article is Original Research. Sfacets 06:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I don't see we need to say they're the same person. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you mention that Bohdan Shehovych is a recent addition to the WCASY? How is this notable? I removed Guido, the source says nothing about him being a world leader or part of WCASY Sfacets 07:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You removed sourced, NPOV material covering recent chnages in the highest authority of the SY. I've restored it. It's obviously notable and we should cover it in more detail. We both know that Lanza was a WCASY member. I'll add a source for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the reference but the relevance I have an issue with. Are you going to add all the news from the organization to the article now? Your addition of the Russian leader's resignation is also neither relevant or notable. Sfacets 07:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A) The WCASY is the most important body in the SY. B) Changes in membership are reported in one of the official SY websites. C) If I understand correctly, many of the WCASY members are also leaders of their national collectives. Changes in the national leadership of collectives is doubly relevant and notable. D) The personnel changes are summarized here in a neutral manner. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So according to you any/all information pertaining to the WCASY should be added to the article? I think they had a barbecue last week... Sfacets 09:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't suggest that "any/all" information is worth adding. But the basic structure, key indivuals, sub-committees, and a few other details are worth including. While the comparison is not exact, the WCASY appears analogous to the College of Cardinals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So why are you adding minor details about individuals within the WCASY? Sfacets 10:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What minor details? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You added that one of the leader resigned and that one of them got kicked out. What does this have to do with the structure or key individuals? Sfacets 10:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Bohdan & Guido's appointments and 'resignations' are notable enough to be reported on offical SY sites and the sites of their critics. The Metropolitan Police have even seen fit to issue a letter about one of them. The Sfacets multiple personality disorder can surely be dealt with by simply naming the people involved. Am I going wrong somewhere? Remember I'm new around here and a little support would be appreciated. --Simon D M 11:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't stop with the Personal Attacks you will be banned from editing.

Issues with your recent additions:

1.

"In 2004 an Australian general practitioner called Bohdan Shehovych was made a World Leader in Sahaja Yoga and appointed to the World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga"

How do you know if he is a general practitioner?

2.

"another long time Sahaja Yoga World Leader and original member of the World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga [9] (Trustee of the Sahaja Yoga World Trust and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Sahaja Yoga World Centre

This is a) Duplicate material b)Unsourced c) Original Research in that it makes claims unsupported by the source, suh as how long he has beeen a leader.

3.

Headmaster of the Rome School)

Which school is that? Also unsourced

4.

"has been reported as being on the Immigration List of the UK Home office (ie he would be arrested on entry to the UK) A photograph of a heavily edited letter, allegedly from the Metropolitan Police, is provided as evidence by a critical website."

Again, no source - and no secondary source analysing the primary one (ie the alleged Police letter)

5.

[10] This World Leader was suspended from all activities in Sahaja Yoga in 2005, reportedly for disrupting a havan ritual and threatening members of Sahaja Yoga.

Duplicate content. Also unsourced here.

Sfacets 12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

1. see: http://gpra.e-newsletter.com.au/link/id/7dd4b904ad6068ddd703/page.html

  and: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syrc/message/268

2. a) do you have evidence that every member of the World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga is also a

     Trustee of the Sahaja Yoga World Trust? Certainly not all the trustees or council members are Chairman of
     the Board of Directors of the Sahaja Yoga World Centre.
  b) see: http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_209_2003.asp
     and: http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_262_2004.asp
  c) length of time is not specified, you need another example. Also note that you must give time for sources to be found.

3. Rome School means the Sahaja School in Rome. Give time for the source to be found. 4. Give time for the source to be found. Do you think the Metropolitan Police might be informing the relevant department

  of Interpol about a parking violation? This is a serious and notable document.

5. The source is given as: http://www.sahajayoga.com/swan/view_swan.asp?mode=print&swanid=503

  it actually says "has interrupted a Havan assaulting some sahaja yogis from Rome with insults, threats and attempts
  of physical aggression" which is stronger than the current wording of the article. Don't see how this is duplicate content.

Regarding Personal Attacks, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black I hope this helps although much of it you could have found by simply looking at the article carefully. --Simon D M 11:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Did you seriously just reference your own Yahoo group? Your second link doesn't work. 2. Thanks for adding sources (it should still be attributed) 3. Waiting... 4. According to your POV. Waiting for a source. 5. Waiting for a source.

Sfacets 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC) About personal attacks - try reading WP:PA and then come back and talk to me.

1. I've already removed the GP statement. 2. I think you'll find the sources were already there when you made your complaint. 3. OK 4. Let's wait to see if Will thinks this is a inadmissable ref 5. Source already give twice. Unless you are complaining that GL is referred to as a World Leader. OK, I've changed the article to no longer call him that just to make you happy although the implication of pages like http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_257_2004.asp is clearly that wcasy members are world leaders. RE: WP:PA I have read it. --Simon D M 15:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Could Simon please discuss them here? Sfacets 11:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, you aren't discussing your edits either. You deleted a whole section without any explanation.[11] I suggest you set the example you want others to follow. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because I created it. It isn't going to expand, so I removed it. Sfacets 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't your content. It belongs to the project. I'm going to restore it pending a consensus on the matter. If you want others to discuss their edits, and complain when they don't, then please show the same courtesy yourself. Also, please comment on the edits, not the editors. I've removed an editor's name that you aded to this section heading, because it focused on the editor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You prove my point regarding your lack of objectivity regarding my edits - this is a passage you were dead set against adding. Now that I remove it - all of a sudden you want it kept. Sfacets 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would gladly stick to 1RR, however it would help if Simon discusses his edits before adding large chunks of unsourced and POV information to the article. I see no reason not to revert if his edits remain undiscussed. Sfacets 22:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:3RR. Lack of discussion alone is not a sufficient reason for exceeding the revert limit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Will, do you think that the information on the Sahaja Yoga World Leader being on the Home Office's immigration list needs to be removed because the source of the accusation and evidence is not reliable and neutral enough? Are you saying the same thing about SY's statement on his threatening behaviour? --Simon D M 12:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon's edits

Please discuss your edits before undoing other editor's work - you made five edits where you removed content. Please be more considerate in your edits- Will Beback - are you going to warn him about 3RR now? Sfacets 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I removed one sentence of content and explained exactly why. The reference supposedly supporting the sentence did not do so. If you think it does, please say why. We need to be careful about not being fuzzy about Sahaja Yoga the meditation method, the new religious movement, the formal organisation, etc. A statement about one does not necessarily apply to the other. --Simon D M 15:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"A photograph of a heavily edited letter, allegedly from the Metropolitan Police, is provided as evidence by the critical website. [12] This World Leader was suspended from all activities in Sahaja Yoga in 2005, reportedly for disrupting a havan ritual "assaulting some sahaja yogis from Rome with insults, threats and attempts of physical aggression.".

This letter could have been made by anyone...it is not even signed ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.41.161.47 (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

When is the letter dated? What's to say that the letter and/or the placement of Guido's name on the list happened before 2005? If it happened after then it isn't relevant to the article, since that is when he ceased to be part of SY. Sfacets 14:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Has he ceased to be part of SY? Have you got a reference for that? I only saw that he'd resigned his official posts. It's not worth wasting our breath over till Will pronounces his view about whether the section relating to the letter should be removed--Simon D M 15:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ceased all activities" means that he is no longer part of the Org. Sfacets 15:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but he's still running his SY splinter group. Anyway the letter predates his departure. --Simon D M 15:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Source? Sfacets 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait to see what Will says before running round looking for more sources. --Simon D M 09:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because he's an experienced editor without conflict of interest. I expect a fair and reasoned judgement from him. --Simon D M 13:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My view is that the source for the letter does not meet Wikipedia standards for this type of assertion. Souorcing aside, if an SY World Leader committed a felony while a leader then that would certainly be relevant. However, if he committed the crime and served his time before becoming a member of SY, before attaining self-realization, and long before becoming a World Leader then I don't think it's relevant to this article. There a many reasons a person might be prohibited from entering a country. The U.S. maintains a list with at least tens of thousands of names. I wouldn't consider it terribly relevant to the article about a religious group if one of their leaders was on that list for unknown reasons. Since we don't know why this fellow in on the U.K. list, or how the U.K. decides to exclude someone, I don't think we should make too much of it. If malfeasance among World Leaders were ever to become a common and verifiable problem then this may become more relevant. Otherwise I don't think we should include it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, I'll remove it. --Simon D M 12:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"The meditation is described as a syncretism of different religions that "unites the essence of all religions". " The reference is to a section on whether Sahaja Yoga is a religion. It is clearly not just about the meditation technique and the statement in it referred to is also clearly not just about the meditation technique. So the statement is not supported by the source and had to go. I don't see why Sfacets reverted this. --Simon D M 15:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly how so? Sfacets 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Meditation is not mentioned in that section until 2 paragraphs later, and then only in passing. The section is pretending to talk about Sahaja Yoga as a whole, not just meditation. Can you demonstrate otherwise? --Simon D M 17:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The two are inter-connected - here they are talking about the beliefs of Sahaja Yoga which pertains to the meditation side - the organisation isn't a a syncretism of different religions. Sfacets 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Interconnected does not mean interchangable. Pertaining makes no difference. Actually you remind me that all the (junk) scientific studies that have been done on SY have only been done on SY meditation, and do not validate SY (including all the Mataji worship, shoe beating, arranged marriages, etc). That should be made clear. --Simon D M 09:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the sources, you will see that the studies were confirmed by third parties. Sfacets 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'interconnected does not mean interchangable' point remains. The issue of scientific studies into SY is very complex. Most, if not all, studies do not have credible meditation control groups, thus confounding the effects of SY meditation with meditation per se. The waters are further muddied by having investigators with a conflict of interest who do not disclose this. So SY research has all the hallmarks of junk science and it would need to be clearly demonstrated that this is not the case with full disclosure from all those involved. It is even more important that the researchers are independent than that the funding is independent. Independent funding of studies by researchers with [non-disclosed] conflict of interest is still poor science and ultimately a waste of independent funding and abuse of the funding body. --Simon D M 11:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You removed sourced and quoted content, replacing the quote found in the article ""significantly more effective than the generic approach in reducing stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms" with your own "effective than the [one other] generic approach [tested] in reducing stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms" please explain. Sfacets 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

a straight quote out of context is misleading in this case, the true sense is revived by this edit. "the generic approach in reducing stress" without qualification would suggest that there is only one generic approach and that sy is more effective. The article is not saying that. It is comparing SY with one particular 'credible' generic method, and only making claims relative to that method. --Simon D M 17:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's according o your POV - you cannot change a quote from a source to suit that. Sfacets 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with POV, that's what the article clearly states, that SY meditation was compared with one other credible generic method. If you have nothing constructive to contribute I will restore my orginal edit. --Simon D M 09:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you open a Request for comment if you want to take this further. Changing a quote is unacceptable. Sfacets 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is standard practice in academic articles to restore the original sense of a quote using inserts in square brackets. To quote wikipedia: "bracketed comments indicate when original text has been modified for clarity" [13] --Simon D M (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Authorship

The view is not coming from the Medical Observer as suggested, but from Ramesh Manocha, a Sahaja Yogi (although he doesn't declare this to the journals that publish his articles). In the T&Cs the Medical Observer makes no warranty that "its Content or information is complete, up-to-date or appropriate for clinical decisions." [14] --Simon D M 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless Dr Manocha is talking about himself in the third person, the author is more than likely someone else, probably Associate Professor John Eden. Sfacets 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Referring to yourself in the 3rd person is common in academic and pseudo-academic articles. The issue is the author of the article. John Eden is the coordinator of the 'herbs in focus' section of the site. See: http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/displayarticle/index.asp?articleID=2650&templateID=108&sectionID=0&sectionName= --Simon D M 09:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article or website does it claim that Manocha is the author. Sfacets 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

They wouldn't publish an article without stating the author. You need to know how to read a byline. Take a look at another example from the same publication here: http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/displayarticle/index.asp?articleID=1980&templateID=108&sectionID=0&sectionName= While only the author is mentioned in the byline (standard practice), both author and editor/coordinator are fully referenced at the bottom of the articles (also very common). --Simon D M 11:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The author could just as easily be the other person mentionned. Sfacets 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Only you have difficutly figuring out who the author is. The article has a standard byline that only mentions Manocha. John Eden is the coordinator of the Herbs in Focus section which is obvious not only from the article itself but from other articles in the Herbs in Focus section. As it appears you have nothing further to add on this discussion apart from "the author could be John Eden", and I have repeatedly explained why this is obviously not the case, there is no point continuing with this discussion. I don't mind serious discussion but this has gone far enough. Case closed. --Simon D M 10:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You can open an RFC if you want, however IMO you cannot claim that the author is someone when it isn't expressly written in the source. Sfacets 11:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is expressly written in the byline. He is also named as the author on this page: http://www.thesmilingdoctor.com/What_s_Hot.html Maybe you should write to Dr Wadegaonkar and tell him he's got the author wrong. And while you're about it, write to the Medical Observer and tell them that you think their format is confusing people. If you need help then feel free to open an RFC. I'm sorry to be so blunt but your constantly shifting objections to non-controversial edits are a real time-waster, and I'm not wasting any more on this. --Simon D M 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The various bylines used in the Herbs in Focus articles can be seen here. It is clear that the bylines are introducing the authors, including Ramesh Manocha. --163.119.105.27 18:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So open an RFC - you are the one seeking to change content. This discussion is indeed over - either open an RFC or move on - Wikipedia isn't a depository for your Original Research. Sfacets 22:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC opened, as requested. --Simon D M 18:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Where? Sfacets 08:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

SahajHist closed it, deeming it decided in favour of the rather obvious view I was putting forward. --Simon D M 10:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Further complaints

I am going to ask Simon once again to be courteous and discuss major proposed changes here. His large ondiscussed and unconsesnsed changes to the article are disruptive. Feel free to add inormation - but if you need to change/remove/re-organize content, then please have consideration for other editor's work which has gone into the article. Sfacets 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we expect all editors to follow that same standard? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ramesh Manocha

It appears that Ramesh Manocha ("R. Manocha"), "a clinical research fellow at the Sydney Royal Hospital for Women's Natural Therapies Unit"[15], has done considerable writing and research connected with SY, and there is also indication that he practices and advocates SY meditation.

• Manocha, R. “Sahaja yoga in asthma”, Thorax 2003;58:825-826. URL: http://thorax.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/58/9/825-a
• Manocha R, Marks GB, Kenchington P, Peters D, Salome CM. “Sahaja yoga in the management of moderate to severe asthma: a randomized controlled trial.”, Thorax. 2003 Sep;58(9):825-6. [16]
• Ramesh Manocha, Sahaja State and Therapeutic Consciousness: High Quality Empirical Evidence for a New Definition of Meditation [17]
• Harrison, L.J., Manocha, R., & Rubia, K. (2004). Sahaja Yoga Medictation as a family treatment programme for children with Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder.[18]
  • The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Alice Bhasale, Robert Hutcheon, Kim Pearce, Liallyn Fitzpatrick, Ione Docherty and other Sahaja Yoga instructors who provided training for the participants on a voluntary basis. Sarah Yates help with data entry is gratefully acknowledged. We also thank the Royal Hospital for Women, University of New South Wales, for providing facilities for running the meditation clinic. Importantly, we thank the developer of Sahaja Yoga meditation, Mrs Nirmala Shrivastava (Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi), for her advice and permission to evaluate her technique. We acknowledge that, as a matter of principle, Sahaja Yoga is always taught free of charge.[19]
  • "Drug-free treatment for ADHD" Interview on Australian TV.[20]
• Manocha R, Black D, Spiro D, Ryan J, Stough C (2007) Skin Temperature Changes Associated With Practice Of Sahaja Yoga Meditation Or Rest, an exploratory study, in press.[21]
• "Making sense of meditation" Dr Ramesh Manocha considers the effectiveness of meditation as a treatment. 13 August 2004
• "New Scientific Insights in Meditation and Mental Silence: Its Effects on Wellbeing, Stress and Performance" SPEAKER: Dr Ramesh Manocha MBBS BSc, TIME: 1:00pm – 2:00pm, 10th October 2007 [22]
  • A brief hands-on meditation session aimed at eliciting the state of mental silence. The same technique that was used in our clinical and physiological trials, Sahaja Yoga, will be demonstrated for the audience to personally experience the practical aspects of meditation
• "Clinical Applications of Meditation", 6th International Holistic Health Conference 2000 (Lorne, Victoria – Australia) and published in the book "Pathways to Holistic Health", published by the Monash Institute of Public Health. [23]
• Manocha R, "Meditation, Sahaja and the Indian idea of optimal consciousness: Reconciling the modern evidence base with popular and traditional perceptions by revisiting the original definitions of meditation" Toward a Science of Consciousness 2006, April 4-8, 2006, Tucson Convention Center, Tucson, Arizona, Sponsored by The Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona [24][25]
• "He has just finished a seven-year doctoral research project "aimed at the answering the question: does meditation work in any way - body, mind, spirit, whatever?"...At the Sydney Menopause Centre, Manocha has also used sahaja to treat a group of women suffering hot flushes. The women had about a 70 per cent reduction in their hot flushes over eight weeks, he says....Last year, he tried the technique on a group of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder."[26]
• "Ramesh Manocha, who ran the yoga trial, said at the end nine out of 10 women had experienced more than a 50 per cent improvement in their menopausal symptoms.``That's the kind of effect you would see with HRT. But Dr Manocha said there was no evidence to support most natural alternatives."[27]
• "Today, a happy home is also a sanctuary from encroaching stress. Ramesh Manocha, the former director of the Meditation Research Unit at Sydney's Royal Hospital for Women, has found that a meditation technique called sahaja yoga can improve chronic conditions such as asthma, migraine and menopause symptoms. He describes the home meditation room he uses daily as "a place you don't bring the rest of your life". "You don't do your tax return there and you don't have arguments there," he says. "I have two children aged two and three and they understand the meditation room is a place for quiet. If you bring children up to respect a meditation space in the same way you bring them up to wash their hands, then they will."All's well For details of free classes in sahaja yoga meditation in the Sydney area, go to http://www.freemeditation.com.au" [28]
• "A medical doctor from Australia, Ramesh Manocha has conducted clinical studies of the effect of meditation on people, and, in particular, advocates the Sahaja Yoga technique, which, he claims, studies have proven to be the most effective method of enhancing one’s emotional intelligence and thus impacted the individual consciousness positively. This, in turn, had a positive effect on organizational development."[29]

He has also written on other, non-medical topics, including a review of a book titled "Jesus Lived in India" that says:

• The implications of Kersten’s discovery are monumental. Christ’s life in India, after the crucifixion, challenges current Church teachings at their very foundation. The theology of Saint Paul, the major influence on modern Christianity, is empty fanaticism in the light of this discovery. Threatened also are the doctrines of obedience to the Church, original sin, salvation through blind faith and the non-existence of reincarnation, etc. Yet these ideas underlie the morality and ethics, (or lack of them), that govern the entire Western social structure, from the legal system to medical health care schemes. It is no wonder that the modern Churches and their secular interests refuse to consider such a proposition as Kersten’s! [30]

His are qualifications variously listed as:

• Dr Ramesh Manocha is a Barry Wren Fellow at the Natural Therapies Unit, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney. Associate Professor John Eden, MBBS, MD, MRCOG, FRANZCOG, CREI, is the director of the Sydney Menopause Centre and Natural Therapies Unit, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney.
• RAMESH MANOCHA is a general practitioner and researcher who currently holds the Barry Wren Research Fellowship at the Royal Hospital for Women and the School of Womens and Childrens Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia where he is involved in scientific evaluation of complementary and alternative medicines. In 1998 he established the Meditation Research Programme (MRP). Since that time, the MRP has conducted exploratory clinics, physiological evaluations and several high-quality randomized controlled trials. In 2002 the MRP was approached by members of the community to explore the potential of Sahaja Yoga meditation for children with ADHD and thus the ‘Meditation for ADHD Clinic was initiated. Dr Manocha is a recipient of the Bernard Lake Memorial Prize for complementary medicine research. CONTACT : Natural Therapies Unit, Royal Hospital for Women, Locked Bag XXX, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia. E-mail: XXX@unsw.edu.au[31]

Steven Hassan writes:

• Meanwhile in Sydney, Australia a franchise group of medical centres have decided to offer its patients free Sahaja Yoga programs, as bona fide treatment to alleviate stress. All those patients who complain of stress or stress-related diseases to any of the doctors serving these medical centres will be referred to the Stress Management Programmes run by a Dr. Ramesh Manocha and other yogis. [32]

According to a speech by Sir CP, Dr. Manocha was part of the medical team that treated Shri Mataji in 2006.

• I can go on and on about this, but I want to tell something a little more, and it is that I am deeply grateful to Australia and Australian Sahaja Yogis, your collective, for having provided the medical team which has looked after your Mother, and I want to express my very, very deep gratitude to Dr. Bohdan and Dr. Ramesh Manocha, and the nurses, sisters who are here. [33]

What to make of this? We can't second guess the reliablity of the peer-reviewed journals that have published his work. It may be worth noting, though, that Menocha specializes in doing research on SY, advocates its uses, and practices it himself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

... and that he attends to Nirmala Srivastava's personal medical needs. The peer-reviewed journals are not aware of Manocha's conflict of interest as he does not declare it. This is certainly the case with Thorax with whom I have corresponded. Monocha sent me a series of emails denying he was an SY and making all sorts of wild threats if I wrote a formal letter to Thorax as they suggested. I felt the guy was fighting to save his career and felt sorry for him so let it go. However, the fact is certainly relevant to this article. Incidentally, I don't think you are quoting Steve Hassan directly, but rather an article that he published which is a commentary on Sahaja Yoga newsletters. --Simon D M 09:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What is Sahaja Yoga

The beginning of this article is clunky because it defines SY as a practice and then goes on to talk about associated beliefs, organisation, guru/goddess, etc. What is the overarching concept here that includes all the others? It is New Religious Movement - that includes all the other facets. The article would be improved if it started like this:

Sahaja Yoga (Sahaja meaning innate and Yoga meaning union) is a new religious movement founded by Nirmala Srivastava, more widely known as "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" or "Mother" by followers - who worship her as the complete [34] incarnation of the Adi Shakti. The term Sahaja Yoga can also be used to refer to the practices that are promoted by the movement, including meditation and puja. There are a number of formal organizational bodies within Sahaja Yoga, the main one being known as Sahaja Yoga International or Vishwa Nirmala Dharma.

Sahaja Yoga grew from India and England (where Nirmala Srivastava moved in 1972) and spread internationally. There are now Sahaja Yoga centers around the world .

As this is a major change, I'm putting it up for discussion and of course welcome constructive input. --Simon D M 16:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is simple - what came first, the meditation or the organization? Sahaja Yoga meditation exists separately of the organization. The intro is fine as it is, except for the "the complete [4] incarnation of the Adi Shakti" (which isn't in the source). Your knowledge of the organizational structure of SY appears to be outdated, it has been a long time since you "left". Sfacets 21:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's more about the overarching concept. However, the movement came first. Mataji has had a group of followers since at least 1971. She only started 'raising kundalini' of groups in January 1972. After that the current techniques developed over a decade or so. So the movement came first.--Simon D M 09:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, "since you got kicked out" is an inappropriate personal remark verging on a personal attack. Please comment on the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am just establishing context - it wasn't an attack just a statement of fact. Sfacets 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's unnecessary. Please don't make further negative personal comments about other editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the wording. Sfacets 23:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As there's no further comment, I'll go ahead. --Simon D M 11:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is further comment. Wait for concensus before applying disputed changes. You are being disruptive, but I will stick to my 1 revert. - perhaps someone else could revert pending consensus on this issue? Sfacets 11:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the fact that you had revisited this section but not said anything more on the issue meant you'd finished. Actually I don't think saying that SY is a NRM is all that controversial, after all Mataji calls SY a global religion. SY is certainly a lot more than a practice. --Simon D M 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've now read the prior discussion on this. Originally 'cult' was a neutral word. It became problematic. 'NRM' was designed to be a new neutral word with only a partial overlap to leave 'cult' behind. If people are saying that NRM is becoming problematic then we need to see where the problem is coming from - it's coming from high profile cases of a few of these NRMs giving the others a bad name. It's not to do with the word NRM which is neutral and descriptive, you could even say bland. Call SY meditation a practice by all means, but SY in its totality is a NRM, and any academic study that has tried to study SY in its totality has labelled it a NRM. --Simon D M 12:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, are if your only objection is to term "complete" re: incarnation, why not add the rest and continue sdiscussing that one issue? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the word and link pending a resolution of the dispute. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the original quote that was supplied, we have: "The Adi Shakti is the Great Mother... Today her most complete incarnation is living on the earth to start the Golden Age; in this incarnation her name is Sri Mataji Nirmala Devi." The Advent, 1979, Gregoire de Kalbermatten (author), p298, cited in Sahaja Yoga, by Judith Coney, pp103-4 --Simon D M 10:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, I notice you've dropped out of this discussion but you are continuing to replace references to a NRM or movement with references to a practice. Please explain yourself. --Simon D M 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't dropped out of any discussion, and don't know what you are talking about, please clarify. Sfacets 14:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you still trying to deny that SY is a NRM? If not, why are you replacing references to it being a movement with things like "practices and associated beliefs"? --Simon D M 14:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not replacing anything - You are the one reverting a much revised introduction. Without awaiting consensus. Sfacets 14:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a dog's dinner. The fact that SY is a NRM is fully established and adopting that framework simplifies the article greatly. The constant shifting between practice, belief and organisation within no framework just made for confusion. If you have something further to say on the matter just say it, or we can close off this discussion and move on. --Simon D M 14:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs Section/Merge with Sahaja Yoga meditation

You can't talk about an NRM without talking about its beliefs. So we need a section on that. Most of the Sahaja Yoga meditation article is just about the beliefs surrounding SY meditation and could be incorporated easily. That would lead little left in the Sahaja Yoga meditation article which is no bad thing because it doesn't really say much about SY meditation eg where the attention is put etc --Simon D M 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you read prior discussions you will see that it was already previously incorporated, but the article was getting too long. Sfacets 11:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the prior discussions. If you want to re-open the issue, try an RFC. Sfacets 11:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added a short Beliefs section to give some kind of context to the practices. I'll look at the previous discussion on the issue of length. --Simon D M 11:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, I see you have cut out the short Beliefs section. I've read through all the prior discussions pages and I don't see any objections to having such a short beliefs section. If I've missed something, pls give the url. An article on an NRM without one is patently absurd. Farming the Beliefs section to the Sahaja Yoga meditation page is highly problematic. I saw the discussion of the charts where you seemed to be in favour of including them. Actually I guess it would be fine to just link to them. That isn't a big issue as far as I can see. The Beliefs section is an issue, obviously so. --Simon D M 12:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on Article spinouts above. If it is too long it will duplicate content. Sfacets 22:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is not spin-out article on General SY Beliefs, the beliefs of the beliefs section do not only apply to SY meditation so do not belong on that page. That pagy should refer to the main SY page for general beliefs pertaining to SY. The SY meditation page is currently mostly off-topic and should not be controlling what is on the main page.--Simon D M 10:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Off topic how? Sfacets 13:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It says a lot about the beliefs pertaining to SY in general, very little about SY meditation in particular. Almost nothing in fact. But let's leave discussion of that page to that page's discussion page. The important point here is whether a Beliefs section is pertinent to a page discussing a NRM. Either raise a valid objection to that or the section goes back in. --Simon D M 10:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is completely on topic - it isn't complete, however it discusses the basic tenet behind SY meditation ie the Chakra system, Kundalini etc. Sfacets 11:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And are you trying to say that those tenets don't apply to other aspects of SY??? --Simon D M 11:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Other aspects such as? Sfacets 11:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleansing techniques, the functioning of the Vashi health center, bandhans, interpretation of accidents, etc etc--Simon D M 11:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Vashi health center isn't a tenet of SY. You still haven't replied to my question - why is it off topic? Sfacets 11:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, you haven't understood. I'm not listing other tenets of SY, I'm listing other aspects of SY that basic beliefs such as kundalini, chakras, nadis, etc apply to. Other examples would be chakras relating to parts of the world, days of the week, deities worshipped in pujas, qualities manifesting in everyday life. Nadis and balancing practices. Kundalinis seen in the sky. Vibrations felt here there and everywhere and used for guidance in everyday life, and even in choosing new national leaders (although this can be overridden by Mataji or CP as happened this Summer in France). Those basic concepts apply to every aspect of SY life, not just the meditation, as you well know. --Simon D M 12:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that the only objector to this is now blocked, and the objections never seemed to stack up to anything anyway, can I take it that I can go ahead with the Beliefs section? --Simon D M 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Sfacets 08:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply stamping your foot isn't enough. You need to supply reasonable objections. We can't wait for them for ever. --Simon D M 10:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't me stamping my foot, that was me showing my contempt at your last answer. I have made my case. Everything pertaining to SY meditation belongs @ Sahaja Yoga meditation. And you forgot to sign in again. Sfacets 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if that's the best case you can make, then it's weak to say the least. Do I need to waste time on another RfC for you to come round to the obvious truth? --Simon D M 10:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, go right ahead. Sfacets 11:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Simon D M 16:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead

"The organization says the practice of Sahaja Yoga .. which may even be obtained immediately by visiting a Sahaja Yoga webpage.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20060101093331/http://www.sahajayoga.org/</ref>"

If you are using a link to an old archived version of the page, you will need to change the wording. Sfacets 05:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, there are still websites that offer online guidance in SY meditation that will result, if done properly, in feelin a cool breeze on the top of the head, a sign of self-realization. Are you asserting that it is no longer possible to follow online instructions and achieve self-realization? We can chnage the wording to "The organization has said..." if the tense is your only issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, simply that the website in question no longer states that. Sfacets 06:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why we're using the archived version. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The main SY site seems to be offering 'Self Realisation' by online video at http://www.sahajayoga.org/experienceitnow/ which is linked on the main page. --Simon D M 16:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Trademark

The name Sahaja Yoga has been trademarked in the US by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma although the term goes back at least to the 15th Century Indian mystic Kabir.[35] [36]

The first references quotes Simon (yes, that is Simon D M. The second makes no reference to "Sahaja Yoga". Sfacets 13:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The second one does mention the term:

• In common with the Sahajayani Buddhists Guru Nanak used the term mahasukha to describe the nature of the experience of the sahaj state of being, which may at once suggest a very close and intimate association with Sahajayani yogic practices, especially because he also uses the phrase sahaj yog in this context. But here too, one must take into consideration the fact that he uses the term mahasukh - not in its technical Tantric yogic meaning - but synonymously with paramsukh and paramanand, that is, in its literal sense of supreme pleasure, supreme joy and bliss. A technical term is not interchangeable, but Guru Nanak seems to have admitted the interchangeability of mahasukh with param sukh and param anand, and - by and through - this simple means he seems to have divested the term and concept of mahasukha of all its exclusive Tantric yogic significance.

"Sahaj yog" appears to be a different way of spelling "sahaja yoga". Is the first reference somehow invalid because it quotes someone who later became a Wikipedia editor? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The second reference is invalid because it quotes the defendant in the case (ie Simon D Montford) - not exactly source material. Sfacets 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the quotation from Simon in the second source (sikhreview.org). In the first source the panel makes a finding of fact:

• Thus, the word ‘Sahajyoga’ is not only a descriptive Sanskrit word but is also a concept dating back to Buddhism adopted by saint Kabir and then also taken up by Guru Nanak in Sikhism. Accordingly, ‘Sahajayoga’ is such a common term having descriptive meaning, becoming an important religious concept which has not come into existence recently or in the year 1970 when the Complainant adopted it. It would not, therefore, be permissible that any single person, body, entity, organization or a society who can either claim or would be entitled for grant of an exclusivity or monopoly on these words and concept of Sahajayoga.

That doesn't mention SD Montfort. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The second source is useless without the first source (which aimed at establishing that SY was a "trademark" - the second aimed at proving that the term "Sahaja Yoga" was used by Kabir.) the second source describes "sahaj yog", the first describes a concept, and doesn't discuss the name in relation to Kabirs "sahaj yog" ideas. Sfacets 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The second sources shows the term has other uses that predate 1970. The first source shows that a neutral panel decided that the term predated 1970. If we need to source for the trademark that's easy - the U.S. PTO has an online database. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• G & S: educational services, namely, conducting classes, workshops and seminars in the field of techniques of meditation, relaxation and self-improvement. FIRST USE: 19700000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19730000 Filing Date: March 2, 1999, (REGISTRANT) Dharma, Vishwa Nirmala NONPROFIT RELIGIOUS CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 15445 VENTURA BLVD., #900 SHERMAN OAKS CALIFORNIA 91403 [37]

There you go. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The second source doesn't mention "Sahaja Yoga", and describes the concept, doesn't discuss the name. I added the reference above (thanks), and moved the section to the organization section. Sfacets 02:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying "sahaj yog" is a differnt term than "sahaja yoga"? Also, why is the finding of the arbitration panel not a reliable source? Maybe it would be better to treat the artbitration separately, in a sentence of its own, rather than as a clause of the trademark sentence. Something like "The VND lost a case against a website titled X because the panel found the term had been used before 1970". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am. There is no evidence that the two carry the same meaning or describe the same concept. To say that the case was lost because "the term had been used before 1970" is an oversimplification, and wrong. Sfacets 02:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I added:

• In 2001 a complaint by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma to the World Intellectual Property Organization regarding the domain name 'sahaja-yoga.org' was rejected, in part due to the determination that 'sahajayoga' is not only a descriptive Sanskrit word but is also a concept dating back to Buddhism adopted by saint Kabir and then also taken up by Guru Nanak in Sikhism', and was not created by in 1970.[36]

Should we add more? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, the sentence I added commented on the term 'Sahaja Yoga' which, as you well know, is the same as 'Sahaj Yog'. Just because one can argue that the sense varies between Kabir, Muktananda & Rajneesh (who all used the term before Mataji), it does not change the issue of that this is the true history of the term. --Simon D M 10:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sahaja Yogis even refer to SY as Sahaj Yog, see: http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_29_2002.asp Conclusion: it is the same term and comment on the history and varied of the term is useful in an encyclopedia article. --Simon D M 11:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot claim that because a term is the same that it always means the same thing. Are Sahaja Yoga practices exactly the same as the concept outlined by Kabir? Sfacets 08:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Radha Soamis also call their practice Sahaj Yog (or Sehj Yog), following Kabir. See: http://www.babafaqirchand.com/light%20on%20the%20anand%20yog1.doc And by the way, I wrote neither this article, the article in Sikh Review, nor the WIPO decision. --Simon D M 11:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your POV is expressed in the WIPO article. Sfacets 08:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My POV was and is the same as the person who wrote the Response (not me) and the same as the majority decision of the panel (I wasn't on it). I expect that your POV is also expressed in the article, by the Complainant and the minority decision. --Simon D M 10:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, I wasn't part of the trial. Sfacets 11:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like yet another silly waste of time discussion to me. The WIPO document is obviously a valid source. Do you want to embarrass yourself with another RfC? --Simon D M 11:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not all the Information contained in the source is valid - it contains ...well your... contentions. Sfacets 11:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And the relevant section is clearly labelled as such, along with the section on Complainant's contentions, etc. This is a document from the World Intellectual Property Organisation. Somehow I think it ranks several leagues higher than most of your sources. Do you really want to drag this out and embarrass yourself with another RfC?--Simon D M 11:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing there has been no request for another RfC, can we assume that this discussion is finally over, and the WIPO decision stands as an acceptable source? --Simon D M (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

Despite the reverting of Simon D M and the warning of Wilbeback, I insist this

Nirmala Srivastava has stated that meditation is not thinking "about your problems at all, whatever chakras you have, anything", rather it "means exposing yourself to God’s grace." [10] She has described meditation as "an individual journey towards God." [11]

Is not the exact (correct) quotation. She said:

Don’t worry at what point you have a problem. Say, many people during meditation, I have seen, if they catch somewhere they go on looking after it. You just don’t have to worry. You just let it go and it will work by itself. So you don’t have to put in any effort. This is what meditation is. Meditation means exposing yourself to God’s grace

Either we add the correct one, either we take out this line. I don't understand what is going here ? Thank you per advance PS: And I do not understand why we should discuss and argue for such evidence. Agenor 77 12:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is no opinion, I feel I cango on then...--Agenor 77 12:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

These two sets of quotations don't appear to even overlap. The page has many lines of commentary. If you want to add the lines you've cited here that's not a probelm, though it may get too long. The lines cited at top appear to be quoted accurately. The line about "an individual journey towards God" doesn't appear on that page, it may be an incorrect link. It does appear on this page.[38]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Valaya.co.uk

Why is this website being used as a source? The link http://www.valaya.co.uk/KNOWLEDGEpujaProt1.htm for example, states its origin as being from a "Private archive", nothing else. Unless a good reason is provided to keep this as a source, I will remove it as well as associated content. Sfacets 16:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagee. If you look at the home page it is clearly an official SY website. [39] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And you see this how? By the copyright information? It is obviously a private website. Sfacets 00:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of obvious looking at it - have you seen other official websites sporting free counters, using tiled images as background? Sfacets 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The page says that "all the knowledge, contents, and materials in this website come from and belong to H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi. Copyright 2001 H.H. Shri Mataji Devi 2001 all rights reserved". Are you contending that there is more than one individual called " H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, only that it isn't an official website, and is an unreliable source in this case. Sfacets 03:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is from "H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" then it is relevant. You assert that it's unreliable, but there's no evidence of that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability This is obviously a Self-published source, and is not reliable, unless it is verified by another source. Sfacets 05:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If we can prove that the material is self-published and inaccurate then I agree that it would be unreliable,. However I don't see any proof of those assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not adding the information, or using the source. Please read burden of evidence. You need to provide evidence of the validity of the website as a source. Sfacets 08:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea about all this, but, by curiosity I have check main page of this website http://www.valaya.co.uk/, and you discover that it should be a kind of private website, or intranet maybe as a login is requested. Official website are public. So, it is a self-published website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked this up on one of those doman tools, and it's registered to a "Gian Luca Masciangelo". I don't know if that's person or a company, but its address is in Italy even though its a U.K. domain. By comparison, the "sahajayoga.org.uk" domain is registered to "LET", a known official SY organization with a suburban London address. (I guess there is more than one entity.) That being the case, I think this "www.valaya.co.uk" site looks like an overeager adherent,. Though he copyrights the information in the name of Shri Mataji, I doubt that she actually wrote most of it herself. The incorrect application of copyrights seems to be a common issue with groups like this. I'm sure it's well-intentioned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

LET is Life Eternal Trust, the tax-exempt equivalent of VND (created before the term VND was coined). SYogis setting up their own websites was official policy under the Mataji-inspired Project 2800 which tried to drown out critical voices on the Web with a flood of SY sites. See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syrc/message/38 --Simon D M 11:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But Simon Dicon Monfort who wrote this letter it's you no ? --Agenor 77 13:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right, I'm really going to bother writing all that. I'm surprised you want to deny your Guru's work. There's another reference in here: [40] The failed project hasn't been completely air-brushed out yet. --Simon D M 13:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your confirmation --Agenor 77 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

LET is not necessarily tax-exempt in all countries, nor is it the exact equivalent of VND. This varies from country to country. Sahajhist 13:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon, please refrain from using unreliable sources (mostly created by you) to back your claims. Sfacets 13:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why you are embarrassed about the attempt to drown out all critical voices on the Net, pretty shameful I agree, but it happened, and failed miserably. And if you want to accuse me of fabricating any more embarrassing material, please provide some evidence to back up your accusations. You may choose to believe what you are told in SY, but you need some evidence before you pass on such stories on this page. --Simon D M 13:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no accusation, you signed the message that you show http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syrc/message/38 so it's an evidence. Then forgive me to suspect each and every editing of yours as it seems you are here only for that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Simon+D+M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The message is not signed by anybody. I posted it. Here only for what? --Simon D M 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I see... very practical (grin) Thank you to state that you posted it.--Agenor 77 17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The message may have gone out on the old Sahajnet from Mark Mays. Check with him if you're interested. --Simon D M 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

May ? --Agenor 77 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. --Simon D M 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody accused you of anything here. My issue is with you backing up your assertions with your own material. Also please comment on the edits, not the editor. Sfacets 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"But Simon Dicon Monfort who wrote this letter it's you no ?" is an accusation in the form of a question. How is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syrc/ any less reliable than an official SY site? --Simon D M 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a question off course.. don't be paranoiac

Now let's stop the petty back-biting and get back to the subject in hand: "Valaya is in line with the international policy of Sahaja Yoga" http://www.valaya.co.uk/HOME.htm It is also listed by the Canadian site: http://www.sahajayoga.ca/WorldWide/PersonalWebsites.html --Simon D M 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make it a valid wikipedia source. Sfacets 21:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Another official site linking to it approvingly is here: http://www.mpsahaj.org/links.htm --Simon D M 12:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It also seems Gian has some pretty high-powered customers: http://www.masciangelo.com/INFO_BASE_UK_3.html I think he'd no better than to start making stuff up and putting it onto his sites. --Simon D M 15:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:V clearly states that personal websites are not acceptable as sources. This is clearly a private (there is a login on the home page, although the site is not very secure, and for this reason pages inside the site have been linked to) and personal website, and there is no evidence that the author is an expert on the subject. User:Windinthetrees 10:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I completly agree with you. Both point are obvious --Agenor 77 13:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it says they are largely not acceptable. If we are going to restrict ourselves to "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses" then there won't be much. For a fringe theory like SY, the important thing is to ensure parity of sources. --Simon D M 12:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Between the restriction you put supra and evidence posted by the editor itself, there is a middle path my dear :) --Agenor 77 13:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Valaya site is uploading standard SY materials and speeches of Mataji. It is reliable stuff, linked to by official sites of SY. If Mataji's speeches were changed (apart from maybe the most embarrassing bits, but then official sources do that as well) then there would be no linking, it would be classed in the same category as adishakti.org (which doesn't change speeches either but obviously breaks other norms). Furthermore, valaya is produced by a professional web developer who knows better than to misrepresent his subject matter. The site is password protected so that non-SYogis can't find out what SYoga is all about, which is also the problem with this page. That kind of information can only be found behind password protection or on the sites of critics of SY which are currently barred from most of this page because parity of sources is not practised. However, we need to look at the overarching aim of Wikipedia: it is not to produce an article based on "whay SY wants people to believe", rather "what SY is". --Simon D M 14:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would put Valaya on a par with Sahajavidya which Sfacets and SahajHist have strongly defended as a suitable source in the discussion here --Simon D M 14:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon is misrepresenting my views. I merely commented on the factual accuracy of the Sahajvidya site as part of an earlier ongoing discussion. Sahajhist 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious. Everybody can see that... --Agenor 77 22:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

To be precise SahajHist said that the site was reliable, accessible and heavily used. Sorry if I overstated the case in SahaHist's case by lumping him together with Sfacets. --Simon D M 11:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

gni? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion has gone on long enough and we should ask Will, as a neutral party, to decide. --Simon D M 14:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that this site appears to be a personal site that uploads official documents. It's in the same category as the Sahajavidya site, which we use as a source. I'm reluctatnt to include either site, but if we include one then there's no reason to exclude the other. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Sahajavidya site is registered to an individual, Nick Kerswell, rather than to an SY entity such as LET or VND. Therefore it too is a personal site publishing SY material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nick is on the official team previously mentioned (includes our friend Bohdan and a certain self-proclaimed expert on Sahaj History who will go unnamed) responsible for collating all audio and video recordings of Mataji. The Valaya site allows quotes to be seen in full context so is in many ways an even better source. --Simon D M 11:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again, Simon yet again twists the facts! There is no 'official' team on the Media Project, merely a list of names, arranged by country, acknowledging those who have helped. Sahajhist 11:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon says : " The Valaya site allows quotes to be seen " but anybody who is not twostedm can understand that it is a private site and it has been build to beunder privacy / with a login altough it doesn't work at all. But mainly, it is a private site.--Agenor 77 13:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As SahajHist said about the Sahajvidya site, "this website is accessible to all via Google... This site is very reliable, being based, literally, on the teacher's exact words." In fact, Valaya avoids the one problem SahajHist identified with Sahajvidya ie "the compiler takes what could politely be called a 'biblical' approach - a sentence from one talk, a paragraph from another - which results in Shri Mataji's comments being discussed out of the context of the original talk" --Simon D M 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Valaya and Sahajvidya do not have the same value as sources - Sahajvidya references each paragraph back to a specific speech given by Nirmala Srivastava, complete with dates. Valaya makes no claim of doing so, and is therefore not a Reliable source Sfacets 08:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Obvioulsy ! I would request that we consider this site (valaya) as definitely unsuitable for reference here --Agenor 77 08:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary Sfacets, see: http://www.valaya.co.uk/IN-DEEP.htm (btw you seem to have picked up a cheerleader). --Simon D M 11:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Are any of the sources currently used traceable back to talks? Re:the cheerleader - what can I say, I'm a cool guy. Sfacets 11:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you even bother to follow the link? It's a list of full talks with dates, locations and full text. Am genuinely glad to see a flicker of humour in you. --Simon D M 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I followed the link, my question was in regards to the references currently used in the article. Sfacets 11:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe we shouldn't be using http://www.valaya.co.uk or http:// or the Sahajvidya site as sources here - we all agree that they are personal sites and as such cannot rely on them as a source for reliability. It seems to me we have consensus on this. We've gone back and forth on this long enough even after having Will take a look at it and agreeing they are personal sites. All references to these two sites in the article need to be removed.Yogasun 14:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion has gone on long enough, but there is an important principle to be taken into account and that is that the acceptable level of reliability is relative to availability which in turn depends on how mainstream a theory is. The section on parity states, "if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer review journal" which implies the the point I am making. Many of the beliefs of Sahaja Yoga are largely hidden on official sites because the organisation does not want newcomers to know what they are getting into. Thus information can only be sourced mainly from non-official sites and the sites of critics. Not to address these topics would make the article unbalanced, to do so may require reliance on non-official sites. This is an unusual situation that requires thought beyond the usual policies. --Simon D M 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Valaya site is disallowed then there's no reason to include the Sahajvidya either. They are similar enough to be treated identically. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Will and Yogasun - let's remove references to both. --58.110.125.64 10:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How about the speeches here: http://www.valaya.co.uk/IN-DEEP.htm ? These are word-for-word speeches of the founder with her copyright on them. ---- Simon D M (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

More Edits

A few more edits, pleae comment on:

• There are a number of formal organizational bodies - the source http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0467.html says nothing about a number of bodies within the organization.

• The practice and associated organization grew from India - this was an agreed on version, which you came along, and without consensus or discussion decided to change.

• Dakshina - why inflate the price? $250 is for five day accomodation at a four star hotel with three 3-course meals.

• There are an array of cleansing practices to clear a practitioner of negativity in the form of bhoots - again, your source says nothing about clearing techniques in relation to 'bhoots' and 'bhadas'.

• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/talk-about-sahaja-yoga/ - please read archived discussions about this, and also WP:EL, notably "undue weight on particular points of view" and "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research", and "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups)" - it would appear that your foru fails many of the criteria needed to be linked to as an EL.

Sfacets 21:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, it's good that the page protection has encouraged you to pay some attention to this page. There are plenty of ongoing discussions here already waiting for your comment. For now let me respond to your specific points: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon D M (talk • contribs) 11:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• A number of formal organisational bodies are referred to and linked in this very article. The article's lead can summarise info that is in the article without having to repeat every reference that is in the article.

Are these really organizational bodies? Is there a source that calls them this? Sfacets 08:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of bodies listed under the organization section. Perhaps you can suggest a term to describe them more suitable that 'organizational bodies'. --Simon D M 17:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• NRM or 'practice and organisation', pls contribute to above discussion. Basically beliefs also spread so should we say 'practice, beliefs and organisation'? Far mor elegant to just write 'movement'.

See above.

I have seen. Your last 'serious' objection ('which came first') was 8 days ago and refuted the next day. --Simon D M 17:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dakshina - no inflation, just a mistake on my part, it should have been $121, the source refers to the "the customary $121 for pujas in the US", so it should be $121

Better. Sfacets 08:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Bhoots and baddhas - wait for that one. The whole thing would be a lot simpler if we had the beliefs section. Then the general concepts could be established in one place and the applications of the concepts in another.

That is what Sahaja Yoga meditation is for (no pun intended). Sfacets 08:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This one now has an RfC here. Incidentally, bare assertion is somewhat limited as a form of argument. --Simon D M 17:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• WP:EL says Yahoogroups are normally to be avoided but it also says that sites to be considered include: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

--Simon D M 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

They didn't knew that someone will post on a yahoogroups whatever he need to confirm he's own vision --Agenor 77 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See also the section on self-published sources. Sfacets 08:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are talking about tasy or syrc. TASY is worthy of consideration as it is from a lineage of mailing lists that has included contributions from the world's foremost academic authority of SYoga, indeed she was the moderator of one of those lists before being driven off and publicly reviled by some of the Sahaja Yogi contingent. SYRC is also worthy of consideration because it is not a discussion forum, just a repository for official Sahaja Yoga communications and other documents of note. --Simon D M 11:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable! More twisting of facts by Simon. Jude Fox (nee Coney) was never on TASY, and she left an earlier yahoogroup because she was starting a new phase in her life helping her husband with his research (on SE Asia). TASY itself consists of a handful of bitter and twisted old ex-yogis bemoaning their 'wasted years'. SYRC is one of Simon's self-publishing projects, others of which have been commented on above. Sahajhist 12:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is part of the same lineage of lists beginning with Vlad's on the Alberta listserv. When Vlad moved from Alberta, the list moved to onelist which got merged into egroups which got merged into yahoogroups. The original YahooGroup was vandalised by a spineless Sahaja Yogi who you, SahajHist, know very well, and reincarnated as TASY which has posts from ex-members, members, relatives of members, etc. It is the only community on the Web that accepts various views on SYoga, all the official forums being exclusive and monitored. The barracking that Judith received is clear for all to see here and included a section of a webpage on geocities (now moved to adishakti.org) written to condemn her (the Sahaja 'yogis' eventually were told to remove it because Judith had contact higher up the SY food chain). Are you disputing the authenticity of any of the documents on SYRC? --Simon D M 12:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

for your information Simon, the section of the syresponse webpage on Jude Fox was removed at my request. I also requested a toning down of the comments on yourself, which also happened. Make of that what you will. Sahajhist 19:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The record shows that at the time Pavinsky said at the time the removal of the stuff on Jude was "out of our hands" - that's not easy to square with the idea that you were the sole cause, although that's not to say that you didn't make such a request. Any request to tone down the comments on me was obviously ignored. --Simon D M 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I understood nothing ! --Agenor 77 21:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about some pages created by a group of Sahaja Yogis intent on discrediting SY's critics. The pages not only include doctored photos and known lies, but forged documnets. A truly shameful episode in the history of SY. See the pages here: (link to attack page edited out— Coren ^(talk) 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)) --Simon D M 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's you on the pic ? --Agenor 77 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the article. I strongly discourage anything that could be construed as harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes sorry. But it is relevant actually. We can understand the impartiality of Simon D M then. Then undertsand his motivation. Then understand, just by reading this talk page how much he's manipulating infos, quotes etc.. Add the discovering of this page he pointed out, we can clearly see and understand that he's there for revenge. So ? Which credit will we (reader of wiki) give to his editing now ?--Agenor 77 07:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Every editor has biases. We don't require that they be neutral, only their edits. In the future please comment on the contributions, not the contributors. If editors need correction then the appropriate place to start is their talk page. That goes for everybody. Let's leave our outside issues outside, and while we're here act just as Wikipedia editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for your guidance, disucssion shifted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Simon_D_M#Impartiality. --Agenor 77 07:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That page is also for discussing edits, not denouncing contributors. If you want to denounce me then I suggest that http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adishakti_sahaja_yoga/ would be a good venue. --Simon D M 11:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If an editor could be excluded just because they had been abused by Sahaja Yogis, the Sahaja Yogis could easily get rid of any editor they don't like. --Simon D M 11:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that Sahaja Yogis are dishonnest ?--Agenor 77 11:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you figure that one out for yourself. But I will say that, on average, they are certainly not less honest than their goddess. --Simon D M 11:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop spamming us with your yahoo group. Sfacets 11:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not my yahoogroup. It belongs to one of your fellow believers. Remember, check your facts before lurching into accusations. --Simon D M 11:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless it is spamming - is this relevant to the article? No. Sfacets 11:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I was trying to keep the discussion on topic by suggesting an alternative venue for the personal denunciations. Oh, and the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adishakti_sahaja_yoga/ is indeed relevant to this article. --Simon D M 11:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

your fan club? [[41]] MonitorMan (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

it shows that even folks in different universes can agree on some things - we may even get consensus on this page one day. --Simon D M (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

MySpace Video

Sfacets, you keep changing the illustrative video for puja from the original http://www.sahajayoga.com.au/shrimataji2006/video8.html to http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=17308564 (some of your edit summaries even refer to the latter as the original, which you must know is incorrect). MySpace is listed as a link that should normally be avoided. On a less technical note, although this is a self-published puff piece, you do see various aspects of SY, and if it doesn't contravene WP:EL it would be good to link it somewhere. BUT, you have to watch for 20 minutes or so before getting half minute glimpse of the actual puja with somebody talking over it. Nevertheless, it was nice to see Derek F on the video who I used to work with at Shudy Camps. --Simon D M (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Puja is generally a 2-3 day event - encompassing cultural themes etc... Nothing is written in Wiki policy about not allowing videos hosted on Myspace (this could just as easily have been hosted anywhere else). This video shows a larger picture of what Puja means, and includes interviews with Yogis. A lot more illustrative. Sfacets 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing the event that surrounds the puja with the puja itself. See: http://www.theworldsavior.org/swan/view/swan_614_2007.asp - the puja is on just one of the days. Look at the definition of what a puja is, it does not include unloading a lorry or talking to a camera about "what Sahaja Yoga means to me". There is puja and the preparations, music programme, etc that goes on with it. --Simon D M (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I edited the article to show both videos, would that be an acceptable compromise? Unfortunately your disruptive Australian co-religionist at 121.210.52.44 has removed one of the videos already and only left your choice. Maybe also you could explain to me why a video on a normally be avoided site is OK while an article is not, after all, that article could be hosted anywhere too. --Simon D M (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, I see that without any consultation you have moved these videos to the External Links section. Please explain yourself. --Simon D M (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Second Coming? or Mother of all Cults?

• Second Coming? or Mother of all Cults? Opinions by Steve Hassan

Sfacets, why do you keep inserting that this link is 'opinions by Steve Hassan'? It is bemusing given that there is absolutely no indication of this on the page, especially so given that you were not able to discern Manocha's authorship of his article even though it was clearly indicated in the byline.--Simon D M (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It is his website, and is unsigned. Sfacets 20:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sfacets. Sahajhist 20:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We all can see that it is his website and it is unsigned, the question is whether it automatically makes him the author. People don't become authors by publishing unsigned articles on their websites. --Simon D M (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Disputed Authorship of Referenced Article

This RFC, insisted upon by Sfacets, concerns this article which is quoted in this section. It has been discussed here.In brief Simon D M maintains that the article indicates that Ramesh Manocha is the author and that John Eden is the coordinator of the Herbs in Focus section of the website. As evidence he points to Ramesh Manocha being mentioned in the standard byline and John Eden being billed in the same manner on every instance of a Herbs in Focus article for example. Simon D M points out that Dr Wadegaonkar has reached the same conclusion. Sfacets initially objected to this because the author refers to Ramesh Manocha in the 3rd person. Later he objected that John Eden could be the author of the article because no part of the article explicitly says that Ramesh Manocha is the author. --Simon D M 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that Manocha is the primary author, while Eden is acting as the editor or procurer of the article. This other article has an identical arrangement with Manocha: "Could herbal treatments have a role in glycaemic control?" Eden apparently has a series on alternative medicines that includes about 10 articles.[42] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have viewed the above article and concur with WillBeBack's assessment. Sahajhist 19:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the factual basis of the issue has been established, and have therefore deleted the tag. Sahajhist 20:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be a Beliefs section incl Chakra info &c

This RFC, suggested by Sfacets, is over whether there be a Beliefs section including info on Chakras, Kundalini, Self-Relisation, etc in this article or should this be in the Sahaja Yoga meditation page? Previous discussion takes place here and here

In brief, Simon D M maintains that these concepts are relevant to many aspects of the new religious movement Sahaja Yoga, while Sfacets maintains they are specific to one aspect, namely meditation, which currently has a spin-off page.

Simon D M has sourced a number of examples where these basic concepts are applied to other aspects of Sahaja Yoga: Knowledge of chakras and kundalini used to diagnose[43]; anapurna mantra used before taking food or drink[44]; and vibrations used to match couples[45].

Sfacets has responded by seeking to widen the definition of 'Sahaja Yoga meditation' to include all other practices. I will let Sfacets provide his own sources and rationale as I am not aware of any he has provided so far.--Simon D M 16:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Puja may involve meditation, but I've never seen a definition of "meditation" that includes puja, footsoaking, shobeating, and other religious practices. Perhaps it would be simpler if that article we renamed "Sahaja Yoga practices", "SY rituals" or some other name that encompasses all the practices? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If there really is enough on practices to justify a spin-out page, at the moment there is not that much. Currently the page offers little more than the disputed charts and some general SY beliefs. If you want to put all practices and beliefs into one page, and leave the organization in another, surely the organization page should be the spinout. At the moment I don't think we have enough solid material for any spinouts to be necessary. --Simon D M 10:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was intended as a 'depository' for information about and surrounding Sahaja Yoga meditation, (ie the chakras, Kundalini, Subtle body etc) which cannot be understood without these concepts. Sfacets 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The solutions would be to duplicate the basic info (redundancy, not good) OR to refer the reader to the main Sahaja Yoga page for the basic belief. Unless you want a spinout page for that as well and there currently isn't enough for that either. I don't think encyclopedias are meant to be depositories. --Simon D M 10:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice the ' ' scare quotes. I don't see the need to duplicate the information, there is a specific article for the information. Sfacets 11:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and the basic beliefs of SY belong in the main article, where all the subjects they pertain to are dealt with. --Simon D M 11:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? When there is already a specific article relating to SY meditation. Sfacets 12:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not willing to go round in circles. Read what has already been written and think for yourself. --Simon D M 12:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article." from: Wikipedia policy --Simon D M 13:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The other article isn't a fork. It is an article relating to Sahaja Yoga meditation. Sfacets 14:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Who said it was a fork? --Simon D M 15:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You, with your link. Sfacets 15:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The link is just sourcing the statement. There is a danger though that the spinout page under discussion could become a POV fork. --Simon D M (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Sahaja Yoga meditation article is separate as such from this main article - it is intended to contain information regarding beliefs, practices etc as followed by Sahaja Yoga. The Sahaja Yoga meditation article is intended solely to discuss beliefs/practices and is not a POV fork - there was no objection to it's creation, and it doesn't duplicate/touch on the same subject as this article. It is a spin-off article, a widely used and acceptable practice on Wikipedia. If you have any ideas for a more descriptive name, per Will Beback feel free to suggest it. Sfacets 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I note that just 4 hours before writing the above, you removed links from Sahaja Yoga meditation claiming that they "don't discuss SY meditation". So I think you need to make your mind up whether Sahaja Yoga meditation is about just SY meditation, or about SY beliefs & practices. --Simon D M (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If Sahaja Yoga meditation was to be about Sahaja Yoga Beliefs and Practices, then that's what it should have been called, unless you are trying to give the impression that the only practice is meditation and the only beliefs in Sahaja Yoga pertain only to that - which we all know is not the case and is a clear POV fork. If you take out the beliefs and practices, what is left on the main page? Just the organisation and its history? Surely that is a better subject for a spinout as it is of less general interest. Ultimately, the page is not long enough to justify any spinout even if beliefs were added in. Some organisational bits could be cut down as they are of little significance. --Simon D M (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Sahaja Yoga beliefs and practices" sounds like a reasonable name with a clear scope. Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

None from me if you really think another page is necessary. --Simon D M (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is a spin off from the Meditation section. As such it deals with SY meditation, which is based on Chakras, Kundalini, and various practices aimed at awakening this Kundalini to rise through said Chakras. As such, what is the problem with the title as it currently reads? Sfacets 08:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to cover all the beliefs together, either in this article or the other article. Meditation is just one of the beliefs. Is there any objection to "Sahaja Yoga beliefs and practices" as a new article name for "Sahaja Yoga meditation"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, since it isn't needed. Many/most of the practices fall under meditation. Sfacets 08:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But there are practices and beliefs not covered in it, such as pujas. If we can't keep the info together there then maybe we'd better move it back here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has already been full circle a couple of times at least. The discussion started because Sfacets would not accept a Beliefs section in the main article because there is a rudimentary one in the symeditation page, and that is actually the subject of this RfC. I suggest we move on my putting the Beliefs section into the main article as originally planned and then having another look at what the SYmeditation page actually adds beyond the disputed charts. If the main article is too long, we should look at what should most reasonably be spun out. It seems the syMeditation article was created without due process and is being presented as a fait accomplis to block development of the main article. Time for the tail to stop wagging the dog.--Simon D M (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, I've removed the redirects to the disputed page until such time as you can make up your mind whether it's SYmeditation or SYbeliefs&practices. It's for you to decide as you created it, seem to be exhibiting ownership and seem to be redifining its purpose at every turn.--Simon D M (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that Puja comes in under Meditation in a Sahaja Yoga context. I am not exhibiting ownership - you don't seem to grasp the concept of why the article was created - SY meditation discusses beliefs relating to Sahaja Yoga. There is the organization Sahaja Yoga (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) and then there is Sahaja Yoga meditation, a separate 'school of meditation' which encompasses spiritual practices such as Puja etc. There is no due process necessary to create a new article - and there was no opposition to it's creation at the time. The article spinout (did you read the relevant policy?) is intended to take space-consuming content from this article (which was previously very long/large and create a new article which could then be expanded separately. I don't see how you figure this is blocking development of the "main" article. Sfacets 12:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What you think is not the issue, where are the sources to back up your unusual POV that puja is part of meditation? Your division of the NRM into organisation and meditation is a false dichotomy because it leaves out a lot. If you have sources to show that SY is just meditation and organisation then let's see them cited. Read the title of this section, it is about your blocking of a beliefs section in the main article which is about the NRM as a whole - when did it become just about the organisation or did you decide this unilaterally?--Simon D M (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote above. Sfacets 16:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read it and all the relevant policy. If you want to make any extraordinary claims about SY meditation including all other practices and beliefs within it then show the sources. If not, just make up your mind what your article is about and we can move on. Trying to base a discussion around unsupportable claims or shifting goalposts is just a waste of time. --Simon D M (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"The power of Kundalini which is your own Mother has to rise & manifest itself, because of your Pure Desire. In your introspection, pujas & in your Meditation, you should see for yourself, why are you in Meditation. It is for Pure Desire of compassion & love to be awakened within us." Mataji's words from http://www.tnsahaj.org/Kundalini.htm NB that she says "introspection, pujas & ... Meditation". I can find many, many more sources to show your dichotomy is false but I won't find more till you provide one single source to support your POV. --Simon D M (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken another look on the policy on spinouts and came across this: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another." WP:SPINOUT#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles So even if there were any sense in Sfacets' dichotomy, it would not justify blocking a Beliefs section in the main page. --Simon D M (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How does that back up your position? "may well contain" doesn't imply that it should. Duplicate content isn't advised on Wikipedia. Sfacets 16:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't, if you read carefully it says even if your position re: a meditation/organisation dichotomy made any sense, it still wouldn't give you the right to block sourced content from the main page. We're yet to see any source from you that supports this dichotomy. If you can't produce sources you need to stop equivocating - either say your page is about syMeditation or syBeliefs&practices, one or the other. Till you stop shifting the goalposts, there is no hope of progress. --Simon D M (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I already have explained. Read^. Sfacets 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You have explained your POV but provided no sources to back it up. Time to put up or shut up.--Simon D M (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You asked me to explain. I explained. Stay civil. You want to insert duplicate content. It isn't my POV to say that duplicate content is wasteful. Please read Wikipedia:Summary_style - you obviously want to insert more than an introductory paragraph. Sfacets 09:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand Sfacets' posiiton. Is he saying that puja and cleasning technique sections should be included in the meditation article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Sfacets 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Then we should move the meditation studies there too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Pls provide a source to back up your assertion that all SY practices, including puja and 'mass wedding ceremonies', are covered by the term 'meditation'.--Simon D M (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have difficulties in reading my comment above, so here it is again: "SY meditation discusses beliefs relating to Sahaja Yoga. There is the organization Sahaja Yoga (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) and then there is Sahaja Yoga meditation, a separate 'school of meditation' which encompasses spiritual practices such as Puja etc." - nowhere do I mention the term - I mention that there are two parts of SY - the org and the spiritual (meditation) side. Sfacets 09:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Can read very well. You seem to have difficulty understanding that you are creating a false dichotomy, a model of SY that leaves a lot out and forces concepts under umbrellas where they don't belong. Unless you can provide sources that show otherwise. Still waiting for those. Less bluster, more sources. --Simon D M (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't need sources. If it is a 'false dichotomy' prove it to me. Sfacets 09:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Every decent editor needs sources. You have set up the dichotomy and are trying to control what goes where on the basis of it, often in a self-contradictory way. I've already given a quote showing that Mataji does not consider puja part of meditation. Without sources it looks like you are just pushing your POV regardless. --Simon D M (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon wrote: " if Sahaja Yoga meditation is about all beliefs and practices, why is Sfacets just linking it under the meditaion section?"[46] - I have added the template to the Practices section, and will move the bulk of the section to the Sahaja Yoga meditation article. Sfacets 09:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to get consensus as you well know. Don't be wreckless, we already have enough vandalism from your co-religionists. --Simon D M (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is a co-religionist? Using inaccurate descriptors like that makes me wonder at your ability to correctly edit articles here. What, so your reason for deleting the template was bogus? Sfacets 21:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/co-religionist Sorry, I can't understand your comment on the template and not sure which template you are talking about. Could you please discuss the matter at hand. Still waiting for your sources that justify bringing all beliefs and practices under the title 'Sahaja Yoga meditation'.--Simon D M (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing the matter at hand. You removed {{main|Sahaja Yoga meditation}} from the meditation section- read - it helps. Sfacets 21:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for sources. Not sure if I did remove that, I think it might have come out in Will's revert. I'm willing to be corrected if you can find the diff. Actually I don't think it is appropriate to put it anywhere until the purpose and scope of the page is defined, and it supplies some useful extra information beyond the disputed charts.--Simon D M (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with sfacets, the section should be reinstated. Could you please take care of that simon? There are plenty of things as you know that we need to include ie on chakras, the historical basis of Sahaj, the scientific basis, clearing tecniques and bandhan perhaps. By the way simon have you forgot about footsoaking? You could make use of such a section. You would benefit greatly from it. No one will know we wont tell your Catholic friends, you just need a bucket and some salt remember? [[User"Teamantime] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamantime (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

the section under discussion is being blocked by sfacets. Incidentally, I have no connection with CC contrary to sy propaganda. --Simon D M (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[You did] remove that, as you well know. Sfacets 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

ah yes, from the meditation section, I thought you meant from the practices section. I removed it from the meditation section because you were saying that the symeditation page was about all beliefs and practices. Like I said, I don't think it belongs anywhere till the purpose and scope of the page is made clear. You've presented a POV but no sources to back it up. On the other hand, I've presented sourced material to show that your POV is misleading. --Simon D M (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You aren't reading what I wrote. I'm not saying that Puja comes under Sahaja Yoga as a practice, I'm saying it comes under Sahaja Yoga meditation, which was introduced long before puja. Sfacets 11:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read and understood your POV many times. I've provided evidence to the contrary. Now I'm waiting for your sources, as I've said many many times.--Simon D M (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you haven't (or have, which is an even scarier prospect) because you are discussing something completely different. Sfacets 11:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we're talking about deletions, why does the same sourced materialget deleted over and over again? Teamantime appears to be responsible for many repeated deletions. Can he explain himself instead of just removing amterial, often with incorrect edit summaries? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not coming from RFC and I am not sure whether I understand all the arguments, but to have an article Sahaja yoga: beliefs and practices of which the meditation is a part sounds like a good idea. I also think that the meditation section in this article should be a subsection of beliefs and practices. If there are motivated objections to that then I would like to hear them. Andries (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC. Do not keep the information off this page. It's relevant. Leadwind 04:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? Sfacets 04:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Reorganising the Page

I set the above RfC up, and the previous discussion, to get consensus on adding a new section to this page as requested by Sfacets. Now Sfacets, after unnecessarily dragging out the discusssion by repeating the same POV while ignoring requests for evidence, has gone headlong into a major re-organization of this page without seeking consensus. It appears that having no defence, he had decided upon attack. This strikes me as hypocritical and disruptive behaviour.--Simon D M (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, if you want to reorganise this page around your POV that puja etc fall under syMeditation, then firstly you need some evidence to back it up, then you need to get consensus. If you ever manage to do the former (so far there have been no signs of even understanding why it is necessary), I suggest you create a mock-up of your proposed structure on a user page of your own. Unilaterally launching into reorganising the page is far more disruptive that the beliefs section that I added, for which I've had to go through hours of tortuous discussion. --Simon D M (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that you are taking responsibility for the RFC after all. Good on you. None of the edits I made were discussed during the RFC. I made the edits by being bold, because, frankly - the article looked like it had come out of a donkey's A*ç. Instead of reverting my hard work, please be civil and detail your objections here. I will answer your concerns and we can work things out. Let us also see what other editors have to say - which is what an RFC is all about. Sfacets 11:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, BOLD does not mean reckless, you must abide by the edit-revert-discuss cycle, not just push your edits through by force. You complain about your hard work being reverted, yet you deleted by Beliefs section and had no worries. Seems you are applying different standards. It seems that the changes of others must be removed and bogged down in interminable discussion while your edits are sacrosanct and must be discussed before being removed. The more you push this position, the more ridiculous it becomes. --Simon D M (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are reorganising the page around a POV that you have been trying to push but have not been able to support with sources, despite repeated requests. Not being able to find sources for your POV should lead you to question it, not recklessly edit based on it. --Simon D M (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My edits were not reckless. Your beliefs section? no: the project's belief section. Again, please detail your issues with my changes here and stop being disruptive. Sfacets 12:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The beliefs section was my hard work just as the reorganisation you have done is your hard work - yes, both belong to the project. Problems with your 'reorganisation' is that SyMeditation is no longer included under practices where it should be and the sourced material on medical applications of SY (as a whole) has been disappeared. Meanwhile your co-religionists are doing their usual work of removing sourced material and neutral wording.--Simon D M (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be? Also, correct me if I am wrong - I integrated information into other sections. Which material has disappeared? I am not responsible for other editor's edits, as I have already stated. Sfacets 12:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Meditation is clearly a practice of SY, this is a relationship that has been under discussion for weeks. You have ignored sourced material that contradicts your view and have ignored repeated requests for sources that support your view. Furthermore, under the cover of your reorganisation you are removing headers you don't like eg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=prev&oldid=173625436 and you are slipping in POV wording like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&diff=prev&oldid=173606896 Meanwhile your co-religionists are doing their usual work of removing sourced material and neutral wording. You know better but are using a blitzkrieg approach to push through your POV. --Simon D M (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

All my edits which changed anything of consequence had edit summaries - so there was no subterfuge involved. That isn't POV wording, it echoes the source I provided. I would appreciate it if you regarded my edits separately from other editors. SY meditation came first - not the organization (as you yourself have pointed out). Therefore the organisation is actually an outcome of that meditative practice. Extrapolate this, and you will realise that puja falls under SY meditation. Sfacets 12:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

By that same logic, all of SY is part of meditation, since all of SY was an outcome of the meditation. Maybe we should move the whole article to that name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all the same thing. The organization and the meditative practice are both separately notable. Sfacets 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The organization is not notable. You created an article about the organization and it was deleted at AfD. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason there is a spin-off article is because the article was getting too long. Simple as that. Sfacets 00:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't deal with the issue of mediation coming first, and therefore everything being a part of meditation. BTW, the studies of meditation should go under meditation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the organization is the same as the meditation? Yes, the studies on meditation should go under meditation - I made that change, but Simon reverted. Sfacets 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon seems to have an issue with removing meditation form practices - the reason he gave for reverting. How does he figure that it is a practice? Nirmala Srivastava has described it as a "state" of being. And it certainly is prominent enough to feature it in its own section. Also he doesn't seem to know what he wants - Puja classified under practices or under Meditation? I make changes that comply with his requests, and then he reverts. Sfacets 01:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I had an issue with the edit blitzkrieg by a group of editors - much of the critical material was removed, neutral wording was replaced with POV wording and the page was re-organised around categorisations which were the subject of ongoing discussion. The issue of which came first is a red herring and no sources or other rationale were provided for SYmeditation not to come under practices. Now Sfacets has provided an alternate rationale, that meditation is a state rather than a practice. Actually the term 'meditation' is used in SY (and elsewhere) to describe both a state and a practice (thus Sfacets has himself referred to it as a 'practice', 'meditative method' or 'meditative practice'). I see this as a valid point, and therefore think we should consider a compromise solution. --Simon D M (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't pass comment on your edit summaries. Extraordinary claims like that should be reported neutrally, just because a source uses POV wording it doesn't mean that it should be reported POV wording. What I actually said was that the NRM came before the current meditation practice. I also said that which came 1st doesn't determine which is the overarching concept. You have argued and argued but still have not provided a single source for your extraordinary claim that puja falls under SY meditation. --Simon D M (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I know you didn't pass comment - maybe you should have. There is no POV wording involved. Are you seriously suggesting that the organisation came before the meditation? It isn't an extraordinary claim - less even than your clim that the "NRM" came before the meditation. If you can show that the org started before the meditation then fine - otherwise your point is moot. Sfacets 13:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've given the diff, anybody can see the POV wording for an extraordinary claim. Your "which came 1st, the organisation or the meditation" is a moot straw man based on a false dichotomy. I have said all along that the NRM came before the meditation that is described on any of these pages, and the sources back it up. Mataji had followers before she started raising kundalini. I've also stated all along that which came first is not important, it is a red herring you have introduced. What matters is what is the overarching concept - practices or meditation. By definining SY as a meditative practice you include it within the category of practices, yet you want to waste time arguing that it's the other way round, that practices like puja are part of the meditation. When provided with sources contradicting this, you just repeat your POV, introduce red herrings, set up straw men, but never, never, actually provide one single source that backs up your POV. And so it goes on and on while you and your co-religionists go full steam ahead into reorganising the page, replacing neutral wording and removing sourced content.--Simon D M (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. If Mataji had followers before she started the meditation, then prove it. We all know this is your opinion. Now back it with some facts. The source contradicted nothing. It proved nothing. If you can show that the organisation started before the meditation then do so - otherwise your argument is flawed. Sfacets 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss your red herring, ask a question on my talk page. The issue at hand is whether you have any sources to back up your POV that SY is just meditation and organisation, and that meditation covers other practices such as pujas? Well, are you going to provide any sources?--Simon D M (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You first. If you cannot provide evidence that SY meditation started after the creation of the organisation then your point is moot anyway. Sfacets 10:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Set up that straw man on your talk page, you can discuss with it there. This discussion is about your reorganisation of the page without consensus, based on a view of SYoga that you put across but produced no sources to back up. The burden of evidence is with you, you have produced none despite repeated requests. I know it may be difficult for you, but please try to stay on topic. --Simon D M (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have argued my point - SY meditation came before SY org. Therefore Puja (which came after SY meditation) part of SY meditation. My edits reflect this (among other things). Also the article looks better than it did before. Did you have a nice lunch? (oh sorry, wondering off topic.) Sfacets 11:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when is arguing one's point enough to override consensus? It looks like you have no intention of providing souces. --Simon D M (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? Where do you see consensus? I made the changes because nothing was geting done - did you even list the RFC's in the right place? And, as I said - it is now up to you to provide evidence, otherwise your point is moot. Sfacets 11:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was getting done because whenever I want to do anything you demand that I take it to discussion, which I dutifully do. However, it is now clear that you don't apply this standard to yourself. You are the one making changes, you need to supply evidence, as you very well know. --Simon D M (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You obviously cannot back your claim. Please refrain from reverting the page. Sfacets 12:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My claim is that you are reorganising the page based on your POV without seeking consensus or offering sources to back up your POV. You have provided all the backing that is necessary.--Simon D M (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I am seeking consensus, otherwise I wouldn't be discussing here. Perhaps you should start discussing the article instead of me. Sfacets 12:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The ball is in your court simon. Waiting for your evidence. Also by reverting you are removing many non-controversial edits - and therefore being disruptive. Sfacets 13:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest mediation. See the relevant section. --Simon D M (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously at loss to provide evidence backing your claims. If you cannot do so, then the page will remain organized the way it was. Sfacets 00:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So now you make decisions unilaterally, I see. I've already provided evidence while you have provided none, despite repeated requests. You are obviously unwilling to budge so I suggest mediation. --Simon D M (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I think we should file for mediation. It is pointless to carry on like this. --Simon D M (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So file for mediation. Creating a section doesn't do anything. (Did you even really file for RFC, or did you just create a section here?) Sfacets 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your co-operation is necessary for mediation as you need to sign the form, thus I set up this section to request it.--Simon D M (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm following edits in Sahaja Yoga article since long, it's so shoking to see your abilities to biase evirything about Sahaja Yoga and Her founder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.140.35 (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be more productive if you raise specific issues. --Simon D M (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation seems like a good idea. Sfacets 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

As an alternative to mediation, we could consider a compromise. I would accept SY meditation as its own top-level section with subsections on the practice and the state (possibly also with a Medical Studies subsection), and the Practices section being renamed Other Practices. It is also acceptable for the SYmeditation material to go on the Sahaja Yoga meditation page, and there remain just a neutrally worded summary on the main page. However, it is not acceptable the existence of the SY meditation page to block a Beliefs section in the main page (that would be like saying there should be no Beliefs section in the Christianity page because there is a theology section in the Eucharist page). Also unacceptable is all the recent POV wording and removal of sourced material, so the reorganisation would have to be based on the current revert to Will BeBack's last version. The reorganisation would also have to be based on consensus. --Simon D M (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a 1st draft of the proposed structure. The studies on SY meditation are not under the SY meditation section, this is open to discussion, I just felt that it left the other Medical Applications stuff isolated as can be seen in this alternate proposal. Either proposal could work with this proposed structure for the Sahaja Yoga meditation article. --Simon D M (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So how could SY meditation remain the main heading for a section which comprises multiple sub sections and also be integrated into the SY Meditation article? There would be a lot of duplicate content. Sfacets 13:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the main article would have a neutrally worded summary of the spin-out. It doesn't necessarily have to have the subheadings. If the content were duplicated, the spinout would better drop that content and be renamed something like Sahaja Yoga Description of Subtle System. --Simon D M (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what the article is about though, is it? A spinoff article requires a short introductory paragraph, nothing more. Sfacets 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is about whatever you want it to be about. Short introductory paragraph is fine.--Simon D M 22:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)