Talk:School of Philosophy and Economic Science/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Neutrality

The Past

I read the "Secret Cult" book which attacks the School many years ago. The authors were professional journalists working, if I recall, for one of the main London evening newspapers. I don't know if all their allegations were accurate or not, but this section - especially the second paragraph - includes an unsourced defense against some of the allegations. One has to assume it is written by someone affiliated with or sympathetic to the School. "Nowadays the School is very open about what it teaches." Not in its advertising it isn't - to this day, the posters on the subway and magazine ads do not explain that the School teaches "a particular philosophy". Nor do they mention that "the student will be invited to a meditation initiation ceremony which is of vedantic inspiration". Maybe there's nothing wrong with any of that, but to make these points in a Wikipedia article is to advance an unsupported POV. Simply heading the section "The Past" is an implicit claim that "The Present" is different - maybe it is, but no evidence is cited. KD

I disagree. If you refer to the School's website, there is a great deal of information about the philosophy, its origins, meditation etc.There are number of people hostile to the school and who criticise it. They are free to do so, but should not use Wikipedia as a tool to pursue their "campaign". In the interests of openess and factual accuracy visit the website.In the past the school was criticised for a lack of openess, and has done all it can to remedy that. One of the principles in the school is tolerance and another is that nothing taught should be accepted or rejected unless the student verifies it for themselves. The book refered to was written over twenty years ago, and in my view does not reflect accurately the present. The website is http://www.schooleconomicscience.org/84.69.132.114 15:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If we want to talk about unsupported POV, I object to the misleading statement: "Apparently while the under cover journalists were on their 'stake outs' they were offered cups of tea by members of the school." The only purpose for this sentence that I can deduce is to imply that the "tea" was laced with something. That paragraph continues: "The book was taglined as a A full expose of a strange and destructive organization that is penetrating the corridors of power. There were apparently links with key members of the Liberal party in Britain." Again, these are clearly intended to IMPLY something, without any attempt at verification.

Is this a "storm in a tea cup"? Wikipedia should not be used by those seeking only to criticise.The information about the school is freely available on the website - link above.

Another neutrality issue is related to the external links provided at the bottom of the page. The link entitled "General discussion of the SES" is a link to what could hardly be called a "general discussion" when the core contributors are disaffected ex-students of the school or relatives of same. The title of the link should be changed accordingly.

Removed a great deal of the unsourced material which served only to defend the school from the sourced criticisms. The SES web-site cannot serve as a third-party source for this article. I don't believe the school was even founded by MacLaren - by his father, surely - but I've left that for the time being. Any attempts to redress the balance in favor of the SES will need to be supported by citations.KD Tries Again 18:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)KD

Okay, corrected the founder - it was Andrew MacLaren, and the school was originally a vehicle to promote Henry George's land tax theory.[3][4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

There is clearly more information about the belief system underpinning the SES system available on the SES website these days which is to be applauded. The so-called "campaign" against the school has long called for greater transparency and it is great to see that the School is responding to past criticisms. However many of the more potentially controversial aspects of the School come under the umbrella of the SES principle of "measure" which guides member's behaviour. There is a mention of "measure" but no description of it, on the SES website. As this is a guiding principle for member's behaviour, I am surprised a description is not included on the wikipedia entry or on its website. Its a bit like explaining christianity without mentioning the ten commandments or catholicism without the catechism etc. Wikisatva 13:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC.)

Miles Dogood: Certainly advaita contain the reasonable idea that leading a measured life - that is to say, a life which is not dominated by selfish passion and sudden whim - generally has a better chance of being a happy and useful life than one that is dominated in this way. In my view it would take some stretch of the imagination to consider such a view particularly controversial. Or even remarkable enough to be especially highlighted. Those interested in knowing more about the philosophy on offer are free to attend one of the introductory courses and then to continue their studies or not, as they please. Those not interested are equally free not to attend. The School's position is to welcome those who wish to study there, and respect those who do not.

I'll edit in an attempt to be more constructive as to why I think the absence of a description of the principle of measure is significant and leaves the wiki entry so incomplete as to be almost meaningless (and the SES website also): 1) all religious groups start off with nice basic principles like "measure" (eg love others as yourself or live a selfless live undominated by passion and whim etc) but differ in many many ways in the interpretation of what this means in terms of expected ideal behaviour of their adherents. In fact it is these differences in interpretation that define the different religious groupings (and which matter so much that groups tend to split over these interpretations eg the current debate in Anglicism over homosexuality) 2) specifically within the School of Economic Science, what is expected of members in their behaviour and if it is so uncontroversial, why not explain the principles openly? 3) with apologies for rehashing the obvious, the particular SES interpretation of what a "measured" life is - expecting women and men to conform to very stereotyped ideas of femininity and masculinity (as in the women being expected to wash the men's clothes at SES retreats in the past (at least? is this still the case?), whether one can be gay and living a "measured" life, prescriptive opinions on what music and art is 'in' or 'out', predicating a view of the measuredness or not of particular composer's or artist's work on their lifestyle, particular view of having a disability - these are interpretations that are controversial for many people. 4) the application of measure within the SES itself: it is no secret that ex-members and ex-pupils have spoken of excessive zeal, bullying and group-pressure on members to conform to the interpretations of measure as described by the SES. In Advaita it is standard to have a personal relationship with a guru - as this is not part of the structure in the SES and there is no guru present, it is quite understandable that there may be a tendency for an over-reliance on "the group" to retain unity. Once there is an awareness of the potential pitfalls in this structure it might not be a problem. However as measure is the glue binding the group together, it seems a serious omission not to describe what the principles are. Wikisatva 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

The School's concept of measure is explained in some detail on the SES website. As a student of the School for some years I have found the idea of measure as explained generally helpful in life, and I am very grateful for that. There does seem to be a certain spikiness in some of the 'constructive criticism' on this page. Of course everyone is entitled to express their views, but my own experience attending the School really doesn't match the the generally critical tone of some postings. It's perhaps worth pointing out that being in the School is entirely voluntary, which by definition means anyone is free to leave if he or she wishes. Certainly I would leave if I felt 'bullied' or 'forced to conform', or thought I was being asked to surrender my own reason. But I never have. General.custer1

I have sought to restore some semblance of balance and neutrality to this entry, which in my view was previously unbalanced and distorted.Miles Dogood 19:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the above users edit. The criticsms have their own section, and are not laced through the main body of the article which would warrant it to be unbalanced. I feel that User:Miles Dogood's edits seek to distance the school from its Hindi roots, which I feel are integral to it's teachings. I have also tided the intro. Gareth E Kegg 14:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the entry, which contains many errors, in the interests of factual, balanced and accurate information. Wikipedia should not be used as a tool for those hostile to the SES to pursue their campaign. Miles Dogood 17:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but I do not see how your edits make the article any more balanced. You remove a lot of critcism, and your distancing of the school from its Hindi roots I again find baffling. I was a student of the school for three years, and the description of the self and the absolute is accurate. The story of the schools origins you also seek to sanitize. You say "Wikipedia should not be used as a tool for those hostile to the SES to pursue their campaign", yet none of those placing those edits have declared themselves to be hostile to the SES, and as the article stood it did not represent the vanguard of a "campaign" rather than an article describing the school as it is. In the best traditions of the school, please "pause" before you edit. Gareth E Kegg 18:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don’t want an edit war either, but there really are quite a few errors of fact in your contributions – including your latest reversions. The entry is therefore misleading. Here are some examples:

- the School was effectively started by Leon MacLaren, with the support of his father, Andrew MacLaren, in 1937

- the core of the School's philosophy is Advaita Vedanta, particularly as taught by Shri Shantananda Saraswati. This is an ancient spiritual and philosophical tradition and not a religion. It has no identifiable date of origin. Hinduism draws extensively on the same source, but is classified as a religion. The concept of Advaita - unity underlying apparent multiplicity - can be found in other great religions and philosophies of both East and West. The introductory philosophy courses offered by the School are broad and general, although the principles of Advaita Vedanta are inherent in them

- Sanskrit is generally acknowledged as the oldest of the Indo-European languages, and a major influence on the others, including English. The Hindi language is a close derivation, but is not identical.

The other point with previous entries you have reinstated is balance. Much of the criticism contained in the links previously there relates to events 20-30 years ago. This is not made clear. Even then, a great deal of the material contained in these links was far from impartial. Such an assembly, taken together, cannot reasonably be described as neutral and certainly doesn’t represent the School "as it is".

The entry you deleted is factually correct and the links include more current (including critical) opinion from completely external sources. Miles Dogood 11:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am still deeply unhappy with the direction that you have taken this page. As I lack the resources to redress the balance, the page must stand as an unblemished testament to the school, rather than a "warts and all" encyclopedic article. Gareth E Kegg 10:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I simply don't agree with that. In my opinion the article accurately describes the main facts about the School today and does contain some up to date, third party and critical links. Miles Dogood 15:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been rereading the NPOV guidelines to see if they can shed any light on this dispute. Firstly I think the claims that there are people posting edits because they are hostile to the school or have a campaign going are not in the spirit of assuming that the editors are acting in good faith. Secondly, I'm wondering should this page exist at all as a) all views on and within the SES are very much a tiny minority interest and is it worthy of an entry? and b) there are so few authoritative sources to be cited - the Secret Cult book, the Inform piece, the article from the philosopher's magazine and the School website. I don't include the why are they dead forum because while it contains a useful snapshot of the school during MacLaren's time, it doesn't seem to me to meet wikipedia standards as a source. While Inform surely could be regarded as having reasonable credentials, the magazine piece is one person's point of view and the book, in fairness, is somewhat out of date. There is no great body of material produced by the School on their system of belief and practice (including the website which btw does not give much information on measure and is short on specifics on what is taught) in order to be able to establish any sort of a rounded view of their teachings. In my view this entry is currently not much different than the School's own website. Should this page exist at all and what would y'all think of deleting it? Wikisatva 00:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Miles, I don't know how you can say that criticism relates to events 20/30 years ago when you were editing the page at a time when there were references to the illegal use of corporal punishment in the Dutch SES children's school in 2000? This article is now total fudge - rather like the publicity material put out by the School. Let it stand as a testament (as anyone can see by going through back-edits) to the type of control adherents like to exert on how they present the teaching - still all unpublished. Publish the Conversations and other material used in study groups and let there be a proper discussion and airing of its roots and substance. Advocates can edit out a referenced quote from MacLaren saying that women should submit and obey their husbands and the School all you like, but it doesn't change the truth that that is what he said or that that was part of what his analysis of what "natural law" consists of. Funny, how the truth and access to it, seems to be so frightening to people who apparently are interested in just that. Oh well! Wikisatva 21:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll second the above comment. We were working toward a balanced page before it was been pretty well supressed by User:Miles Dogood. Is he any relation is he to User:Matthew Peters 21? Gareth E Kegg 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Added NPOV tags as there are no references to source material for the claims. Wikisatva

Your (Wikisatva) 1st NPOV tag seems to relate to claims on other studies: How can this be resolved to your satisfaction? One option could be a link to the SES website on what these studies are, of which [5] is one example. Another option could be a cross-reference to the Wikipedia listing of 7 published volumes of "The Letters of Marsilio Ficino" on Ficino, which is evidence of renaissance studies. A 3rd option could be to take references from "The Power Within" biography of Leon MacLaren which seems to mention several such studies. --wikirpg (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd NPOV tag could relate to any of: founding of SES and move to philosophy; approach taken for philosophy and sources on which it is taken; introductory course and later studies; connection with India, advaita philosophy and what is said about it. Most of this can be dealt with by reference to one or more published sources such as "The Power Within". However, the Wiki rules for applying a NOP tag state that you should "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why" on the discussion page.--wikirpg (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

References added to help resolve the first of Wikisatva's NPOV tags; tag has been removed pending further details if there are residual concerns. The 2nd NPOV tag has also been removed for now for the same reason; a cross reference on advaita vedanta was added, but it is not clear if this helps. Also removed the statement about chairman of ERT; it does not seem to add information about SES, and could be construed as innuendo regarding a living person. wikirpg (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Clara Salaman sentence removed; there was no link made to SES or St James in the referenced article. I looked for one elsewhere but found nothing. Last paragraph of criticisms edited to make it fit better with the others. Corrected references as well. --wikirpg (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Clara Salaman states, in her Guardian article of 25th July 2009, "For legal reasons I am not allowed to go into any detail about the organisation that our parents were members of." However, there are several features which taken together limit the possibilities to the School of Economic Science and its St. James's Schools. Firstly, the rigid, Western Fundamentalist kind of religion based on Hinduism; the "leader" who ruled with fear; the upper middle class membership; the primary school opened by "the organisation" in London in 1975; the compulsory study of Sanskrit at a private primary school in London and the author's brother's involvement, four years ago, in setting up a website for ex-pupils, which resulted in an independent inquiry into allegations of abuse and mistreatment. Her father's life's work is said to be translating the works of Marsilio Ficino: seven volumes of his letters are credited to the Language Department of the School of Economic Science on both Amazon and WikiPedia. Finally, Clem Salaman is listed as a governor of St James's Independent Schools and Clement Salaman as a trustee of the Independent Educational Association Ltd on the inquiry's web page http://www.stjamesinquiry.org/WHOSWHO_page/whoswho_page.html Grounds for restoring the matter deleted by wikirpg? NRPanikker (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay Wikirpg, about removing NPOV tags for now. I used them clumsily. Nevertheless, are there any sources for what the teachings are that come from outside the School? The article about the School's teachings depends for its sources on one book written by MacLaren's former personal assistant, Dorine Tolley. I guess what I am trying to get across is that the only source for what the School teaches on their courses, is the School itself. There are no references in the article to source material produced by the School about what is taught on the philosophy and economic courses. In depth studies on Marsilio Ficino are hardly studied on the early philosophy courses? As such, the article relies heavily on what the School says it teaches, rather than objective sources based on primary texts. Its not a neutral point of view of the Teachings of the School unless it can be referenced to neutral sources and primary texts. Wikisatva

Its not innuendo about Mr Debenham. It is true that he was Head of St. James and that the Inquiry investigated abuses which occured in St James during that time. It is not unusual to refer to the past CV of a Chair of an organisation. He is also on the record as a supporter of corporal punishment for boys. How also do we mention the various legally seperate organisations which have SES members only on their boards and governing bodies? These are issues that need to be resolved in order to have a representative article. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.162.11 (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Eventually, I'll remove the whole section. There are OTRS issues. Unless stronger sourcing can be found and the article can be balances, this section will go. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Has the School complained to Wikipedia? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There are issues, I only ask they everything negative have strong sourcing please. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Challenge sources

I challenge this inclusion for reliable sources and ask for verifiable sources. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary these sources are primary witness testimonies, which WP policy states are of the highest value. I have to challenge your deletion of evidence. Please note that these primary sources are clearly marked as 'Criticisms', which is a fair and accurate place for them, under WP guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthall7 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Its really unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This is original research. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Unedited raw material of this kind does not qualify as a reliable source for our purposes. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Toddst1 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that in general internet forums are a poor source, there are particular reasons for caution in this instance. For one thing, the deleted text clearly referred to the points being made within the context of the forum; in other words, it did not make allegations and cite the forum as evidence that they were true - it cited the forum as evidence of its own existence, and referred to the fact that supportive as well as critical views were expressed there. The policy on reliable sources makes clear that forum postings are self-published and therefore unsuitable sources, but it does allow for such sources to be used as sources about themselves.

It's important to note that the policy excludes such use if the material is contentious and if it includes claims about third parties, and both are true in this case - the forum is clearly contentious, and accusations are made against named individuals, who (irrespective of whether the accusations are true or not) are unable to defend themselves. This (especially the latter) ought to count strongly against the use of the forum material.

On the other hand, the 2005 enquiry report [6] referred to in the text clearly identifies the forum, and the views expressed in it, as one of the major reasons for its being set up. This not only makes the forum notable (it would be misleading to refer to the enquiry without referring to it) but also to some extent validates its existence and the criticisms included (which it partly upheld, though concluding that some of the criticisms were exaggerated).

I suggest, therefore, that the reference to the forum needs to remain, at least to indicate its existence and the fact that a variety of views (although mostly critical) are expressed on it. To mention it, and give a balanced description of it, is scarcely original research and a reasonable description will allow readers to make their own judgement of its reliablility. Can we come up with a wording that manages to do this? --Rbreen (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Its really unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This is original research. NonvocalScream (talk)

But couldn't that be equally said about the whole text of the article? The description of the teachings and history of the School are just repeating the School's own publicity. Where are the publications, references, facts etc supporting the claims made about the School in the article itself? There are no references supporting the claims made about the teachings and so this is also speculation and original research.Wikisatva (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

references

As the only references in the article are to books has anyone had a chance to try and locate them in order to verify content/coverage of this subject? Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

For sure. I have the Hounam/Hogg book, and that's what it says.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

St.james school

I think that there should be a direct wiki link to a page regarding St. James school. This school was setup as an extension to the School of Economic Science. It was subject to much of the criticisim levelled at the school, due to its interesting curriculum (mandatory teaching of Sanskrit upto O-level, while negelcting Geography).

Also, there was recently a public inquest into the School, proposed by the new headmaster, by a leading barrister at Veale Wasbrough Lawyers.

Also, St. James was interesting as it was onefo the last schools to continue to cane pupils up until the practice was band by the European Courts.

Youngwarthog (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Youngwarthog

I agree, and it should include that both Clara Salaman and Emily Watson are alumni of the school.Fartinaction (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Split off the School of Practical Philosophy

Proof was found by Christieag that the School of Practical Philosophy is its own accredited not-for-profit corporation. I have, since, gone ahead and added a number of references, including news articles and books that discuss the information in the section. I feel that it would be good to reduce the section to a Summary style paragraph with a "Main article" template link and split off the rest as its own article. I know that the AfD back in April decided that it be merged here, but the references then were rather non-existent. That has changed now and I feel that it can stand alone as its own article. Thus, I propose that it be split off. Silverseren^C 21:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the School of Practical Philosophy should be a separate article. The organizations are independent and there are sufficient references to support it having an article. Christieag (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the move, especially now that the additional references and additional material have been added in respct to the School of Practical Philosophy. wikirpg (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has contested with the proposed move change in almost two weeks, i'm going to be bold and go ahead and split off the article. Silverseren^C 18:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. I also went ahead and added in the main article template link and shortened the info in this article. It's not really summary style (considering it's identical to the actual article), so if someone would like to make some changes to it in this article, I would appreciate it. Silverseren^C 18:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes to structure

To make the article more readable, a new section "Organisation" has been added. Material for this has been mainly extracted from the organisation's 2011 submission to the UK Charity Commission which is available online. Using this it is possible to clarify which entities are part of SES, and which are more loosely associated or affiliated.

Properties have also been cross-related to the submission and have been included in this section as they are more to do with organisation than history. Although the submission was created by the organisation, it is likely to be fairly accurate as there are obligations under which any charity has to operate.

For similar reasons, "Associated bodies and activities" was split into 2 sections "Associated Bodies" and Activities". It is proposed to remove the separate section on "School of Practical Philosophy" as this is now covered by its own page.wikirpg (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your addition was problematic firstly because you didn't provide any referencing. But even if you did, what an organization says about itself is not considered especially useful at Wikipedia, regardless of statutory obligations etc. And even if one were to find an outside source stating all these facts, they're not especially relevant. What is clear is that you chose to emphasise the rather irrelevant workings of the buraucracy, clouding out the content about the real estate portfolio underneath it. That looks like a deliberate snowjob for one compelling reason: you also vandalized the sourced content about Necker Island, by simply ripping it out. You have a right to privacy and I am not going to ask you about your connections to SES, but I am going to hereby inform you that conflict of interest is taken extremely seriously at Wikipedia, per WP:COI. Please familiarize yourself with the rules. -Roberthall7 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The reference was included, (document at Charity Commission), but perhaps in not the best way. The property was moved to "Organisation" as all the facts (other than Necker Island) appear to be relevent to the organisation as it stands today according to the stated reference. If it were relevant to the section on history, then any other property acquistions and disposals over the years should also be included. Some property was deleted as the reference studied (Charity Commission submission) stated the extent of the organisation and relationship to other organisations; this excludes St James School and New York property. The Necker Island was deleted although amongst all the other changes being made the specific reason had been omitted; in the context of the whole article this seems to be spurious and the reference used may not be the most reliable as per WP:IRS. If its inclusion is as evidence of SES being money or property hungry, then perhaps this view needs to be made more explicit with appropriate reliable references. The other information were included as a description of the organisation as it stands. It was all obtained from the Charity Commission submission and hence is in the public domain; as far as I understand Wikipedia rules, at least some weight can be given to such information. The aim has been NPOV at all times.wikirpg (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential content

The SES became controversial after the publication of the book Secret Cult by Peter Hounam. In 1994 the SES was listed on a survey conducted by the Family Action Information Resource Review concerning New Religious Movements. The SES was referred to in the Synod Report, confirming that the Church of England considers dual membership impossible, even when organizations said to be a new religious movements, present themselves as philosophies. It is difficult to obtain the syllabus taught by the School of Economic Science

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources mentioned but nothing used

Some sources have generated no content here. The source is listed but we apparently use no material from the source. In some cases we are directed to blurbs or third party reviews. This is unsatisfactory - why not use the source as a direct source for our material rather than ignoring it in favour of something else? If there is good material critical of the organisation, we should use it directly. One example which I have retain says, In May 2012, the UK's Daily Mail published an interview with former SES member and St James pupil Laura Wilson, about her experiences of the organisations. The article seems to be a detailed look at some disturbing behaviour, but we don't use it as a source beyond providing a link. This is hardly good practice. --Pete (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC) --Pete (talk)

Not sure what you mean. Are you talking about URL's in the external link section?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems quite obvious what is meant to me. I'd reached the same conclusion and turned to the Talk page to find it had already been spotted: the section shows nothing of the content or conclusions of a number of referenced sources, other than a vague hint that there is, perhaps, negative information about the organisation to be found if the linked sources are read. Perhaps someone should do a little footwork and state in the article itself what the various conclusions are, using the links as references / citations, as is standard practice in Wikipedia (and most other tertiary reference materials).--Unsigned comment

Ok, so you are saying the sentence is too general and we should use more specific information from the sources and use citations of course. Sure, we can do that.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

NY Observer

Hi Pete, I reverted you deletion of the text and cite to the NY Observer which is a reliable source. I'm happy to discuss this if you like. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Our material needs to be sourced. What material, exactly, are we sourcing from the Observer? Perhaps it would be useful to review WP:SYN. --Pete (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy to discuss but nothing heard. If we aren't sourcing anything from this article, then the link doesn't belong. --Pete (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Skyring/Pete, I don't understand your last edits. I added the relevant reference to the published source in keeping with Wikipedia guidance, you say it's "not sourced". Please could you explain what you mean by that? Thanks -Roberthall7 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The above discussions remain pertinent. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I still don't understand. My round of edits began with (i) repairing a link in a reference in the finances section which had been taking readers to the wrong article in the NY Observer. Repairing that link reminded me that the article appears to be a pertinent reliable source on the subject of what is publicly known about this organization, so I (ii) added a line about it to the reputation section. You've deleted the reference all together, both from the link I repaired in the finances section and the reference on the sentence I added to the reputation section; please remember WP:PRESERVE. Afaia your rationale for deletion is that my sentence refers to the source's existence, but it does not summarize the content of the source. If that is your concern, then please point me to which Wikipedia policy or guideline you are reflecting. And if it would satisfy your concern, then let's work together on adding a line summarizing the content of the source. You've then gone further than deleting my addition, by also deleting a line (with its reference) about the writer Laura Wilson from the reputation section - but I can't see the rationale for deletion here because the content of the source is mentioned in the line that you deleted, no less than it is mentioned in the line that you tightened and did not delete. As such, your edit summary [7] appears to be inaccurate. We must avoid an edit war and establish consensus. I propose a way forward is for you to restore the Laura Wilson line as it was, and for me to address your concern about the NY Observer line, by summarizing the source's content. If this way forward doesn't work for you, then let's request the opinion of a neutral administrator. -Roberthall7 (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. Our statements need to be sourced. If there is no statement, we don't need a source. Looking at the Laura Hale "material", the article said, "In May 2012, the UK's Daily Mail published an interview with former SES member and St James pupil Laura Wilson, about her experiences of the organisations." That's it. What statement are we making there, precisely? --Pete (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Pete/Skyring. Thank you for getting back in touch. Both I and Keithbob are having trouble understanding what you are saying, so I can't agree that what you are saying is necessarily simple. But I certainly want to understand you. So to start of with, I'll repeat the request I put to you above: please show me which Wikipedia policy you are referring to as your grounds for deletion of these references. Many thanks, -Roberthall7 (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content must be reliably sourced. That is so fundamental a policy that I am not going to even try to present an argument for it. It is just the way we do things. Now, why can you not answer the question repeatedly asked: What content needs to be sourced? --Pete (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reply. (1) As far as I'm aware, the line you deleted is defined as a line of 'content', and it was sourced with a reference which you also deleted. If you would prefer the line to include more detail about what Laura Wilson says in the source about the School of Economic Science, then in principle I would support your addition of it, per WP:PRESERVE. (2) To clarify, I asked you to point me in the direction of the policy guideline that has informed your deletion of a referenced line of the article; I did not ask you "to present an argument for" the policy. You have not named this policy guideline; to further my understanding of your rationale I would sincerely appreciate it if you could do so. -Roberthall7 (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

June 14 2013 removal of sourced content

Sorry I lost track of the discussion from some months back. But since it is being visited again......Here is what Skyring/Pete deleted (see below) from the article in this June 14, 2013 edit [8]

• In May 2011, The New York Observer published an investigative feature about the SES and its American branch, the School of Practical Philosophy.

Here are some excerpts from the source:

• a London man going only by the name of Matthew. “One day one of my teachers, Mr. Howell, accused me of mixing the brown sugar with the sugar,” he writes. “He … ushered me into a small room off one of the corridors. After ten minutes of insistence that I admit my guilt, he tried to beat a confession out of me. He hit me with his open hand, around the face and the head, about 10 or 15 times. I remember another one of my classmates, D.L., being hit so hard around the head that his eardrum was broken.” Matthew is referring to his time spent in schools run by the British-based School of Economic Studies, S.E.S.,
• Getting in the school’s front door is easy enough, but once inside, the group’s practices are obscure bordering on impenetrable. They describe their curriculum and approach in imprecise language and follow a hierarchical structure in which students advance to new levels of study with money and time, but are not told the specifics of what awaits them when they do. That this is similar to another, more celebrity-inflected organization of the same ilk has been pointed out by former members.
• According to the official spokesperson for the New York chapter, Dr. Monica Vecchio–an adjunct professor of English at Baruch who has been involved with group since 1967–S.E.S. and the School of Practical Philosophy are “the same thing with different names. There are 70 or 80 [branches] around the world. Each share the same course curriculum, with the same content. The principles are the same, the practices are the same, the stream of discussion is the same.”
• On the wet Saturday morning when The Observer visited, the school was undergoing a bizarre spring cleaning. ....... There were about 100 people hard at work inside, all of them longtime “members,” as they call themselves. This was not just a casual sweeping of the floors. Some were on their hands and knees, clutching sponges soaked in soapy water, minutely scrubbing every square inch of the building. Some were dusting intently, while others diligently pushed mops. They all had empty smiles plastered on their faces, eyes fixed on the task at hand and nothing else.

I think this information should be summarized and placed in the article as The Observer is a reliable source. There is also a lot of additional information in this very comprehensive article about the history of the organization etc. and it should be included too. Comments from others?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. -Roberthall7 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the reference because we weren't using it. That's pretty basic wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, what you did is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I base this understanding on the links I have provided to WP:PRESERVE above. Could you not improve the referenced sentences to the standard you think is acceptable, rather than delete the sentences along with their references? If we have a difference of understanding about Wikipolicy, then I propose a 3O or RFC for the purposes of clarification. -Roberthall7 (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pete, as you probably know, summarizing sources is the preferred method of content creation on Wikipedia per WP:SUMMARY If you don't like the way an editor has summarize a source then you can change it. However, removing all the text and the source has the appearance of whitewashing, which is probably not what you intended, but that's what it looks like. Anyway, now that you are aware that two editors are objecting to your deletions of reliably sourced content it may be wise to discuss an future concerns you have on the talk page first before removing reliably sourced content in the future. And also please keep in mind that not every volunteer is active on WP every single day. So it may take several days to get a response. Alternately you can also ping me (or others) like this - User:Skyring - so that my attention will be drawn to the discussion. Thanks for all your help!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed the source link because we weren't using anything from it. There was no content to be sourced. I'll review any changes you've made. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Content added from The Observer

Per the conversation above I've summarized what I thought wer the most relevant points from the Observer article and added them to the history section. Any comments or suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced content

There is a lot of unsourced content in the Teachings section. Some of it is WP:COATRACK too in my opinion. At any rate, if its not sourced soon, I'd like to remove it. What do others think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourced as per the Hodgkinson book already referenced. Certainly worth reading to gain an understanding of what the organisation does. --Pete (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If its sourced please add citations, thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Links without content

Looking at this:

The School of Economic Science was also the subject of a chapter in the 1994 book Spying in Guru Land: Inside Britain's Cults, by journalist William Shaw, who attended the SES's course for several terms. The chapter recounted his experiences, a history of the organisation and interviews with former members.

Can anyone tell me what content is being provided to the reader here? Beyond the link itself, nothing. If we aren't drawing information from the source, then why are we including it? --Pete (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That it was the subject of coverage in a book, and what the book is should an interested person care to read it. I don't see a problem with it, it strikes me as useful to a reader - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If we don't use material from a source, then the link doesn't belong in the article text. Otherwise we're just a glorified list of links to places that actually have material worth reading. "Further reading" would be an appropriate place to put such links. --Pete (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it indicates that a former student became a notable writer and wrote a book about his time at SES. I think its notable and an acceptable entry in the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yees, but then it is the book which is notable, rather than any material from it. Such a link is better suited to a "Further reading" or "Popular culture section. --Pete (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I hoped this might render this discussion moot. Oh well. NebY (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. A good edit, taking material from the source and weaving it into the article in a coherent fashion. My beef isn't with the material - or the source - but the rather lazy manner of just plonking a link into the article without quoting or summarising or referencing it in any meaningful way. --Pete (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Organizing edits

I've done some major reorganizing of the article as there was duplication and a lack of cohesion in the article. I've also removed some text that was tagged as cite needed since 2012 and also removed some text cited only by primary sources (some of which did not mention SES).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Some remaining concerns

I still have concerns about the large amount of unsourced text in the Educational Philosophy section and the content copied below (from the same section) which is cited only by bare URL's.

• Courses and studies in economics have continued with the emphasis on "Economics with Justice". As well as being inspired by the studies in philosophy, links have been established with several organisations with common aims.[22] A discussion forum fosters open discussion on economics topics.[23] The Economic Monitor[24] is published by the economic faculty and several copies are available on-line. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hounam & Hogg and Shaw

Roberthall7, I have to take issue with some of your changes regarding Secret Cult and Spying in Guru Land. Shaw discusses Hounham & Hogg's Secret Cult at length; he describes and explicitly and caustically challenges their political allegations (Spying in Guru Land pp 135-136). Your amended text suggests that they were less forceful and that Shaw did not take issue with them. It does the reader a disservice to suggest that that all critiques of the school are in perfect harmony or that it has a uniform reputation. Your rephrasing of the summary preceding "regime of holy servitude" introduces a precision which is not present in Shaw's phrasing (p 132). I'll restore some of the text you changed in those areas but extend the description of Secret Cult as there was much more to it than the allegation Shaw challenged. I'll also remove the reference to the QC's investigation as criminal but allow it a new paragraph, the investigation and its results being of quite a different order to those of the journalists. NebY (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my main concern was that the text emphasized only one aspect of Hounam & Hogg, so your idea to "extend the description of Secret Cult as there was much more to it than the allegation Shaw challenged" will get us towards WP:CONS. However, it's best not to use the insider jargon term "school" here as it's not a school in the commonly understood sense - afaia Wikipedia would prefer a universally acceptable term such as "organization" which is more accurate, while remaining non-pejorative. -Roberthall7 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

On further thought, we also need to address the issue that Wikipedia, let alone Hounham and Hogg, draws an early 1980s personal link between the SES and the Liberal party, in the article on Roger Pincham. It looks like we can't really position Shaw as contradicting Hounham and Hogg on the per se point that there was a personal link between the Liberals and the SES, if it appears to be universally accepted and verifiable, can we? We need to quote Shaw on precisely what he is contradicting in H&H. -Roberthall7 (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge

I have just added the NY Observer [9] to the School of Practical Philosophy article and noticed the following line in the source: According to the official spokesperson for the New York chapter, Dr. Monica Vecchio–an adjunct professor of English at Baruch who has been involved with group since 1967–S.E.S. and the School of Practical Philosophy are “the same thing with different names. There are 70 or 80 [branches] around the world. Each share the same course curriculum, with the same content. The principles are the same, the practices are the same, the stream of discussion is the same.” Based on this new information, I support the case for a merge of the two articles, now being discussed again on the Talk page there. The legal distinction between the two organizations is as irrelevant as, say, Halliburton Co. and Halliburton Company Germany GmbH. It's standard (and often a necessity) that international organizations open separate legal entities in separate national jurisdictions and give them different names; moreover we've got a named senior representative saying they are all the same thing. We should also add info about branches in Australia, Ireland etc, etc. -Roberthall7 (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There's another source here [10] from the organization's own website, listing all its different names in one place. They should all be mentioned in the merged article. And here's a third source [11] saying that despite being legally distinct, all the branches have one leader, Donald Lambie. -Roberthall7 (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Record of SoPP article to be merged into this one

East 79th Street "Philosophy Day School"

The School of Practical Philosophy is the American branch of an organization based in London known as the School of Economic Science. Doctrine is based on the precepts of Advaita Vedanta. Advaita means literally "not two"; vedanta refers to the knowledge underlying the creation. Together these are said to explain the essential unity of everything in creation and the source from which it arises. This teaching also speaks of ‘pure consciousness’ as the true essence of every being, and the human possibility of shedding the covers on this essence to allow it to be realized and expressed in its purity. The organization has been described as providing "mind discipline" for achieving mental quiescence and as cult or new religious movement.

Formally, the organization began in New York City in 1964 as a not-for-profit corporation chartered by the Board of Regents of the State of New York.The New York City School of Practical Philosophy has branches in the Hudson Valley and New Jersey. Additional locations in the U.S. include Rochester, New York; Albany, Georgia; Scottsdale, Arizona; South Florida; San Francisco, California; and Boston, Massachusetts. The main branch is located at 12 East 79 Street in Manhattan. There is an additional property in Wallkill, New York in a mansion once owned by Marion Borden.

Many New Yorkers recognize Philosophy Works and the School of Practical Philosophy due to extensive advertising in the subway.

Philosophy Works is the 10-week foundation course at the School of Practical Philosophy. The course is designed for those who seek an understanding of the nature of humanity and of the world. It aims to demonstrate how to put great philosophic ideas of the past and present to effective practical use in daily life. The series is offered three times a year: in January, April, and September.

Following the foundation course, students can take ongoing classes to continue their study of the subjects presented. Material comes from a variety of sources representing both Eastern and Western traditions, including the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Bible, Plato, Marsilio Ficino, Hermes Trismegistus, Shakespeare and Emerson. Those who continue their studies following the introductory course are also invited to take up meditation.

For students not living near one of the U.S. locations, the School of Practical Philosophy offers a distance learning program online.

The actor Hugh Jackman has been attending classes at the school for over a decade since 1993.

Further sources

Of possible use to our continued improvement of this article:

http://www.ais-info.org/Application/Uploaded/2014_Annual_Conference_ICSA030714.pdf

http://www.philosophyforlife.org/about-me/

-Roberthall7 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

References

[[Category:Educational organizations based in the United States]] [[Category:Non-profit organizations based in New York]] [[Category:Organizations based in New York City]]

Discussion of changes

The article was stable for months prior to your changes. Wikipedia asks us to discuss proposed changes on this Talk page.

For starters, Wikipedia advises editors against using the word 'claim' when it appears they are using it to question a reliable source's credibility; that's the first reason why I reverted your changes and I have linked WP guidance notes for you in the edit history, please read them so that we are all on the same page. In addition to that, there are other issues with your edits that we can discuss.

This should also be opened out to group discussion, so input here from all parties is invited.

Thanks, -Roberthall7 (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC) — Roberthall7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thanks. If you could indicate the exact details of your concerns, that would be helpful. My concern is as indicated - the criticism section refers to incidents forty years in the past in the days of moon landings and the Beatles, but you don't want our article to make this clear. Please explain why. Also, if you could refrain from making personal atttacks against other editors, that would assist in discussion. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've restored my original heading for this section, which Skyring a.k.a. Pete altered, per this edit, with explanation: [12]

Skyring/Peter, I have read your message and I disagree with your allegation that I don't want to make an aspect of this article clear; rather, I think it is already clear and that you are inserting undue emphasis. Moreover, while I have taken issue with your edits I disagree that I have made a personal attack against you; honestly it seems that by accusing me of this you might be projecting your own attitude. In any case, we are both meant to be assuming good faith. So in the interest of our interaction cooling down now, I'm going to wait a while for further editors to chime in here, before further comment. -Roberthall7 (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)— Roberthall7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My recent changes make it clear that the events described in the criticism section occurred forty years ago. I don't think there is any problem in making the facts clear to readers, who might otherwise be misled into thinking this describes contemporary practice. Again, if you could provide specific details of your concerns, rather than blandly reverting, this would aid discussion. --Pete (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion continued

Looking at this editor's contributions, he seems to be the very model of a single-purpose account. He also seems to have issues of ownership of this article. Perhaps he could explain his stance? --Pete (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Four days ago I stated that I was stepping back to allow other editors to chime in here. Nobody has done so and so it is worth alerting previous contributors to this page directly that there is a discussion here in which their input would be helpful.

2. Skying/Pete has asked me to explain the personal motivation behind my editing on Wikipedia, and why of the relatively few edits I have made, they had tended to have been on this article. He has also 'tagged' me to highlight this, before waiting to read my reply. As far as I'm aware one is meant to try to focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct, per WP:DR. Still, for what it's worth, my answer is very simple. This article, as noted on this Talk page by other editors such as User:KD Tries again, has at times read like Public Relations, in which verifiable, reliable sources commenting on the subject are undermined by editors' POV commentary in breach of WP:NOR. A few years ago it was so bad that I joined Wikipedia in order to improve this article, which first entailed reading up how to edit and how WP style guidelines and policies work. The PR tendency here was so tiring to work with that I then chose not to go and work on other articles on Wikipedia for fear of burning up additional precious time. Life really is too short. It's precisely discussions like this that puts off newcomers such as myself from volunteering more time into this project. I could, of course, now spend days of my life working on articles about my favorite civil rights heroes, my favorite train lines and my favorite nature preserves. But after this experience, I'm deterred.

3. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've shown the courtesy of explaining my personal interest in this article to Skying/Pete, and after providing it one would expect the same courtesy in return. Will it be forthcoming?

4. Per edit summary, my main issue is this edit by Skyring/Pete: [13] resulting in a change from the line "A 2011 article in The New York Observer said the SES persecuted women and imposed severe dietary restrictions on its students" to Skyring/Pete's "A 2011 article in The New York Observer claimed without further detail the SES in 1975 had persecuted women and imposed severe dietary restrictions on its students". Skyring/Pete says I 'blandly reverted' it, which is just not true: I state in the edit summary that the line is contrary to WP:CLAIM. Moreover, Wikipedia content alleging that a verifiable source 'didn't go into further detail' is a clear case of original research, per WP:OR. In addition, it is not true that the Observer source specifies that it was talking about events in 1975, which is a further breach of WP:OR. For the record, the relevant section of the verifiable source reads: "Word of the highly secretive organization’s infiltration of the English educational system reached two reporters at the London Evening Standard, Peter Hounam and Andrew Hogg, who published a series of damning articles accusing the S.E.S of being a cult and raising concern about the intentions of the schools. The S.E.S., according to their reporting, enforced a severe diet, persecuted women and kept its members closed off from the outside world." As it happens, User:Keithbob raised Skyring/Pete's removal of the NY Observer citation and content here [14] in 2013, so this disagreement has a track record.

5. Now this [15] is a removal by Skyring/Pete of relevant external links with the edit summary "links as per policy." How is removal of sourced content in keeping with policy?

6. And this [16] is a misunderstanding. The content was placed by me on a section of this Talk page as a courtesy, to record the SoP article content when I was about to merge the two articles, SES and SoP, after I had consulted and gained consensus on the matter. As such it now produces repetition in the article and is redundant, pushing other material further down the page.

7. Given Skying/Pete and I are in disagreement here, it might be worth us giving each other a little distance. As the edit history of this article shows, I have chosen to walk away from an edit war with him, and his recent changes to the article remain in place, while my revert to preserve how it was for several months does not. This fact does not support his suggestion that I "have issues of ownership of this article". Though I'm not going to engage with him in some kind of tit-for-tat, the fact remains that he has not achieved consensus about this article, per WP:CONS. That's why, to repeat, I think other voices would be beneficial here now. -Roberthall7 (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Thanks, Robert! Your detailed responses are very much appreciated.

2. I'm not a single purpose account. The material there applies to you, but not me. This article does not look like a PR blurb any more than (say) Red Cross does. It was looking very much like an attack page when I first saw it, and with a WP:SPA pushing the attack.

3. I cannot tell a lie. I'm a member of the School of Practical Philosophy. As such, I have a strong interest in the truth. I've read the conflict of interest page carefully, and am happy with my involvement here. I have no financial interest in the School – quite the reverse, actually! – and offer my contributions as an informed editor, just as scout leaders have an input into the Boy Scouts material, servicemen write on military topics and so on. I certainly don't agree with all the School promotes. All students are told in their first session that they may accept or reject anything, and to question anything they do not feel comfortable with. I don't agree with some of the material from the Eastern tradition, but then again nor do I agree with some of the material from Plato. I'm no one-eyed shill of the School.

4. So you take exception to my use of "claim". There was nothing untoward there. It appeared to me that the tone of the article was big on effect and short on details. "Claim" seemed appropriate for such a shallow piece, breathlessly striving for effect. My summary "without further detail" seems appropriate. One wonders what "severe dietary restrictions" the School imposes, but the article mentions nothing. Do students subsist on dry bread and water, perhaps? In my experience, the only dietary restriction is that food served in the School is vegetarian, so as not to offend any members from the diverse ethnic, cultural and moral backgrounds. Vegetarian it may be, but there is plenty to eat, of a wide variety. Maybe in past ages the food was different, but unfortunately the source does not go into further detail on its claims, leaving the reader hanging. Wikipedia should not perpetuate this sort of innuendo. There are no restrictions on what members of the school may eat in their own lives; again, this odd claim is just insinuating something that has no actual existence.

5. External links should follow wikipedia policy. Sites associated with the School are appropriate, but others that are not deemed worthy of supporting the article text, not so much. If you want to use an external link as a source, then do so by adding some material in the body of the article and linking as a reference, as per WP:LINK.

6. Sounds like WP:OWN to me if you feel that you must personally do the merge previously agreed upon. I just dropped the text in and made a few simple changes. You are more than welcome to continue the work, eliminating repetitions and so on.

7. Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and the fact that something remains static for months or years does not mean that it will do so indefinitely. I trust that we can both work, within policy, on this or any other article, and the input of other editors is more than welcome. --Pete (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussions from two years ago, as mentioned in your point four above, I think we may have had a failure of communication. The key policy is that Wikipedia's material must be reliably sourced, and while I have some issues with the NY Observer's status as a provider of factual material, they are a source, as was pointed out. No dispute there. However, we weren't actually sourcing any material from it. Some confusion seemed to ensue because apparently some editors felt that it was okay to write an encyclopaedia by just directing readers to other sites without actually writing any articles. Reliable sources, maybe, but sourced content, zero. --Pete (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The Observer

• Let's stop personalizing the discussion and restrict our comments to issues of content only per WP:TALK.

I think it will be easier if we take one issue at at time. Let's start with The Observer sentence:

• Adding that the 2011 report by The Observer references events that occurred in 1975 is an important addition to the sentence.
• WP says to avoid the word WP:CLAIM and it does not allow us to editorialize and give our opinions in the article text about how we feel about the source and what it does or does not say.
• Finally, The Observer is a recognized by WP as a reliable source. The SOES is the featured focus of the article and it provides in depth information.
• The article says: "Word of the highly secretive organization’s infiltration of the English educational system reached two reporters at the London Evening Standard, Peter Hounam and Andrew Hogg, who published a series of damning articles accusing the S.E.S of being a cult and raising concern about the intentions of the schools. The S.E.S., according to their reporting, enforced a severe diet, persecuted women and kept its members closed off from the outside world." [17]

I've amended the sentence to more accurately reflect the source. The article now reads:

• A 2011 article in The New York Observer cited a 1975 article from the London Evening Standard which alleged the SES had persecuted women and imposed severe dietary restrictions on their students.

If there are any suggestions on how to improve this representation of the cited content I'm open to discussing them.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please could you point out where in the source it "cited a 1975 article"? As far as I can see it cites not one but "a series" of articles, and doesn't put a date on them. -Roberthall7 (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, KB! That wording looks good to me, though on a quick examination I couldn't see the date of the article either. --Pete (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, both of you. I misread the article on the 1975 point. The Observer doesn't specify the date of the London Evening article by Peter Hounam so I took out "1975" and amended it to "an earlier article in the London Evening Standard"...... Peter Hounam's book about SES was published in 1985 according to Amazon [18] so the article was likely just before then but I don't know for sure till we find a source. My apologies for that error.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

1. If we care about precision, it's still inaccurate. To repeat, for accuracy's sake, the Observer didn't cite an article, it cited a series of articles.

2. Wikipedia says 'alleged' as used here can imply that a given point is inaccurate, per WP:CLAIM. There, Wikipedia's advises us: 'Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate.'

3. I want to ensure that were not in breach of WP:WPNOTRS. Is it in keeping with style guidelines for the article to be describing the citation of our citation, instead of just giving our content a citation? It gives leaves impression that the reliable source, a secondary source, is being treated with scrutiny instead of respect. Like "In 2011 Jack cited an earlier comment from Jill in which she said Frank was a pianist"[citation] instead of "In 2011 Jack said Frank was a pianist"[citation]. Which formula does Wikipedia prefer? Or would it prefer us to quote the citation?

4. On that note, the line of citation reads: "Word of the highly secretive organization’s infiltration of the English educational system reached two reporters at the London Evening Standard, Peter Hounam and Andrew Hogg, who published a series of damning articles accusing the S.E.S of being a cult and raising concern about the intentions of the schools. The S.E.S., according to their reporting, enforced a severe diet, persecuted women and kept its members closed off from the outside world." By what rationale do we include (i) diet and (ii) women, while excluding (iii) the members closed off from the outside world? -Roberthall7 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert, On your point 4, the trouble is that we weren't saying or even hinting that Frank was a pianist [citation]. We were saying that "Jack said something about Frank."[citation]. It's fine if we assert something and link to the source. It's not fine if we skip the "something" and just direct readers to the source. Do you grasp this? --Pete (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

1984 seems a more likely (and oddly appropriate) date for the "series of articles" mentioned. The first chapter of the book is available online in some delightfully arcane HTML. A reference to Geocities can be found in the code, which includes a "hit counter". How last century!

I found two references to diet there:

• She was also expected to follow the SES's strict routine, which they call Measure. This included making do on five hours' sleep a night, meditating at dawn and dusk, eating a special vegetarian diet, and wearing natural-fibre garments only.

• Women were also axpected (sic) to provide their family with a special vegetarian diet of uncooked food only.

This is so bizarre as to be fictional. Nobody in the School is interested in what students eat in their private lives. When food is served (say at a course on Plato or whatever) it is vegetarian as a matter of convenience and simplicity. It is certainly cooked, and hot soups, baked vegetables, fresh bread, vegetarian curries and lasagnas, and similar feature heavily, along with fruits, nuts, cheeses and so on.

Clothing made of natural fibres only? This is more fiction. Again, nobody gives a hoot, except insofar as polyester is regarded within the general community with disfavour. Apart from women's underwear, of course. If there were any way of checking, I suspect that polyester panty-hose would be found to triumph convincingly over silk stockings.

There is no "strict discipline". The only rigour I've ever encountered is an expressed desire that students be on time for their classes. Everything is voluntary, there is no blame or criticism offered, and while School proceedings are not Liberty Hall, where you can spit on the floor and call the cat a bastard, there is about as much severe discipline as one might expect any group of Australians to tolerate. Which is to say, not much.

Having said that, Leon Maclaren certainly had some old-fashioned ideas, as one might expect of someone born over a hundred years ago. And there seems to have been some abuses in the childrens school in London during the Seventies. I don't think anyone wants to mount a cover-up of well-sourced information that is entirely consistent with NPOV. But I draw the line at peddling nonsense to our readers, such as the rubbish about uncooked vegetarian diet, rigidly enforced. --Pete (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Back in the 1980s, when I was involved with the School, most of the above was true. MacLaren's autocratic rule is now over, and I gather that common sense has crept in. He had a particular horror of mixing foods in the same mouthful ("are you eating fruit or are you eating yoghurt?"). I realise referencing this may be a problem, and Hounam exaggerated, but the fact remains that the School represented itself as a path to enlightenment, and strict discipline was part of that path. Do they still have Measure Week? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Something to do with a ruler, perhaps? The only real discipline I've encountered has been of the internal, self-enforced kind. I'll agree with the path to enlightenment, but it is a path, not the path, and there are many valid ways to that end, whatever it may be. I think the first step is accepting that some answers can only come from within.

Be that as it may be, what rankled my feathers was that the article talked about an organisation that bears little relation to the one I know. Students are not harangued, members are not measured, people's lives are not made into torments. That may have happened in the past, and there seem to be reasonably firm, albeit sensationalist, sources for things of that nature. But describing the excesses of MacLaren's days as if they are commonplace now rings as false as describing modern politics in Nixonian or Thatcherite terms. Those days are past. --Pete (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's not get too far afield from the central point of this thread. We are discussing what is the best way to summarize this text about the history of SES and which comes from a reliable source:

• The Observer article says: "Word of the highly secretive organization’s infiltration of the English educational system reached two reporters at the London Evening Standard, Peter Hounam and Andrew Hogg, who published a series of damning articles accusing the S.E.S of being a cult and raising concern about the intentions of the schools. The S.E.S., according to their reporting, enforced a severe diet, persecuted women and kept its members closed off from the outside world." [19]

If the current summary of this portion of the source is not satisfactory than please suggest another version that you feel would be more accurate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The source may be respected, but clearly POV statements like "empty smiles" backed by thirty year old references mean that the article must be regarded as personal comment. The SES I knew back in the 1980s might be a thing of the past, but this needs to be explained and referenced. Meanwhile, the Observer article seems to be an outdated jumble of gross assumptions. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Keithbob, thank you very much for your constructive efforts. The line would be most in keeping with WP policy and guidelines as:

A 2011 article in The New York Observer cited "a series of damning articles accusing the S.E.S of being a cult" that "enforced a severe diet, persecuted women and kept its members closed off from the outside world."[citation]

2. If SES formally replied to the Observer article, that should be added. If a reliable, secondary source states that such practices have been discontinued in the SES, and the year they were discontinued, that should also be added.

3. If there are reliable, secondary sources showing the SES has a good reputation for e.g. charitable or community work, these should be added for NPOV.

4. All said, this line is a case of Wikipedia showing understatement in representing what it defines as a reliable, secondary source; there is much more lurid material in the Observer piece that could have been included, but is not. Such as: “According to a former member who had been involved in the school for several decades, S.E.S. and its branches gain control over students by a slow process of conflating obedience to God with obedience to those who claim to know God–that is, S.E.S. and its “tutors.”” Or that a legal inquiry concluded that at least until 1985 children “were criminally assaulted by being punched in the face or in the stomach, cuffed violently about the head, had blackboard rubbers thrown at them causing injury in some cases, had cricket balls thrown at them violently when they were not looking at the thrower and were struck with the end of a gym rope. Other students were kicked, struck from behind, slapped about the face, thrown across a classroom.” By the article not including such detail, it is already showing restraint. The Observer line could have been very much more robust about the reputation of the SES than it is.

Thanks, — Roberthall7 (talk)

I think we could usefully lose the Observer quotes entirely. Informed criticism by someone who understands their subject is a pearl beyond price for Wikipedia, but that particular article is a very shallow piece indeed. The "empty smiles" is entirely subjective, and probably means "polite smiles from people interrupted by some sneering busybody". On the other hand, i see criticism from insiders – especially women – from some of the more restrictive years as particularly useful, along with in-depth reviews and official sources, such as the inquiry into treatment of students. --Pete (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary difficulties are being created here by editors evaluating sources based on their own presumptions or experiences. That's not what Wikipedia editors should do. They should limit themselves to ensuring that the sources are accurately represented. The London Evening Standard and The Observer are reliable sources: what they publish has already been edited. It's not for Wikipedia editors to go back and second-guess the publication's judgement. And the Secret Cult book is also a reliable source from a reputable publisher. The author's statements should be cited precisely as statements, not as allegations (and I've made that change). There's a difference between an allegation and reporting. (The New York Times today alleged that President Obama is in Alaska.) None of us here should pretend we can go back and check the work journalists did in 1985. Their editors already did that, and Wikipedia should just cite what the journalists said.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Wikipedia editors are more than gnomes, diligently cutting and pasting whatever presents itself in the world of sources. We also evaluate and contribute our life experiences and skills. Otherwise all editors would be interchangeable and there would be no difference in abilities or opinions, and we know that this is not the case. The diversity of views is what makes the Wikipedia so rich and useful.

In my experience, there is a clear difference between checkable facts and personal opinions. Subjectivity and objectivity. It is not hard to check if President Obama was in Palinland on a given day, but a little harder to ascertain whether that smile on his face was fixed and empty, as alleged in an opinion piece. --Pete (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

In this case, the reporter isn't reading minds but stating that things happened. The reporter may be right or wrong, but he is purportedly reporting facts, not making allegations. It's not our business to categorize factual claims in reliable sources as allegations because we struggle to believe them. The way to correct the published record on any subject is not to amend it for Wikipedia, but to get the corrections published by a reliable source.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The reporter is giving his opinion, it seems, when he describes smiles as "fixed and empty". I don't think we should give his report the same weight as an objective account, and our wording should reflect this. --Pete (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Equally, you can't defend bad journalism by defending the publication. This is clearly POV backed by 30 year old references. If the article doesn't bear scrutiny, then common sense says we shouldn't use it. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course we should use it as per KD Tries Again. The 'fixed smiles' statement is colour in a prose piece, the absence of which separates Wikipedia from other forms of journalism. We wouldn't disregard a BBC/NYT/CNN piece that described "exhausted and scared" migrants (or whoever), neither would we seek to cite emotions. The facts are the thing, as ever. The age of the references are quite irrelevant as long as they are properly contextualized. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

12 times? This is a short, shallow piece, relying heavily on Hounam and Hogg for the historical stuff. Hounam & Hogg is used once in the article, and without a page reference (anybody actually read it?) The only major study of SES gets its own section, but with its contents unmined, while this terrible little article is the most used reference in the entire piece. Really? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've read it and I still have a copy. Are there alternative or better reliable sources (not SES-published, on other words)? No? No independent journalism criticizing this source and presenting an alternative view? Oh well.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Other concerns

Are there any other concerns about article content that we need to discuss? Let's try to collaborate and make the article as informative, fair and neutral as possible.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, several. I will get back to you on this as soon as I have some time from the offline world within a week or two. Many thanks — Roberthall7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, am snowed under. Will get back when I can. -Roberthall7 (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, for starters: I can't see the year 1973 in the Guardian piece on Clara Salaman cited, and yet 1973 is what our article indicates is referred to in the source. What's extremely concerning about this is that I already attempted to edit out false date information about the Observer piece, and that resulted in a countdown to an edit war with an editor repeatedly determined to keep the false information in our article. The only charitable explanation for that is that the editor in question repeatedly imagined that they saw that the date information was actually in the Observer piece. But why so? Given the robust, repeated effort to maintain this false or imagined date information, I'm giving notice that if it continues I will report these incidents of falsification to a noticeboard to raise my serious concerns that Wikipedia is being undermined here, whether in good faith or bad; if I do so I shall also state for the record how I came to Wikipedia because of this article and as a result of it I currently have no wish to contribute more of my time on other subjects in Wikipedia. I am now going to cut the false date of 1973 from the lines about Clara Salaman, and trust that it won't be reverted.-Roberthall7 (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Well you're right, but the date in the article is 1975.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)KD Tries Again

To precisely represent the reliable source, which is what Wikipedia policy and guidelines demand of us, Salaman says (i) the year 1975 is the date when the SES opened a general educational school for children, and (ii) that the 1960s is the decade when her parents joined the SES. So it is not true that she says her parents in the 1960s were members of a "spiritual society that demanded an extraordinary amount from its members. Commitment had to be absolute. The organisation came first in its members' lives. The then leader ruled with fear. If questions were asked, the challenger was shunned." The source does not limit her description of the organization to the decade of 1960s, the source says that the decade of the 1960s is when her parents joined it. So we have false information in our article, again. This as disruptive editing. If the desire is to relate to the public that things have changed for the better in the SES and when, then a source must be found that overtly states this; the solution is not to repeatedly imagine or invent or twist the dates and words of the sources we're using so far. -Roberthall7 (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see your point, but we're limited by what the article says, and there's really only two rather nebulous dates mentioned: the 60s, when her parents joined, and 1975 when the school she attended began. If we can better word our mention, that would be great, but if you want to remove all mention of dates so as to make it appear that her comments of a time forty or fifty years back describe the current situation, then I think you're pushing things a little too far. --Pete (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Shepheard-Walwyn: Reliable Source?

Just a note to be cautious about anything published by Shepheard-Walwyn. In the references, that includes Tolley (originally self-published by BookSurge, then by Shepheard-Walwyn) and Hodgkinson. Note also the translations of Ficino. Is this publisher financially linked to the school? Is the school using the imprint to self-publish books? Note that the publisher also runs a "Shepheard-Walwyn website," Ethical Economics, which promotes Henry George's thought on the front page and includes a useful link to the SES.

I haven't got to the bottom of it, but please be aware that these publications are not straightforwardly reliable sources like non-fiction books published by a genuinely independent publisher. (By the way, anyone needs a copy of Secret Cult, it's on Amazon for pennies.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Has anyone seen a copy of In Search of Truth? Hodgkinson's A New Model of the Economy states on the copyright page that it was published by Shepheard-Walwyn "in association with" the SES. We know Hodgkinson was/is a member and taught at the school, but if publication of the book was also financially supported by the SES, there's a significant WP:SELFPUB problem.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I suggest you raise these very pertinent questions on a Reliable Sources noticeboard or RFC. Getting several veteran editors with a neutral, objective take on it will be helpful. Thanks for flagging this. -Roberthall7 (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

File:In Search of Truth.jpg

A photograph of the book "In Search of Truth"

I have a copy of "In Search of Truth". I can't say it's enthralling reading, but it's as solid and professional a dust-jacketed hardback as this ex-bookseller has ever seen. There is no mention of the book being funded by or "in association with" the School. The Acknowledgements section thanks several named members and many others for providing interviews. Hard to write a useful history of any contemporary organisation without interviewing some members. It would be very useful to get the input of "several veteran editors", but I suggest that only one such exists with access to a copy. If some of those participating in discussion here wish to read a copy and give their views, that would be good. --Pete (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The issue isn't really the quality of the books as physical objects. This is a publisher which clearly has a close relationship with the school, runs a blog about land tax, and currently has over 20 titles related to Henry George in its catalog. Questions are bound to be raised.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)KD Tries Again

In my experience, books that are promoting a particular point of view to the extent that they can't find mainstream publishers are usually cheaply produced, poorly written, and physical articles that find it hard to compete for the reader's money. This book looks like a genuine book, there are no signs of affiliation with the School, and it is well-written. Not a sparkling read, but a good solid non-fiction tome. I'll agree that there are indications that the publisher has a certain agenda, but lacking any third-party mentioning a connection, we can't use synthesis. So far as I can tell, it is exactly what it purports to be - a useful history of the School, aimed at the older members who might be presumed to have money to spend on such an item. It's hardly propaganda intended to draw a younger generation in, not unless they are more formal with their reading tastes than one might imagine. I think as a source of facts about the history of the School, it's reliable. It might be assumed to have a certain bent towards promoting a positive image, so I'd hesitate to use it as a definitive source, but sources on this subject are fairly sparse, and we seem to be caught between breathless sensationalism and dour history. --Pete (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Shepheard-Walwyns were part of MacLaren's inner circle, and totally committed to the school. Unfortunately, I can't reference that, I just knew people in SES in the 1980s. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just checked BookSurge, publishers of the Tolley and Stewart books cited here. It's a self-publishing firm. This doesn't automatically disquality the sources, of course, but it's worth bearing in mind; as is the fact that Stewart also publishes with Shepheard-Walwyn.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)KD Tries Again

"Anthony Werner is a graduate of the Universities of Cape Town and Oxford and now managing director of Shepheard-Walwyn (Publishers) Ltd in London. Over the last thirty years he has built up the Ethical Economics list, www.ethicaleconomics.org.uk, a body of literature inspired by the work of Henry George. He is also a tutor in Economics at the School of Economic Science." [20] NebY (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

COI

I have opened a discussion of this article at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Direct link: [21]

-Roberthall7 (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Emily Watson

Daily Telegraph 25 Feb 2014 By Chris Harvey

One part of her life Watson rarely talks about is her education. It comes up when I mention that onscreen quality of hers, which I attempt to define as “spiritual”. She asks if I know about her “strange background”. She was a pupil at the St James Independent School in London, run by the School of Economic Science, which in the 1984 book Secret Cult was accused by reporters Peter Hounam and Andrew Hogg of using cult mind control methods over its members that had led to mental breakdowns. A 2005 inquiry into allegations of mistreatment of pupils found that children had been criminally assaulted there. Watson’s parents (her late mother was an English teacher, her father is a retired architect) were “lifelong followers of all things spiritual”. The school is run according to the principles of the Hindu philosophical system Advaita Vedanta. “It’s a kind of spiritual communism where everyone is one and the same,” says Watson, “which in principle is great but [it was] an organisation that had a lot of problems. “At the time I was there, its treatment of children and young people was not good, so it’s left me with a very ambivalent feeling towards all that. I have a very strong sense of caution when it comes to organised religion because of my background.” Had she witnessed any of the mistreatment? “Yes.” Had she experienced it herself? “No. I think I was… I knew how to stay out of trouble. But like all religions, it uses fear as its stick and, at the time, I think there were a lot of teachers who weren’t trained and there were all sorts of problems with governance in that situation that led to what they would call ‘mistakes’. But in a child’s life it’s huge because the impressions you form as a child forge your life. “There was physical punishment,” she continues. “I felt the teachers were angry with children a lot of the time and tried to humiliate them emotionally and mentally. They were people who weren’t trained to do what they did, but they felt a sense of spiritual empowerment because of the proselytising nature of ‘we’re on to something amazing here that will transform people’s lives’. It was a sort of emotional cruelty that was utterly out of place in a place of education that purports to be based on love and understanding.”

Stellan Skarsgard and Emily Watson in Lars von Trier's Breaking The Waves She recalls a comment made by the children’s campaigner Margaret Humphreys, whom she portrayed in Oranges and Sunshine, at its premiere. Humphreys brought to light the scandal of UK governments right up to the late Sixties deporting children as young as four to children’s homes in Australia, where many suffered abuse. “I remember her saying when you make a decision about a child’s life, that is for ever.” Watson herself has been actively involved in children’s issues. She worked on the NSPCC’s successful campaign to appoint a Children’s Commissioner.[22]

-Roberthall7 (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate picture

The same picture is linked twice with different captions. Please fix. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There's more to this than meets the eye. See the heading above, entitled 'Record of SoPP article to be merged into this one'. I created that section. I did that out of respect for the work that had gone into that other article, to save a record the other article which which was deleted with the WP:MERGE. Per discussion here, SoPP (School of Practical Philosophy) is a branch of the School of Economic Science and part of the same organization. Therefore the two articles represented repeated material. My heading was then misunderstood, as if the content I recorded here on this Talk page was actually intended to be added to the article. There was no need to add all the material from the aforementioned section I created above to the article, which again created duplicate content, including the picture. Am hereby cutting it down. -Roberthall7 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Strange that my cut was immediately reverted by Skyring (who also goes by the name of Pete) with the bogus explanation that my removal of extraneous material from the article (which I have explained immediately above) was 'accidental'. What's going on? -Roberthall7 (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems that you removed duplicate material, which is fine, but you also removed some material which wasn't duplicated. I reversed your error. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The content "The material presented is drawn from a variety of sources within the philosophical writings and dialogues, scriptures and other literature of East and West, including the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Bible, Plato, Marsilio Ficino and Hermes Trismegistus." is then repeated with "Material comes from a variety of sources representing both Eastern and Western traditions, including the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Bible, Plato, Marsilio Ficino, Hermes Trismegistus..." My removal of the repeated content is being repeatedly reverted with the explanation that what I am doing is an 'accident' or 'error', which is strange. Unless these actions are reversed now, it is time to seek a third opinion or stronger form of resolution. While we're at it, this additional section of content has been generally covered higher up and is therefore repeat content too, moreover it reads like advertising rather than encyclopedic content, and is being preserved in breach of WP:NOTADVERTISING: "Philosophy Works is the 10-week foundation course at the School of Practical Philosophy. The course is designed for those who seek an understanding of the nature of humanity and of the world. It aims to demonstrate how to put great philosophic ideas of the past and present to effective practical use in daily life. The series is offered three times a year: in January, April, and September." -Roberthall7 (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed the duplicate content for you. The material about the NY school courses is relevant. It's a school, and schools have subject courses. Giving information about them is relevant. The text describes the nature of the Practical in the school's name; it's not theoretical or purely academic philosophy that's being taught, but material that is put into practice. --Pete (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

So for the record, after all my edits were not an 'accident' or 'error' based on a false 'claim' as described by Skyring (who also goes by the name of Pete) which was his justification for reverting my edits, which brought us to the brink of an edit war. This has happened before, about a date in the text, which Skyring (who also goes by the name of Pete) appeared to be convinced was there but actually wasn't, and reverted my edits accordingly, again taking us toward edit war. To avoid this in future, and assuming we're all acting in good faith, I propose we all thoroughly check whether we have a mistaken perception ourselves first, before assuming that it must be others who have that mistaken perception. To emphasise: I include myself in that proposal, of course. -Roberthall7 (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

On the issue of the NY branch of this organization, my WP:NOTADVERTISING concerns have been ignored, my edits reverted; so we do not have WP:CONS. It's relevant that (i) there is a 'Neutrality' section at the top of this Talk page started by KD Tries Again raising this article's PR tendency, that (ii) I have self-identified as joining Wikipedia to help address this article's PR tendency and that (iii) Skyring (who also goes by the name of Pete) has self-identified as a member of the organization that this article is about. In the SoPP section, the most problematic sentences are: The course is designed for those who seek an understanding of the nature of humanity and of the world. It aims to demonstrate how to put great philosophic ideas of the past and present to effective practical use in daily life. That's opinion, not neutral point of view, and it's not clear that it accurately represents the citation. A more neutral and accurate rendition would be: The course is advertized as "designed to encourage students to regain their natural sense of wonder, gaining greater access to their inner happiness, wisdom and strength" and as an "introduction to a series of proven principles that enable students to attain greater self-knowledge and better their lives through reasonable, compassionate living.". However, if we edit the content to this, it is in the wrong place. As already stated in the article, the NY branch is merely a branch and not a separate organization; if we read the citations it shows that the courses and material are effectively the same all over the world. Therefore going into the course structure and content of one branch is without merit; otherwise for fairness we would be having to go into unending detail about the courses in Israel, South Africa, New Zealand or wherever - all of which the sources say are the same. It's already stated higher up that there is an 'introductory' course worldwide; there's no difference of meaning by saying there's a 'foundation' course in the US. By all means, add the detail to the overview higher up so that it covers the whole organization, say in the 'Doctrine' section. -Roberthall7 (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The course is designed for those who seek an understanding of the nature of humanity and of the world. It aims to demonstrate how to put great philosophic ideas of the past and present to effective practical use in daily life.

If we look at the Philosophy article we find that "an understanding of the nature of humanity and of the world" is a pretty good definition of philosophy and the School of Practical Philosophy puts ideas into effective practical use in daily life. A Socratic dialogue aimed at eliciting information in a mutually agreeable fashion would be useful here, don't you agree? --Pete (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

We're obliged to stick to Wikipedia policy and guidelines as the frame of reference for building Wikipedia articles. WP:SYNTH supports the direct quote of SES/SoPP publicity material about course content as opposed to the article implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. It belongs higher up the article in the general description of the organization, not in a branch-specific section. -Roberthall7 (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. You are arguing for a global curriculum, but in other edits you want to be nation-specific. Please clarify your position(s). --Pete (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on School of Economic Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131221015518/http://www.icsahome.com/view_document.asp?ID=28798 to http://www.icsahome.com/view_document.asp?ID=28798
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110205082425/http://www.practicalphilosophy.co.uk:80/resources/ to http://www.practicalphilosophy.co.uk/resources/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Continuing edits by WP:SPA

Looking at contributions of User:Roberthall7, it is hard to escape the conclusion that this editor is here for one article only. This one. Such single-minded attention usually indicates some exterior connection with the subject. Perhaps Roberthall7 would like to clarify his position? --Pete (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

This is personal. I am not going to 'out' personal details about myself, whatever they may be. As far as I understand the spirit of WP:HARRASS and other WP policies and guidelines it is unethical to pressure users into 'outing' themselves if they say they don't wish to do so. On this point Pete (who also goes by the name of Skyring) is aware that I already explained my position once in November. Back then I raised a conflict of interest concern about him after he 'outed' himself as a member of the organization that this article is about, and I also explained that I had opened this account to address the PR tendency in this article (which others such as KD Tries Again and Gareth E Kegg have identified) and by experiences here had been deterred from contributing to further articles. The conflict of interest concern about Pete (who also goes by the name of Skyring) and the statement of my position is here: [23] As such, this return to WP:SPA concerns now feels like retaliation for my recent edits, and a tactical move to undermine me before making edits of his own. This [24] is extremely problematic, aggressive editing with a clear public relations agenda. Namely ripping out of all mention of a three reliable sources, a book and two newspaper articles along with their citations, that could be described as 'bad publicity' for the organization that he is a member of. And all this without Pete (who also goes by the name of Skyring) discussing his deletions first on the Talk page, right after casting aspersions about me not discussing contributions on the Talk page. Clearly this situation has got too adversarial and would benefit from several other contributors being involved here. I am not going to get drawn into an edit war with Pete (who also goes by the name of Skyring), nor a debate with him on this Talk page. I don't need to have the last edit, nor the last word. Per WP:DR it will be best if I don't engage at all, and this is notice of that. I no longer assume good faith and would rather hand the situation over to administrator involvement. -Roberthall7 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. As a member of the school - among other things - I'm fine to edit the article, and it's best that I describe my membership. Australians are good to edit articles about Australia, Boy Scouts are good editors for Scouting and so on. There's no WP:COIN; I hold no official position, I receive no reward for my membership.

Your single-purpose involvement is unclear. I'm not attempting to WP:OUT you, but out of all Wikipedia, you choose only one article to edit. A reasonable person would seek a reason.

My recent edits were concerned with WP:WEIGHT. When most of the article's wordage is given over to criticism, and that from some fringey sources, then it begins to read like an attack article, and the justification for it is lacking. Reliable sources from mainstream media describe an innocuous organisation which teaches philosophy and encourages its practical use. Mindfulness and meditation feature highly. Philosophical traditions from around the globe are drawn upon, though there's a lot more Plato than Kant, for example, and the Vedic tradition outweighs the Zen or Sufi, though all are drawn upon. What the school actually does and teaches should be the main thrust of the article, rather than spotty and weak criticism.

If there is serious criticism or malicious intent or whatever, then it will be reflected in mainstream media. The historical instances of mistreatment of pupils at one of the UK day schools received such coverage and needs to be included here for balance. But the other instances were single-sourced and of less reliability. If there are any specifics, then I am more than happy to discuss the merits of their inclusion or not.

But WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV need to be observed. We cannot have a situation where any criticism must be slavishly retained and even expanded while the rest of the article is pruned down to a minimum. At that point, I question the bona fides of any editor aiming for such an outcome. --Pete (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

We need also to be aware of the low value of self-published sources. Pete Hounam wrote the only significant external source on SES available. Of course it's out of date, but its deliberate excision by a member seems only to confirm the sensitivity of the organisation to criticism. What is the relevance of multiple references to the Shepheard-Walwyn's translations of Ficino? Marketing?

Of course, we can't have an "attack" article. Neither can we have an article that is simply composed of the claims and prospectus of the organisation described, especially one as controversial as SES. Dismissing as "single source" a well-researched book that clearly alarmed the school on its publication is POV. Our articles are NOT recruitment material. We cannot have a situation where any criticism is pruned to a minimum, and the good faith of the editor attempting to retain it is openly questioned. This is a personal attack, and does not as such indicate any sort of good faith. I think we need to go back and discuss recent changes one subject at a time. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree with most of that. However, identifying Roberthall7 as a single purpose account is accurate and fits with wikipolicy. A reasonable person would ask, why is he or she here? And why does he or she fight to keep positive material out and negative material in?

Nobody wants an article that is totally positive or totally negative. No such thing or concept exists, except possibly Motherhood. So there's a question of WP:WEIGHT. As a start, perhaps all three of us (and any who might come after) should familiarise themselves with WP:CRITICISM as a guide on how to proceed? I note the wording in the lede of that essay:

In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

Our focus should be on writing an encyclopaedic article, not promoting or denigrating an organisation. On that note, I'm not particularly interested in having this article as a recruitment advert, or some sort of sales mechanism for a book. The school arranges advertising through other means - for example, this article mentions the adverts on the NY subway system, which I've seen in my travels - and book details should be limited to neutral entries in a bibliographic fashion, rather than glowing blurbs or damning criticisms.

On that point, there may be a conflict of interest matter arising if any editor here also has a personal or financial interest in one of the books used as sources in the criticism section. It would be good to rule that out. --Pete (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The conflict of interest bit is priceless. Again with the personal attack. Nobody's selling any books, especially out of print ones that criticise the school. Wait, is that the Shepheard-Walwyn's catalogue? Strictly, we should be looking at sources independent of the school. How's that looking?

Please remember, the edit cycle is edit, revert, discuss - NOT edit, revert, insert same old crap under another name, whine and accuse everybody else of bad faith. I don't want to remove everything that's self-referenced (although we ought to) because the School itself is the sole source on some of this stuff. However, when it seems to be advertising the syllabus of one single branch of the school, I hope you can see that this is inappropriate in a general article on the subject. And please, no more attacks on the good faith of other editors. It won't win any arguments, and shows the accuser in a very bad light. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of personal attacks…

Do you have any specific suggestions for improving the article? General comments are not helpful. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Finding some properly sourced material would be a good start. Recent reviews of "Art in Action" might mention what the school does. I'm open to any ideas that aren't self-referenced. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions for this article?

On the subject of conflict of interest, raised above, I mentioned personal interest. It would be helpful if the SPA were to rule out authorship of any material used in sourcing this article. Some of their edits are strongly suggestive of this sort of personal interest. --Pete (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Again with the personal stuff. I happen to know that Peter Hounam went into publishing and Andrew Hogg into education, and strongly suspect that neither of them gives a rat's arse about the stuff they wrote for the Standard half a lifetime ago. Authorship, in any case, doesn't disqualify an editor's material - sometimes it makes the SPA an expert.

My specific suggestion, since you clearly have an axe to grind here, is that you stop the whining and the accusations, and deal with any changes one issue at a time on this page. We might yet get along. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps things would go more smoothly if you thought before making personal attacks. Just sayin'.

Perhaps you could also consider the point I raised above about personal interest, and while you mention two writers, there are others. Again, if the WP:SPA could rule herself (or himself) out as a source, that would be helpful. --Pete (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages are for content discussion only. If you have issues with a WP user. Discuss them on their user page or at the appropriate noticeboard.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This Single Purpose Account concerns itself solely with this particular article. Hard to imagine a more appropriate location for discussion, though of course, I'm open to suggestions as to a better place to discuss the issue?

There's also discussions on WP:WEIGHT, appropriateness of sources, and other topics. Hiding discussion on relevant content isn't helpful. --Pete (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Admin, This thread is off topic and borders on a personal attack. I'd like to see it collapsed, hidden, archived or removed. What is the appropriate action in this situation? Many thanks for your help. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair the first paragraph of this comment seems to also be inappropriate. There is a lot of sniping and inappropriate discussion of behavior on this thread from both sides. Any assistance you can lend to discourage this is greatly appreciated.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Keithbob thank you. To clarify, my intention was to establish that we are all talking about the same thing, as the discussion evidently included a very misleading comment that may have put editors at cross-purposes. I also appreciated you earlier pointing out problematic behavior [25] and that concerns should be raised at WP:ANI, but FYI I'm balancing that with Travelmite's comment that he would rather it doesn't get to that. Also please see my above notice of preferring disengagement, per WP:DR, over one month ago. More specifically, I was referring to WP:BAIT, and would like you to know that I have been purposefully acting on that essay since then until now. Thanks again, -Roberthall7 (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of The New York Times

This edit [26] is deceptive.

The content reads:

"The New York Times found the local branch of the School of Economic Science (known as the School of Practical Philosophy) attracted hundreds of students, was generally positive and well-received, and rejected the idea that it was a cult."

But what The New York Times reporter actually says in the citation is:

"I was one of 400 people who signed up in the fall semester [...] As the weeks went by, attendance fell off considerably. And I started to dread going to class."

and

"The maxims are useful, more or less. [...] I asked a few questions in that vein but got vague answers. Often the discussion got so slippery that trying to take notes felt like chasing a bead of mercury around the room."

and

"Google the School of Practical Philosophy and you’ll find some accusations that it’s a cult. If so, it must be an unsuccessful one: no one tried to sign me up for the next course, let alone get me to donate my earthly possessions. At one point we were encouraged to attend a Philosophy Works party, but it was canceled because of lack of interest."

It's the case that a reporter described it as "an unsuccessful cult", it's not the case that The New Times "rejected the idea that it was a cult."

Moreover, consensus for the section has been that the sources are in chronoloical order. The content was added to give it give priority at the top of the section.

This is no way to add WP:POV. The way to do that is to cite another source and accurately represent it. So here is one, GQ Australia's interview with Hugh Jackman in 2010:

http://www.gq.com.au/lifestyle/people/hugh+jackman,6495

Jackman said: "Really, the spiritual pillar for me has become the School of Practical Philosophy. I’m a regular attendee there and I suppose that has become my church."

The GQ Australia reporter said: "accusations that the school is a cult seem difficult to justify. Tutors are unpaid, course fees are modest and it doesn’t differ markedly from many such esoteric institutions in the sub-continent. The source material studied — ranging from Shakespeare to the Upanishads to Whitman — can hardly be said to be either fringe or lightweight."

There are other sources to fold in, including Peter Washington's Madame Blavatsky's Baboon, and reports by the Belgian and Dutch governments, all mentioned here: http://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,63254

Peter Washington's book will be easy to get from Wikipedia users, the government reports are probably available from the government websites of those countries.

-Roberthall7 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and direct quoting is preferable to interpreting it. The word "cult" is automatically pejorative, which is why any supporter of that organisation will add material to say the organisation is not one. However, if it's pejorative then it's also subjective. What is more useful and powerful are facts behind the organisation - what it does or does not do. Travelmite (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Discussion about membership of User:Skyring is occurring on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelmite (talk • contribs) 13:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources

Two of the books that are referenced here are self-published:

• Dorine Tolley (2009). The Power Within: Leon MacLaren, A Memoir of His Life and Work. ISBN 1-4392-1030-6. p216-219. (Book Surge publishing)
• John Stewart (2009). Standing for Justice. BookSurge Publishing. ISBN 0-85683-194-8. page 65 (Book Surge publishing)

See: wp:RSSELF, which says: "... self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media." These cannot be used as references here for this reason. LaMona (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I've checked and it seems in July 2009, the two books were confused.[27] The Stewart book is actually Shepheard-Walwyn publishing from 2001, and is not self-published. I'll correct the publishing details. Travelmite (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed one unnecessary reference to Tolley, who write a self-published book, but possibly not a totally unreliable source. It's other use seems controversial and perhaps a better source can be found first. What is strange is reference to "Internal Report", now a dead link. Tolley is referenced on the Leon MacLaren page too. Travelmite (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Both the Shepheard-Walwyns were heavily involved in SES at the highest level. Their publishing company is dedicated to SES ideals, and linked to the organisation. Not a neutral source. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Note WP:SELFSOURCE. Assuming LaMona and Fiddlersmouth are correct, my only concern about removing these self-published sources is that it may cost the article some pertinent and informative content which happens to be supported by unreliable sources. One test for their retention might be whether the sources are being used to push a controversial point in the content or whether they are simply a way of verifying facts. Because if we remove them, that would logically require removal of the SES website as a source, which would then stop the article from presenting what the organization says about itself altogether. Perhaps one solution to think about is for the content to refer to Shepheard-Walwyn as an associate of the SES, and that what its publications say can be viewed in that context. As far as I recall I added "According to the SES's 2013 website... XXXXXXXX (cite)" to the article. The website, though a form of self-publication, has an important function of providing the SES's reply to allegations (which is required for NPOV) and what it says about certain details of its organizational structure, which may not be found in other sources. So maybe we could have "According to the SES's self-published material... XXXXXXXX (cite)" to accommodate these books without fooling our readers into thinking the content has come from outside sources, which is the noble ethical concern behind WP:RS policy. Perhaps a parallel would be like citing the White House website for an Obama quote not found elsewhere, or citing Democratic party literature with factual information about his election campaign not found elsewhere. We'd stop short of including political propaganda as fact and using such sources to support it, but I think we might use these sources to include quotes and factual details not found elsewhere. Just a thought. -Roberthall7 (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Self-published and bias are different things. Tolley is self-published and Stewart is not. The bias of the publisher is not relevant to this particular rule. Tolley's book is not published in the name of SES. It's simply self-published. Travelmite (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Do we have consensus? -Roberthall7 (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Assuming Tolley is providing uncontroversial background, I don't see the need for further action. Travelmite (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Organisation of the critical material

Having looked at the allegations, I noticed that it was disjointed. I've combined two paragraphs referring to the same line of investigation. I've put the response to the criticisms at the end, where it can be clearly identified. Nothing was added or removed, except that it seems superfluous to say the book Secret Cult is about a secret cult. Hugh Jackman's opinions are dotted across various places and should be consolidated. Travelmite (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Someone (maybe User:Fiddlersmouth?) has a copy of Hounam/Hogg which has more responses in it that we can quote in your new section. 'In Search of Truth' remains in place, is self-published and could be described as a response - are you happy with it staying where it is? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as can see you have in fact removed content relating the 'New York Observer' altogether. That source has comments from a member of the organization, which can be quoted.-Roberthall7 (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hounam & Hogg came out in 1984, and members who had passed "Measure" were told not to read it. It's hardly state-of-the-art now. The most important unused, and still relevant part relates to the pursuit of "self-realisation", and the tenuous relationship between MacLaren and the Shankaracharya he claimed as his Guru. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant that Pincham's response on behalf of the organization, which H&H included in the book, would be an important WP:NPOV addition to Travelmite's new 'Response' section. Do you have the book to hand? -Roberthall7 (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

When I made the changes[28], there was no quote from a member of the organisation in the article. It may have been removed earlier on. Travelmite (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Content derived from The New York Observer article needs to be restored as we're not meant to be removing sourced material. For sure the passage that you cut can be improved. Might you like to have a go at that? I'd value it if you did. -Roberthall7 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Something along the lines of:

In 2011, M. H. Miller of The New York Observer also reported that the placard was seen by millions of commuters. Based on the testimonies of former members, the reporter alleged the organization had caused divorce and child abuse and that its leadership had ingrained sexism and homophobia. He said that its practices are "obscure bordering on impenetrable" and "follow a hierarchical structure in which students advance to new levels of study with money and time, but are not told the specifics of what awaits them when they do." Miller reported an allegation by a former member that the organization seeks to "gain control over students by a slow process of conflating obedience to God with obedience to those who claim to know God–that is, S.E.S. and its “tutors.” [29]

Then, for the Responses section:

In 2011, invited by a reporter to reply to allegations that SES and its branches is a cult, spokeswoman Dr. Vecchio said: “I’ve known Mr. MacLaren for many years,” referring to SES leader Leon MacLaren, 2010-1994. “I met him when I was a very young woman in my 20’s. For anybody to call anything Mr. MacLaren started a cult is just ridiculous. I’ve never met a man who was more a man in the greatest sense of the word than Mr. MacLaren was. I remember visibly meeting Mr. MacLaren for the first time and just being blown away by someone who just had the kind of stature as a human being that he had.” [30]

-Roberthall7 (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, from the same source, we can put higher up the article:

According to the spokesperson for the New York branch, Dr. Monica Vecchio, S.E.S. and the School of Practical Philosophy are “the same thing with different names. There are 70 or 80 [branches] around the world. Each share the same course curriculum, with the same content. The principles are the same, the practices are the same, the stream of discussion is the same.”[31]

-Roberthall7 (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Potential new source

I don't know who are The International Society for the Study of New Religions (ISSNR), but they have a new paper on SES dated 2015, here [32] -Roberthall7 (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The author and paper is also here [33] at the Australian Catholic University. -Roberthall7 (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This looks to be an examination of the influences of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky during the 1950s. Names no longer mentioned except tangentially, and I doubt if any current members of the school are familiar with their works. McLaren soon enough skipped over these two and turned toward India in the Sixties. An outside examination of the influence of SSS would be useful here. --Pete (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The abstract clearly states that the paper is about the underlying and continuing influence of George Gurdjieff and P. D. Ouspensky on the school. Gurdjieff's Meetings with Remarkable Men was promoted and sold at Queensgate in the 1980s, and the influence appears to be structural. Worth exploring. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Explore away. They might be found in branch libraries - every branch has a collection of old books nobody looks at - but their influence on the school today would be zero. MacLaren looked to see who had influenced Gurfjieff and Ouspensky and found the real deal in India. There's a mildly humorous recording of MacLaren describing how the British members of the school grew anxious each year to see what new ideas he would bring back from his visits there, and try out on them. The Sanskrit, the meditation, the Vedic philosophies; those are structural and continuing. Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, not so much. Of historical interest only. --Pete (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again. Hearsay doesn't cut it. MacLaren was waited on hand and foot by his inner circle, there was always a lady to light his cigarettes. He never really got the hang of Sanskrit or Vedanta, and was later disavowed by the Shankaracharya, which he hid from the school. Gurdjieff was the last thing he really understood. I met and respected many of the people involved in running the school in 1980s London, but my word means nothing without references. Can we just thank this editor for providing a small ray of light? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

They seem to want to portray the school as a "new religion". Hard to AGF with that attitude. Gurdjieff and Ouspensky's influence is long gone and any reliable source claiming a current fundamental basis is unlikely. I have no objection to including reliably-sourced historical background, but we'd be up against WP:WEIGHT again. From what I've heard of LM, your portayal above is accurate, and if there were any overtones of cult or religion, it focussed on him. Certainly the current leader is not the charismatic figure that MacLaren was and demands no such attention. --Pete (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Fiddlersmouth and Roberthall. Peer reviewed academic research papers are the sources Wikipedia should mostly rely upon. There is no cause to prejudge the academic writer. Travelmite (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Dutch Wiki

Perhaps a more seasoned editor than I knows how to link the Dutch Wiki to the language list on our sidebar: [34] Thanks. -Roberthall7 (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Belgian site

Google Translate on the site for the Belgian branch of the organization [35] shows it refers to the government report on it, and its response to the report. -Roberthall7 (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Initiation"

This appears to be an important event that needs to be included in the article:

"After about 18 months of attendance, continuing students are invited to be initiated into a mantra form of meditation. After about three years, this becomes a prerequisite to moving forward with their studies. The meditation used by the School is in the tradition of Shankaracharya, the 8th century exponent of Advaita Vedanta. For long-term students, two sessions of formal meditation (one in the morning and one in the evening) are reinforced by a practice of "falling still" between actions, and dedicating every activity to the Supreme Being and increasing self awareness."[36]

"Although McLaren and the Maharishi fell out later in the 60s, an initiation ritual and meditation as practised by the School today remain remarkably similar to TM, the main subject of this chapter."[37]

"After about two years, when one has been initiated into the SES, one has begun to be enmeshed in the rules, which are very cleverly designed."[38]

"Later on (after 2 to 4 years) many people who've taken the course report being given a new name, a manta (sic) and taking part in a ceremony in front of a picture of the guru."[39]

"We were curious about the secret mantra and so we asked our teacher at the end of the talk what he meant. Our teacher said that the mantra was secret and we would only know when the school deemed us ready. We would then go through an initiation ceremony and finally find out!"[40]

-Roberthall7 (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing secret or surprising about meditation. It's TM, without the commercial interests of that organisation. From the SES website: "The arrival of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in London in 1959 brought the next stage of development, meditation. This was soon taken up by longstanding students of the School and continues to be an important part of our teaching."[41].

This is offered to members of the public along the same lines, though without the commercial fee. TM is well enough known - and widely practised - that I have to wonder about Roberthall7's sources above, all rather cultish. From the School's website: "The meditation is given in a short, traditional ceremony designed to bring the mind and heart to rest. The ceremony is non-religious and is there to ensure the precise passage of the mantra from generation to generation and to support the significance of the event. It is carried out by a trained instructor, an experienced meditator who has undergone a period of careful preparation. You will be asked to bring four things to the ceremony, each one symbolic: some flowers, some pieces of fruit, a piece of white cloth and a donation of money. The donation is not a fixed amount and depends on individual capacity. The donation symbolises the surrender of material things. It is an expression of value and is used to make meditation available to others. There is no fee for receiving the meditation. Once you’ve commenced meditating, the School will support you in the practice with one-on-one meetings, small group sessions and meditation retreats if you wish. This support will be available for as long as you wish. In providing you with the meditation, the School undertakes the obligation of supporting you for life." [42]

Have to laugh at the "Supreme Being" mentioned above. That didn't come from the school. It's a very runny translation of the Sanskrit paramātma (परमात्मन्) which is what anyone practising meditation finds within themselves when they manage to persuade the mind to stop chattering. The school doesn't promote any "Supreme Beings", instead leaving it up to members to remain within whatever cultural or religious tradition - or not - they feel comfortable with. Students will typically include Christians, atheists, Muslim, Buddhist, and others, devout or non-practising or anything in between.

Likewise the thought of being given a "new name". That's just rubbish. Perhaps it refers to students taking up the study of Sanskrit writing out their given names in the Devanagari characters, whether as a transliteration or as a translation. "Rose" might become "पुष्प", for example, meaning "flower". But that's just me speculating. Students don't get given "new names". Nobody ever referred to Leon MacLaren by any name other than that one.

"Initiation" refers to the commencement of meditation, which is conducted through a formal ceremony, some of which is in Sanskrit, aimed at stressing the continuity of the tradition from one instructor to the next. As in TM, that is where one receives a mantra, which aids in focus. Meditation is simply falling quite still, inside and out. People can easily manage sitting still with eyes closed, the difficult part is to refrain from falling asleep or letting the mind wander. Having a formal ceremony - and a donation of four gifts - helps foster a sense of commitment and resolve, which aids in practice.

Students are encouraged to take up meditation, though it is not compulsory.

Roberthall7's suggestion that we include meditation in this article is a good one, though her sources above, coming from those who obviously know very little about it, are not. --Pete (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

परमात्मन् means "Supreme Soul", or "Supreme being". I recommend Monier-Williams (still the only decent Sanskrit dictionary) - "being entirely the soul of the Universe". Everybody used to get the same mantram, and told never to speak it out loud (nobody would then know how personalised it wasn't). No new names, but one of the "gifts" was a month's salary. Oddly, it's about the most useful thing SES ever teaches. And you don't get to "progress" without it. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was never mentioned in the London school in the time that I knew it, I think MacLaren had recognised that the man was a fraud. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Where are you getting your translation from? My Monier-Williams has परमात्मन् at 588b right at the bottom, and it doesn't use those words. he school would never translate आत्मन् as "Being" or even "soul". The monetary amount is not specified or checked in any way, but a week's wages are suggested. The money goes to charity rather than the school. And yes, you are correct - nobody progresses very far without the meditation, though I know some students who have been in for years without taking meditation. And some who practise a different form, such as Christian meditation at a deep level, or those who have gone through the TM path or similar.

I'm taking issue with Roberthall7's attempts to portray meditation as some sort of secret initiation, and there is a "Supreme Being" somewhere in the material. This goes along with the thrust to present the school as some sort of cult or wacky religion, which is quite at odds with the current reality. --Pete (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at current SOES websites, meditation is offered to beginning students [43] or to people walking in off the street [44]. This is a recent change from previous years, when meditation was only offered to students with some experience, and some websites have not been updated.

There is no "initiation ceremony" in the school for anything but meditation, and I have removed the phrasing that implies otherwise. We need to be crystal clear on this. --Pete (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Roberthall7's wording was: "People who continue involvement beyond the introductory courses attend an initiation ceremony which introduces them to a system of meditation." This is incorrect and unsupported by any source. As per the links above, meditation is made available not just to those who have completed courses, but to students at all levels, and in fact to those who are not students of the school at all. Meditation is not obligatory, and students are often regular attendees for years without taking it up. Perhaps things differed in earlier times. Under the leadership of Leon MacLaren there were all sorts of strictures on diet and dress and behaviour which no longer apply. Perhaps we could mention the ways of the past in some historical development section in order to make it quite clear that times have changed. --Pete (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There is an AGF issue, in that Skyring/Pete, has made an unfounded accusation against Roberthall7. Nothing disparaging has been written. More importantly, there is a COI issue, in that a member of the organisation has reverted sourced material, discussed on the talk page, based on personal experience. I will add this to the COI Noticeboard. Travelmite (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

With apologies, I used uninflected परमात्म, परमात्मन् doesn't use those words, it says "All the heart... the Supreme Spirit. It's not a difficult dvandva. As Pete seems to have the same edition of Monier-Williams, I fail to see any purpose in his obfuscation. Maybe the Australian branch has a new translation, which he really ought to supply. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at. My point is that "Supreme Being" is not a phrase that is or would be used by the school, as in the OP's "dedicating every activity to the Supreme Being" above. It implies a specific deity, and that can only cause confusion. --Pete (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure? Let's be specific. Since we appear to be working from the same dictionary, the denial that paramatman represents any sort of supreme being appears to be a deliberate untruth. As paramatman is invoked frequently by members, who know the meaning and that NO specific deity is implied in its usage, I think we're done. Pete, you're at eight feet, please stop digging. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Still not sure what you're getting at. Members of the school know what the word means, and they know no specific deity is being invoked, but this is an encyclopaedia aimed at informing those who wouldn't know. Are you suggesting that "Supreme Being" is an appropriate phrase here in this article, where it would therefore imply something completely incorrect???? --Pete (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I am stating that "Supreme Being" or "Supreme Spirit" is absolutely the correct translation, unless you have anything better. I can't see how these words invoke any specific deity. Paramatma, on the other hand, relates specifically Shankara's version of Advaita, and I hope this has been explained to you. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My issue is the almost guaranteed confusion which would be caused by using the phrase "Supreme Being". It would naturally be assumed by a reader to refer to a deity of some kind. --Pete (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Fiddlersmouth is entirely correct, that there is no logic or reason behind this complaint. These words can be safely used in Wikipedia, if the sources are there to support it. If Skyring/Pete wants to affect the article, please make the case based on sources, not personal experiences as a member. Travelmite (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)