Talk:Universal Medicine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Addition of POV and FRINGE Material

My last edit was removed and replaced by JzG. I dont understand why both staetments cannot stand side by side for a balanced perspective. Why is one point of view is seen as more valid than another in this instance? Choose12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.161.178 (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Because the view expressed in the current form more accurately reflects the theme found in the overwhelming body of reliable sources. In the same way we do not give equal weight to claims that the Earth is flat when discussing matters of science. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"The signature treatments practiced and taught by Universal Medicine are esoteric breast massage, esoteric healing, chakra-puncture, and esoteric ovary readings"- There is no reference for this and I do not see a reference to esoteric ovary readings anywhere on the Universal Medicine website as cited elsewere in the intro so why is it being called a signature treatment?. Choose12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.161.178 (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of material about Phoenix Global in news reports, and it's founder Mick Featherstone. Is it appropriate to cite in the Universal Medicine article, or should it belong on its own page?

ABC report: corruption-investigators-raid-home-of-ex-cop-mick-featherstone SMH: Federal-politics/clive-palmers-adviser-charged-with-attempted-fraud ABC: Former-senior-detective-at-centre-of-ccc-fraud-probe/

79616gr (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Phoenix Global head Mick Featherstone was arrested on fraud charges and a brief mention and link to a news report could be added after the reference to Google removals. Universal Medicine advertises esoteric ovary massage as performed by Benhayon's daughter, Natalie. It does not advertise 'ovarian reading' per se. https://www.universalmedicine.com.au/questions/what-esoteric-ovary-massage I altered the info box to cite 'ovary massage'. XRii (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's stay focused and factually neutral. This article is attracting a lot of attention from new comers to Wikipedia. Please be sure you are only adding facts, that are backed by reliable secondary sources, and that are relevant to the subject. Adding extraneous or unrelated facts that might be seen as an attempt to prejudice the neutrality of the article is a no no. See the links in the highlighted post at the top of this section if you are in doubt, or ask questions here on the talk page. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ad Orientem. Point taken.79616gr (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ad Orientem I was Just wondering how calling the Sound Foundation a 'front organization' is considered neutral POV? If this is what it was referred to in the Private Eye tabliod is the Private Eye a reliable source since it is a tabloid? Shouldn't it just say the 'registered charity the Sound Foundation" and in reference to Simone Benhayon shouldn't it say that Simone Benhayon is one of the Trustees rather than that she runs the charity since it is a fact that she is one of the Trustees not that she runs the charity on her own. I would make the changes myslef but every minor change I have previously made for accuracy has been reverted by JzR who seems to only want negative points of view in this article.Choose12 (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Choose12

The Sound Foundation is a front organization for Universal Medicine. Front merely means it is an organization controlled by another. All SF trustees are UM associates/promoters and adherents to the Way of the Livingness, and can be shown to be so via a simple Google search. Prior to the UKCC investigation, UM's main website said: Universal Medicine UK is Universal Medicine’s unit of service for the European and as a satellite, for the North American region. In affect, it is our headquarters in that part of the world. It was first launched in 2002, after Serge had received an invite to present in England...Universal Medicine then set-up ‘UniMed UK’ as its non-profit unit of service to operate from the new dedicated site. Since then it has evolved to present on behalf of and for the Sound Foundation, a charity with the objective to serve all areas of true public benefit via the dissemination of sound living and healing. http://web.archive.org/web/20120319172354/https://www.universalmedicine.com.au/about/clinics/united-kingdom-somerset

During the UK CC investigation that was changed to the current wording as an attempt to distance the two organizations: Universal Medicine then set-up 'Universal Medicine UK' as its non-profit unit of service in the UK. Universal Medicine UK has evolved to present at various venues but now settling to hire the space as provided by the Sound Foundation, a charity with the objective to serve all areas of true public benefit via the dissemination of sound living and healing. https://www.universalmedicine.com.au/about/clinics/united-kingdom-somerset

Prior to the UKCC investigation several SF trustees were also company directors of UniMed UK. They resigned those posts after the compliance plan was issued - also easily established through web searches XRii (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "Front Organization" has a negative connotation. Unless that phrase is used in RS sources, I would suggest not using it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Labeling Private Eye as a tabloid is not accurate. While parts of the magazines content is satirical, the "In The Back" section, which ran the articles on Universal Medicine, is known to be responsible for an extremely high caliber of investigative journalism. 79616gr (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that nowhere in the Private Eye article which I have viewed on another blog site, does it call the Sound Foundation a " front organisation' I have changed the edit back in line with the comment from Ad Orientem see above 'Unless that phrase is used in RS sources, I would suggest not using it'Choose12 (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"While Benhayon has denied engaging in unethical practices,[14] significant evidence to the contrary has been documented." There is no reference for the second part of this statement. In sources referenced elsewhere in this article there are allegations but there is no " evidence' of unethical practices - no findings of fault by any government authority reported despite complaints being made and Benhayon constantly states that the claims made in the media articles relied on thoughout are part of a smear campaign. There is also much information on Universal Medicines own websites to suggest this is the case eg https://www.universalmedicine.com.au/blog/universal-medicine-complaints-against-college-universal-medicine-dismissed and that indicates complaints have been made by the same few people and have been dismissed. I realise that UM's websites cannot be referenced as RS, however it remains that there are only allegations not "evidence' of any unethical practices in all the media that has been referenced- 'significant evidence to the contrary has been documented' is not NPOV and isnt referenced. Once again I would appreciate input from the senior editors here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choose12 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Universal Medicine is not a reliable source for claims complaints have been "dismissed" or that complaints have been made by the same few people. The fact the UKCC took compliance action -twice- is proof of unethical practice. Also, regulators such as the Charity Commissions in Australia and the UK are not required to publish details of enforcement actions or provide information on action taken. Eg. the latest UKCC decision was not published by the UKCC, however they released a statement to Third Sector UK when the journal made enquiries. In addition the the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry report featured a page on UM in a section described such: the Committee was made aware of a number of organisations and companies advertising misleading health information or providing potentially unsafe procedures….p.11. The statement from the NSW HCC Commissioner does not indicate complaints were dismissed. The policy of the HCCC is to file complaints as notifications and consult them in the instance of further complaints. 3.31 The Committee has received assurances that the Commissioner is aware of the activities of Universal Medicine and that he has received complaints concerning the treatments being offered. p.15. The report went on to propose amendments to NSW legislation so that the HCCC is less restricted in taking action.

Yes the HCCC committee relied upon tabloid reports and yes it would seem that complaints were made to the HCCC, but without evidence that any wrongdoing was found these are only allegations NOT evidence. Any one can lodge a complaint and then report that a complaint has been made it doesnt mean that the complaint has any basis. Universal Medicine have been consistent in saying that the negative press is a hate campaign. Why is it so important to you that UM is presented in a negative light?Choose12 (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of unethical practices would also include ovarian readings where a woman felt she was being groomed, and an ex follower stating Benhayon "controlled every aspect of our lives". Claims breast massage can prevent breast cancer and alleviate gynaecological symptoms are untested and unethical. Health professionals referring patients to quacks; altering or erasing publicity under media and regulatory scrutiny; attempting to censor media reports from internet searches; hiring the very dubious Phoenix Global...It's hardly a picture of integrity. XRii (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

But as I said everything you have listed are allegations denied by Universal Medicine and Serge Benhayon not 'evidence'. If the allegations are false as Universal Medicine says and as a result of a hate campaign - possibly by some who may be on here editing, then how is reputation management unethical? 'Evidence' should be changed to 'allegations'. Where exactly is the evidence?Choose12 (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

RevTimO has some difficulty with keeping his additions in the context of the articles being referenced. Below is how I have edited a sentence and it fits with the context of the article. One ex-patient of Universal Medicine characterized the treatments she had as 'sleazy' and compared her experience to being subjected to a "grooming exercise".

RevTim0 seeks for the sentence to remain inaccurate as follows "The signature treatments practiced and taught by Universal Medicine have been characterised as "sleazy" with one ex-patient comparing her experience to being subjected to a "grooming exercise".[8]The article provides one persons view of her treatment she calls an 'ovarian reading' a term that is is only used in the tabloid media and nowhere else can it be substantiated that a treatment called an ' ovarian reading ' even exists yet RevTim0 implies that from this article all the signature treatments of UM are sleazy. One persons account of one alleged therapy does not support the contention he seeks to make. I have changed it back -

RevTim0 by the history of his/her edits clearly has an agenda to paint UM in a negative lightChoose12 (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference 30 and 31 are completely irrelevant to the claim made. No mention of Universal Medicine is found in either article and are off topic. It seems that who ever made that addition seeks to imply some sort of illegal misconduct simply by the fact that an owner of an organization UM employed for a valid service has been accused of completely unrelated misconduct,Choose12 (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC) then there is some sort of guilt by association. On that logic if my mechanic was arrested for drug dealing that would make me also a drug dealer. Some input so my comments by some senior editors would be appreciated.Choose12 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Parliamentarians from opposing parties on the HCC Committee relying on tabloid reports rather than evidence in compiling a parliamentary report is not in keeping with parliamentary process, and is a bizarre allegation. Similarly, the Charity Commission does not issue compliance orders on allegations, but following an investigation of the evidence.

The mechanic analogy is a poor one, and doesn't equate with hiring a private investigator and security firm. The fact is Universal Medicine hired an organized crime figure to manage security and internet reputation.

You also took issue with the statement that signature treatments are "targeting women". Esoteric Women's Health Pty Ltd and esoteric ovary readings and breast massage are not marketed to men. XRii (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Religious content: The Way of the Livingness

I'm preparing a short summary of UM's religious content and will post it here for approval before adding it to the article. It will expand slightly on the theosophy basis, and introduce the prana and fiery dualism, otherwise the book burning description will lack context. XRii (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

With regard the alleged 'book burning ceremony' There was no ceremony - just a social gathering a bonfire and people burning things they did not want.I find it interesting that one persons version of events becomes a 'reliable source' just because a journalist has reported what they have saidChoose12 (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

- The above is apology and UM challenging a SMH newspaper article 3 years after the fact. Can a WP admin do something about this behavior? I consider it WP:Disruptive behavior. Choose12 is the insider that made a whole lot of WP edits, then only came-out as an UM insider after the fact. Wokit14 (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess it will need some good Rel Source cites, not any propaganda from UM. Wokit14 (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

With regard to reliable sources on the religious teachings -t he only sources available are newspapepr reports.The most reliable sources for the actual teachings would obviously be from the 8 books written by Serge Benhayon. I notice that other pages on people such as Alice A Bailey and most other 'spiritual' teachers reference the actual teachings of the person they are writing about - not tabloid newpaper articles that have provided sensationalised interpretations of the teachings. Any chance of someone doing that here? It would require someone reading the books in order to find out exactly what it is that is taughtChoose12 (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we can't use the writings of the proponents directly. That would be original research. We have to base our articles on what reliable independent secondary sources say. I agree, though, that the reliable sources have to be high quality. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, writing up the religious content has some inherent problems, however it's an encyclopedia entry not a theological treatise. It only needs to cover the basic belief system. There's enough material among the sources to give that background. I flagged it to pre-empt any unnecessary editing or questions about the unusual word usage of "prana" in the book burning entry. Choose12, the books are publicly available and I can read. XRii (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Religious content: The Way of the Livingness

I'm preparing a short summary of UM's religious content and will post it here for approval before adding it to the article. It will expand slightly on the theosophy basis, and introduce the prana and fiery dualism, otherwise the book burning description will lack context. XRii (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

With regard the alleged 'book burning ceremony' There was no ceremony - just a social gathering a bonfire and people burning things they did not want.I find it interesting that one persons version of events becomes a 'reliable source' just because a journalist has reported what they have saidChoose12 (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

- The above is apology and UM challenging a SMH newspaper article 3 years after the fact. Can a WP admin do something about this behavior? I consider it WP:Disruptive behavior. Choose12 is the insider that made a whole lot of WP edits, then only came-out as an UM insider after the fact. Wokit14 (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess it will need some good Rel Source cites, not any propaganda from UM. Wokit14 (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

With regard to reliable sources on the religious teachings -t he only sources available are newspapepr reports.The most reliable sources for the actual teachings would obviously be from the 8 books written by Serge Benhayon. I notice that other pages on people such as Alice A Bailey and most other 'spiritual' teachers reference the actual teachings of the person they are writing about - not tabloid newpaper articles that have provided sensationalised interpretations of the teachings. Any chance of someone doing that here? It would require someone reading the books in order to find out exactly what it is that is taughtChoose12 (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we can't use the writings of the proponents directly. That would be original research. We have to base our articles on what reliable independent secondary sources say. I agree, though, that the reliable sources have to be high quality. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, writing up the religious content has some inherent problems, however it's an encyclopedia entry not a theological treatise. It only needs to cover the basic belief system. There's enough material among the sources to give that background. I flagged it to pre-empt any unnecessary editing or questions about the unusual word usage of "prana" in the book burning entry. Choose12, the books are publicly available and I can read. XRii (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please Check Your Agendas at the Door

I am noting a great deal of editing going on here, including what could be characterized as a soft edit war, by two parties, both of which seem to be agenda oriented.. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote, defend or vilify any given subject. Stop it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Point taken but why are the edits of the other party held to be superior to the edits I have made - see my comments above. It is easy to see from the references at 30 and 31 that they are irrelevant to the topic and have only been placed there only for an agenda Choose12 (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

'Choose12' has still not answered the specifically directed question asked by 'Guy'; "...a claim made by the group, if at all. What is your connection with this group? Guy (Help!) 19:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)... YOu didn't answer my question. I have been an admin here for sevecral years. I am well aware of policy and have a fair amount of experience policing it. And banning single purpose accounts. Guy (Help!) 00:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)". RevTim0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevTim0 (talk • contribs)

Clearly I know of the organisation. That does not alter the validity of the questions that I have raised. My edits have been made for NPOV and to correct deliberately false information that is not even backed by the sources referenced. I notice that there is a link from 'esoteric breast massage' to a webpage of a photograph that does not show an esoteric breast massage nor even have any information on the photo identifying it as an esoteric breast massage. This link should be removed as it is not a reliable source under wikipedias rules and it is placed there to mislead.Choose12 (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ping Guy -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

x — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevTim0 (talk • contribs)

I think you seriously misunderstand what Wikipedia is about. We do not create articles in response to conduct, whether good or bad, of the subject. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not an op-ed page. Right now what I am seeing is a low intensity edit war going on between two opposing groups of single purpose editors that are both agenda oriented. I am going to respectfully ask everyone to suspend editing on this article for the next day or so and spend the time carefully reading the linked guidelines I posted in the yellow box above. You may also wish to peruse WP:Dispute resolution. Here though is the bottom line; if this problem persists I am going to start issuing formal warnings. So everybody take a deep breath, do a little guideline reading and let's come back in a couple days and try to reach some consensus without the agendas. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

-x — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevTim0 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. For the time being I am going to suggest that any significant edits, by which I mean anything beyond minor copy editing for grammar or fixing links be discussed here on the talk page first in the hopes of getting some consensus. Again thanks for everyone's cooperation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I am an experienced editor and new to this article. I never heard of this group until I learned of possible problems with this article. I have read the article and this talk page and see good points made by both sides. One thing is for sure, with experienced editors involved: This article will be neither a denunciation of nor a recruitment brochure for Universal Medicine. Instead, it will be a neutral summary of what the highest quality independent sources say about the group. No more, no less. So, abandon your maximalist positions and be prepared to seek consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

x — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevTim0 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Dissatisfied with content

I have issue with NPOV on this entry and have made referenced edits: I have removed reference that Universal Medicine is a 'self-professed religion' as there is no reference to verify this. I have referenced information about The Way of The Livingness as reported in the Thirdsector magazine as the religious aspect of Serge Benhayon's teachings. I have corrected 'alternative medicine treatments' to read 'complementary' as this was how it was reported in the ABC article Sitewriter (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC).

References

NPOV issue with use of the word 'victim' changed to one ex partner of a Universal medicine supporter which is supported by the refernce already provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choose12 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

deleted reference 12 to Hanson article "Universal Medicine client says her sessions felt sleazy and she was being groomed" since this article did not refer to esoteric breast massage at all. Added reference to claims that breast massage 'wards off cancer' so that the commentary is conisistant with the article referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choose12 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

References 30 and 31 make no reference to Universal Medicine and are irrelevant and off topic. Clearly the intention is to suggest that UM are somehow involved in criminal activity because someone that they have employed for a service has been arrested. On that logic if my mechanic was arrested for dealing drugs then I must also be a drug dealer.Choose12 (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As a single purpose account, you're unlikely to get away with removing stuff just because you don't like it. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the reference because it was incorrect not because I didnt like it - the article didn't mention esoteric breast massage at all yet it was stated that the client had found the esoteric breast massage sleazy etc.

You are nit-picking. The context is clear. The source has been restore with better wording. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem with the source being restored but " signature" treatments is not accurate. If you were referring to esoteric breast massage or chakrepuncture you could call them signature treatments but the person being quoted refers to an 'ovarian reading' which does not appear to exist anywhere on any advertising for Universal Medicine and some blog sites claim that the treatment does not exist. Choose12

I think introducing "The Way of the Livingness" in to this article so early on is confusing. The article is on Universal Medicine, not it's founder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79616gr (talk • contribs) 08:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

For accuracy I corrected the section about the Sound Foundation to say that Benhayons daughter Simone is one of the directors not that is is ' is run by". Took out the words " front organisation" for npov. Choose12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choose12 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You added apologia. Please don't. For example, the only source for esoteric breast massage being carried out only by women, is the group itself: it is not independent. You have sought to cast critical content in doubt by attributing it to single individuals (when there is very substantial evidence of criticism), and at the same time represented the self-serving cclaims of the group as fact when actually it should only be represented as a claim made by the group, if at all. What is your connection with this group? Guy (Help!) 19:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

JzG - I referenced a newspaper artilce that states clearly that esoteric breast massage is only carried out by women so why delete this reference. I have only made additions and corrections that are referenced on the interest of NPOV. It appears others are only interested in a negative viewpoint. Choose12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choose12 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I added more info about cost of the 'signature treatments' and removed refernce to 'signature treatments in the last paragraph since the described ' 'ovarian reading' does not appear to be a signature treatment of Universal Medicine nor something that is taught in courses as was stated Choose12 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choose12 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

YOu didn't answer my question. I have been an admin here for sevecral years. I am well aware of policy and have a fair amount of experience policing it. And banning single purpose accounts. Guy (Help!) 00:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Can the following paragraph be added in the 'background' section? Thoughts? "A few years ago (circa 2009) in Mullumbimby, a book-burning ceremony was held in the garden of Universal Medicine's lawyer, Cameron Bell, where Benhayon's students were invited to throw their books onto the pyre. Most of the volumes were on Chinese medicine, kinesiology, acupuncture, homeopathy and other alternative healing modalities, all of which Benhayon has decreed "prana". "I thought I was going to a barbecue," one man says. "And then I thought, 'What the f... is going on here?' It was just like the ritual burning of books in Nazi Germany."[15] http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-da-vinci-mode-20120824-24h50.html Wokit14 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

And the following changes? Consensus? I agree with 79616gr that "literally" should be removed from that sentence. I don't know about new headings, but I do agree that swapping around paragraphs in the 'background' section to something more orderly is a good idea.Wokit14 (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts? RS[30] should definitively stay as it relates to content of section and links to "Phoenix Global specialises in finding and removing adverse or defamatory internet posts about its clients" and then newspaper goes on to say that this service may be used for morally questionable purposes. Also RS[30] relates directly to a firm UM has in its employ. As a compromise to (UM?) perhaps RS[31] could be removed but only if RS[30] stays. Consensus? Wokit14 (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

- I agree with the changes to page made by XRii made 7 Jan 2015. Clarified quite a few issues Wokit14 (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

- As requested by others below, fixed issues with cite 30 and 31. Removed RS[31] and added quote from RS[30] to sentence in that section. Wokit14 (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

- Added "book-burning" and cite. In the 3 years past, this has not been challenged by UM in sources. A reliable well distributed source. 'Cult' has been used in article and this could be considered a 'cult' activity? Wokit14 (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Health in Australia. I intend to remove the UM article from Category:Health in Australia as it does not fit. All other WP pages on this category page are 'evidence based' or at least 'accredited' practices. UM health theory is neither. Thoughts? Wokit14 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience. As a separate issue some may think the UM article should be added to Category:Pseudoscience. Any thoughts? Wokit14 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

- I have to strongly disagree with User:Cullen328's suggestion to remove RS[30] as there is no WP page for Phoenix Global firm as yet. ... then the RS[30] is acceptable in UM article. Wokit14 (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say about a topic, Wokit14. If reliable sources describing Universal Medicine also discuss the owner of the private investigation firm, then we can summarize what those sources say. But Wikipedia editors are not permitted to track down that information and place two references together with wording making a connection that is not made in reliable sources. That is synthesis, a form of original research which is forbidden on Wikipedia. As for the comparison of this person to Al Capone, that is an egregious violation of our BLP policy which applies to talk pages as well as article space. Unless this person has been proven to send killers to attack people with machine guns, please restrain yourself in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

- OK thanks for info User:Cullen328. I removed the text you thought might infringe BLP policy. Also I could not find the phrase "egregious violation" on that BLP page, so not sure what that means.Wokit14 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Those two words are my personal characterization of how serious I consider such policy violations to be. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

- User:Cullen328, disappointed that you did also not redact the Capone accusation above or use plain English in your remarks - which is not a good idea. Could be seen as intimidating to new editors. Wokit14 (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Content expansion

As content expands the delineation of new sections may be necessary. These might fall into:

1. Religious content, with some expansion of the link between UniMed & Alice A. Bailey and theosophy - some points were made in Leser's article "The Da Vinci Mode"
2. Practices - including a subsection perhaps for Esoteric Womens Health and esoteric breast massage
3. Controversy (?) - it's possible most content may be found to be controversial, so this may be redundant

XRii (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Some changes I'd like to suggest and question:

1. Is UM, as described in the first sentence of intro, an organization or a company? It appears to consist of a number of businesses and companies, including the two charities. The Australian business register shows UM includes UM Pty Ltd and a separate discretionary family trust for Universal Family Trust. The Benhayons each individually have ABNs, http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByName.aspx?SearchText=benhayon and there is Esoteric Womens Health pty ltd, EPA Pty Ltd, UM UK Ltd, etc. (as someone has listed in a separate text box.) It suggests UM would more accurately be called an organization?
2. I'm not sure of the "See also" text box, which implies there are WP entries for each of those organizations. Perhaps those could be listed under a separate section. "UM companies"?
3. Under Google search removals, "manipulate" its reputation has been changed to "engineer", which is less clear. Engineer is something anyone can do to build or create a reputation. UM has sought to remove criticism from the internet underhandedly, and I think this is better described as "manipulate".XRii (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say it's an organization judging by the criteria you raise - multiple businesses, charities etc. I agree about the "See also" box. It seems out of place currently. As does the 'Religion'?[1] entry in Related Fields. UM defines itself as a religion Introducing our Religion so why the question mark? I understand it was not granted charitable status as a religion in the UK, but that does not preclude it from using the term. And 'manipulate' is a much clearer signifier, the wording should be reverted. 79616gr (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Final Concerns

- I have made my final category edit as pre-notified. Cullen328, your interpretation that the reference [30] and associated sentence is a 'synthesis' or a form of 'original research' seems delusional. Your imagination seems over-active and drawing criminal conclusions and making accusations where none exists. What concerns some is couch-sitters wanting removals from page, sitting back making accusations and critisisizing but offering no constructive suggestions that would contribute/add to the page. Informed editors who can contribute such as XRii, JzG, 79616gr and myself are dwindling and sooner or later this article will be left with no-one with any knowledge or passion for the topic. Congratulations on proactive devolution of the article! Good-bye. Wokit14 (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my edits on this talk page, which reflect well over five years of experience working to render a large number of articles neutral, and help them comply with our policies and guidelines. You are the one who mentioned Al Capone, not me. My constructive criticisms have been clear: this article must reflect the neutral point of view. It must summarize only what the highest quality reliable sources say about the topic. Anything cited to blogs, opinion pieces, social networking sites or sites lacking professional editorial control should be removed from the the article, forthwith. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not an advocacy website. Excessive "passion" about a specific topic is an impediment to neutral editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You are, as always, absolutely correct. Wikipedia is neither hagiography nor hatchet job. We aspire always to content which a dispassionate observer will readily agree is fair. That does not mean the subject (or indeed any other partisan) will like it. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Article Layout

I've had a go at reorganizing the article. The volume of edits has currently created a piece that I feel has no real flow or order to it, and does not read particularly well. I've done a draft in my Sandbox and you can view it here: Universal Medicine Draft. Thoughts appreciated. I think the "Controversy" heading could perhaps be worded better, but can't think of an adequate substitution. 79616gr (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to make clear I have neither removed nor added content. If I have deleted something by mistake, please accept my apologies in advance. 79616gr (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a good layout, and divided well. My input:

1. The introduction should remain pretty much as it is. An introduction should encapsulate all of the article content. So apart from mentioning the modalities, it needs to retain mention UM is also a religious organization with occult beliefs based in theosophy, and has been characterised as a cult; that UM provides practitioner training and unrecognized accreditation; Benhayon is leader and founder and he denies unethical practices.
2. It occurred to me we need to correct the initial statement that UniMed is a company. It's an organization consisting of a number of companies. That could be elaborated in future in another section if necessary, and I'm not sure of the WP protocol for providing info on business structures, but a check of the Australian Business Register and the UK equivalent reveals a number of UM companies owned by Benhayon and family. A listing of all companies wouldn't be necessary for the article (there are a lot).
3. I'd like to suggest the sections are named: "Religion: The Way of the Livingness"; and "Practices" rather than treatments seeing UM also has diet and exercise practices, and some other rituals, which can't really be classed as treatments.
4. I'm still unsure of "controversy" needing its own section, because most of UniMed's activities are controversial, so it could become a problem with repeating information or segregating controversy from different sections. Stating in the first sentence of the entry that UM "is a controversial organization", or a "controversial alternative medicine and religious organization" would eliminate the need for a separate section. XRii (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wokit14, I'm not totally comfortable with your last edit. I think you were trying to shorten the intro by making the entry about the EPA and accreditation briefer? To me it's ended up being less clear, and repeated. Practitioner training and other workshops are a large part of the UM business, so I think okay to leave it as was in intro. Also, you've stated that the naming of the EPA is a misnomer, which might be true, but that's opinion; and that it shares the UM business address, which is probably not necessary for an encyclopedia entry. The EPA is one of the companies owned by Benhayon. Thoughts on whether that needs to be stated? (Incidentally, all UM businesses appear to be misnomers, so I do agree with you, but is it fit to include?) XRii (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for you input XRii. What I'd propose is leaving it for another 24 hours, seeing if anyone else has opinions as to if the current format of the article needs to changed or not. If the consensus is to reformat for clarity, I'll amend the article to my draft, and then other authors can develop that further. It would be appreciated if any admins or established editors could guide as to WP policy on reformatting an article. I have read as much as possible on policy, but your experience is invaluable and much appreciated - Ad Orientem Cullen³²⁸ Guy (Help!) Thanks 79616gr (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

XRii do you have suggestions around the "Controversy" section? Where could these paragraphs live if not in their own section? What I have tried to do is find some sense of order in the article as it was reading as list of statements. Due to rapid fire editing without much consideration of placement or structure it didn't read well at all. 79616gr (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the invitation to comment. First, simply stating that a controversial organization is "controversial" is not enough. We need to give our readers a neutral, well-referenced description of the controversies, with an appropriate level of detail.

Secondly, I have a problem with the section called "Search results removed from Google". It seems to me that neutral coverage of this group's efforts to suppress online criticism is entirely appropriate. However, it is not appropriate to link to every post they were trying to suppress. We do not include external links in the bodies of articles. And some of these links are to blogs and random opinion pieces. Everyone has free speech rights on the internet. But it is not Wikipedia's role to promote random blog posts just because someone tried to suppress them. That section should be edited with a surgical scalpel.

Beware of the swings of the pendulum. Do not go too far with devoted advocacy, and do not go too far with hostile scepticism. The proper balance is somewhere in the middle. The goal is a rigorously neutral encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen³²⁸ for your input, it is appreciated. Perhaps the section should read as it does, but without the list of websites/news sources etc below it. The fact that an attempt at internet censorship has occurred is evident and backed up by the Chilling Effects cite. But the list below as it stands could appear as a promotion of those sources.79616gr (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a real problem with some of the references in that section, which to me, do not meet our standards for reliable sources. One is a profile of the owner of a detective agency which offers internet reputation services. But that source doesn't even mention Universal Medicine. Why do we need to know about the background of the owner of that firm, unless reliable sources discuss his background when also discussing Universal Medicine? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I also have a problem calling the founder "bankrupt" in Wikipedia's voice when the source used to back up that statement says "after emerging from bankruptcy over an unpaid lease on a Sydney tennis centre in 1998." Someone who emerged from bankruptcy should not be called "bankrupt" in the present tense, and I have deep doubts that a resolved bankruptcy of 17 years ago deserves such prominent mention in this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a list of my suggestions.

1. Search results removed from Google, Links. I suggest leaving the text of first 7 mainstream reliable media stories listed, but remove their hyperlinks. Add a [cite] for the ones that are already cited below.

2. Alternative titles to Controversy. Compliance, criticism and alleged cultism.

3. Title Religion. I still do not like the use of word religion as UK Gov has classified UM not to be a religion. Would prefer beliefs, or even religion? or 'religion'.

4. The divided layout idea similar to what 79616gr has suggested sound not too bad.

5. Cullen, it previously said 'former bankrupt'. Would that be better?

Thanks Wokit14 (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

79616gr Cullen³²⁸ Or perhaps remove the links to blogs/opinion pieces and keep the news links? The listed posts are not the full list, which is more like over 40 removals of posts from around 20 sites. What is extraordinary is that Google suppressed news reports from five independent mainstream news organizations, including the Australian public broadcaster, and there are no reports of UM taking legal action against any of them.

The relevance of Featherstone is UM have used his services for nearly two years and he's a notorious figure, and Benhayon is always lecturing about "integrity". He's been arrested for fraud, and the Google removals might also be considered fraudulent.

Ex bankrupt might be a more accurate descriptor. It's relevant because it contradicts Benhayon's biography on the UM sites, which refer to him as financially successful at the time he founded UM in 1999. "Personally, he was very fit and healthy, very content and financially successful with little need to change, as one would normally understand ‘change’ or ‘needing to change’ from something that is not working or from being ‘not happy’ or ‘discontent’ and therefore wanting to move on in search of more, etc. In short, there was no reason whatsoever to change where he stood in his life." https://www.universalmedicine.com.au/about

Controversy might be called "Further Controversy"? The way the draft is laid out at the moment, the first para about unethical practices could go under practices or in the intro, and the latter two referring to cult allegations could go under religion? Both sections already have controversies cited. The second para about the charity investigations might be "further controversy", because there's also the Medical Observer article about Federal funds going to UM via the YWCA. http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/news/government-blocks-ywca-documents , which hasn't made it into the article yet. XRii (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have done some reformat work on the article based on the draft I proposed and taking on board the comments from other editors on this page. I still use the section heading "Treatments" as I proposed in draft, as all the current info relates to that, but agree with XRii this could be changed to "Treatments and Practices" should the section expand. "Criticism" seems like a good heading for the section on regulatory bodies investigations that have occurred, thank you Wokit14. It's good to see the amendments suggested by Cullen³²⁸ applied to the "Google" section already. I strongly agree the Michael Featherstone cite should be removed but as I wanted this edit to be an attempt at adding some shape to the article as a whole, have held off removing or adding anything beyond chapter headings. 79616gr (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

XRii are you able to expand on the Medical Observer article you referenced? It seems pertinent. 79616gr (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems important to stick to facts for this article. In no Universal Medicine material anywhere can I find that they offer ovarian massages or ovarian readings - this seems to be the claim of one patient, which doesn't seem relevant or strong enough to be included in this article. Also In the opening section it is stated that 'significant evidence' exists, where in fact all the references are to allegations, not evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tribscent08 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Tribscent08 This page from the Universal Medicine website What is esoteric ovary massage very clearly states this is a treatment they offer. 79616gr (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Yes, point taken I see that now - however there is no mention of an ovarian reading apart from one (disgruntled) patient - should this be in the article?Tribscent08 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

- Tribscent08 it sounds like you are nit-picking in order to have a genuine fact removed. What cite[8], The Telegraph and Hansen show is that these 'ovarian readings' practice has been journalist fact checked and included in article. And 79616gr has had to prove this fact again to satisfy your nit-picking. That's why this WP page has to rely on such media articles from Hansen etc. Wokit14 (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

- Excellent point 79616gr. On another issue and just to clarify I did not make a "comparison of this person to Al Capone" as has been interpreted by Cullen328. I think some editors' imaginations are running away regard this Featherstone Cite[30] issue, whereas the readers imaginations would not. Also it a stretch to use the "Biographies of living persons" WP policy on this topic to try to win an argument. If some admins/editors are trying to play devils-advocate then good. But "please restrain yourself in the future" if trying to find an editor in violation of something/anything possible because they disagree with you. Wokit14 (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You redacted your Capone remark above (thank you) and are now bringing it up again, which is not a good idea. I referred to BLP policy only because complying with that policy is mandatory on Wikipedia in every language and every project operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is a core policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As for trying to "win" an argument, Wokit14, I have only one goal here: to assist in the transformation of this article to one which is neutral, well-referenced and in full compliance with all of our policies and guidelines. That's it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am going to reiterate the concerns I expressed in an earlier post and that Cullen328 also made in his comment. The itemized list of websites allegedly supressed by UM are gratuitous. It adds nothing substantive to the article that is not already covered in the pargraph of text preceding it. I suggest the list be removed along with the last sentence of the paragraph. The inclusion of the list strikes me as prejudicial. Anyone seeking the specific sites can either go to the cited sources or perhaps an external link can be added to a list in the appropriate section at the bottom. I would also strike the word "expose" from the text of that paragraph. It has a negative connotation and really just repeats the point made using the other terms. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ad Orientem and support the changes suggested. I also think the cite to Michael Feathstone article should be removed. I had asked on this page a few days about its inclusion and was advised by Ad Orientem it would be prejudicial to the article. As Cullen³²⁸ has now raised the same point I think it's time it was removed. The consensus seems to be it has no place here. 79616gr (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I take the following tone because I found the statements at the top of this page by Cullen to be insulting. 79616gr I disagree with your statement: "The consensus seems to be it has no place here." Overbearing behavior by old editors seems to be scaring off editors who have studied up on the particular topic, this is not new at WP. I hope knowledgeable editors such as XRii have not been dissuaded, I'm about exit from WP as I have done a few times before over the years. Unfortunately every time I get active with WP this same old problem arises. If being a "smart editor" is more important than one bringing knowledge, then WP does succeed!

- I am confused at the imagination of some editors. The cite[30] say only 2 things simply, nothing more, nothing less - Phoenix Global is a 'private investigations firm' and its owner is 'Michael Featherstone'. If some are translating this into a suggestion UM is into criminality than that's just fanciful thought on their part, not 'synthesis', - which is not a good idea. Wokit14 (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I note that this sentence has recently been added and is inaccurate"Northern NSW GPs reported allegations that UM urges followers not to exercise, not to eat most foods and not to see a registered doctor if they are ill.[28]" Nowhere in the article does it say that GPS have reported these allegations . Teh article cites critics and the only mention of a GP is when a GP makes a general statement that is not specifically about UM. If the sentence is to stay is should simply say that "it has been reported that UM urges follower etc...." The article does not quote any GP in this regard. Please try to be accurate no matter what your agenda. I m also pleased to see some sensible comment about the Michael Featherstone reference and I do hope that WP's experiennced editors will keep an eye on this page.Choose12 (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I note that reference 33 still cites the profile of Mick Fetherstone that has no mention of UM - is there any reason why this cant be removed since it seems that most agree that the reference is irrelevant?Choose12 (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, removing a reference that does not mention the topic of this article is justified. Please feel free to do so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC) I did as you suggested however as I have declared a conflict of interest someone has undone my edit. Perhaps a neutral party could remove the reference 35 Choose12 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC).

I note the addition of "Serge Benhayon has responded to such accusations with assertions Universal Medicine does not "interfere with medicine... We do not hold ourselves above medicine. We are super pro medicine."[24] Finally some balance being allowed. I wonder if it could also be added that medical specialists associated with Universal Medicine have also confirmed that the therapies are to be used in conjunction with traditional medicine -this is found in reference 1 and 14 to the article. Reference 1 quotes a thoracic surgeon and reference 14 quotes eye surgeon Anne Mallat. Choose12 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Choose12, I reviewed both cites you referenced and as the medical specialists are both supporters of Universal Medicine it would seem that their views may not have a NPOV. I quote from cite 14 "Dr Anne Malatt, a Bangalow eye surgeon and daughter of doctors herself, is one of Benhayon's strongest supporters." Perhaps an editor/admin more familiar with the nuances NPOV would care to comment? 79616gr (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes and the critics cited are critics of UM yet their views are posted on this article in abundance. You are assuming that the critics are correct and supports of UM must be lying -so much for NPOV. Why would only the negative view be able to prevail? How is this balanced?[[Special:Contributions/06:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC (sorry forgot to sign in )Choose12 (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

One cannot exclude statements made in defense of UM if they are quoted in reliable sources, even if the person being quoted is affiliated or biased. Many of the quotes in the article are from biased sources, in most cases critics. The question is, are the quotes referenced to a reliable source? If so, then they probably should be included. Normally anything that involves citing a primary source is excluded unless it is of an obviously non-controversial nature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ad Orientum has the basics right, content must be based on secondary reliable sources. Due weight and false balance are also considerations. The presentation of proponents views and statements on a fringe religion should not be given undue weight creating a false impression of discussion, consideration, study in serious academia. When a subject is not covered in scholarly works that is evidence it is not considered seriously and it should not be presented as if it is. No false impression of acceptance, significance etc. should be created by presenting the statements and views of proponents. Context is also a consideration. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the issue with doctor endorsements has been covered in this sentence: "Controversy surrounds referrals for esoteric treatments by some doctors,[6] a situation that medical regulators say is difficult to address."

Dr Malatt's endorsement in the Leser report has very little to do with evidence based medicine apart from what's already been stated by Benhayon. Her comments are statements of metaphysical/religious belief: "I can't say [if Serge is the reincarnation of Da Vinci] but what I can say personally is that I believe in reincarnation. The majority of the world believes in [some form of] reincarnation, so belief in God or belief in reincarnation isn't exclusive to Universal Medicine...The core tenet of Serge's teachings is energetic integrity and being willing to discern for yourself ... and the great thing about him and the reason why there are several doctors, nurses and allied-health practitioners working with him is because he is very much in favour of Western medicine. [But], like us, he understands that if Western medicine were the holy grail, we'd all be well, and we're not...I find Universal Medicine illuminating because it gives me an understanding that there is something beneath the symptoms. What we deal with in medicine - the symptoms, the illnesses, the diseases - that's on the surface, but there's a root cause within from where that all comes." Dr Malatt's endorsement would have to be presented in context of her religious adherence to UM, and we'd have to include the statements from Professor Dwyer in the $35,000 cough article (concerning the HCCC investigation of the above mentioned thoracic surgeon who was no longer keen to speak with the media): “There is a lack of consumer protection for vulnerable people,” Professor Dwyer said. “Registered health practitioners, if they are supporting this pseudo-science, should be ­reported to their boards for ­investigation.” XRii (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Dwyers comment is already covered in the article and cited, so why would it need to be mentioned again? Why not include Dr Malatt's comments regarding the religious/metaphysical - they are accurate comments as they come from someone who obviously knows what the teachings are and the comments have been cited in a reliable source - I would have thought that it is perfectly ok to be included in the article word for word. As to the comment about the thoracic surgeon, obviously he would be gagged by patient confidentiality from making any comment to the media, so isn't your point inflammatory due to the fact that there can't be a balanced perspective presented?Tribscent08 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Dwyer's comment referenced above was not covered or cited in the article. The thoracic surgeon was not observing patient confidentiality when UniMed dedicated several web pages to calling the complainant a liar. I recommend you reread MrBill3's comment on false balance in regard to Dr Malatt's statements of religious belief: "The presentation of proponents views and statements on a fringe religion should not be given undue weight creating a false impression of discussion, consideration, study in serious academia." Commenting in her capacity as medical specialist Dr Malatt confuses religious endorsement with medical endorsement, which may cause confusion for vulnerable members of the public. If I ignore any further comments from you it's because they are not worth me repeating information for your edification. XRii (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Re your comment XRii - I do not see anywhere that the thoracic surgeon has breached patient confidentiality - none of the information in the articles in question appear to have come from him but from UM's own records - it appears that the patient never attended upon Universal Medicine and Universal Medicine did not therefore misdiagnose her and she never paid Universal Medicine a cent. As to the rest of your comment the fact is that Universal Medicine promotes and works with conventional medicine - a fact that appears to be lost in the article. Also the article should contain facts as to what the beliefs associated with Universal Medicine are - so your comment re "Dr Malatt confuses religious endorsement with medical endorsement, which may cause confusion for vulnerable members of the public" is in effect you saying that you have the right to decide what facts will be included in this article. Clearly you will not endorse the quote being included as it does not fit with your agenda.Choose12 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, including the quote would merely fit your agenda of false balance.

Also the surgeon has rooms at the Universal Medicine center in Goonellabah, he refers patients to esoteric practitioners and he promotes UM on its websites and in the press. There is obviously no gag order if he is allowing UM to call his patient a liar while the the complaint is under investigation. XRii (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I note that someone has again added back in the reference to Mick Featherstone saying "Paragraph as was had majority consensus. Repeditive disruption." It did not have major consensus and experienced editors such as Cullen agreed that the reference should not be there. There was no change to the paragraph at all by Tribscent as is suggested by the comment - only removal of a referee that ws irrelevant to the topic and made no mention of Universal Medicine. I ask again why are there some editors here that are hell bent on keeping this reference in? Who really has the agenda here? Choose12 (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I note that this has been added" Google Australia reportedly acted on complaints about more than 15 independent websites, and reports from seven news organizations.[36][18]" When I look at the list there does not appear to by 15 independent websites listed but there are many pages from the pages of one bloggers blogsite. The statement therefore is not correct. Perhaps it should be noted that many pages have stopped begin indexed from the pages of one blogsite for accuracy at least that gives the reader the opportunity to consider that the blogger may have and agenda .Choose12 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I made the edit you are referring to. I went through all of the complaints listed above. I counted 48 page removals from 25 websites in total. Seven were mainstream media news sites (belonging to 5 MSM organizations). 41 pages were removed from a further 18 sites which were independent blogs or non mainstream news services. 3 or 4 sites appear to feature the same authors. If we count four as one independent site, the number of independent sites is 14. I apologize for making a possible error of one. Please conduct research before you make further remarks. If you insist on this tedious line, I will create a numbered list of them. XRii (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Google AU Removals

The following is a more complete listing of UM complaints found on the Chilling Effects site. Because there are a significant number of removals, and some of the links are no longer functioning, I'll just provide the CE pagelinks. My proposal for the Wikipedia entry is to expand the current list slightly; quantify the number of successful link removals rather than provide the entire list, or at least quantify the number of sites that UM submitted complaints about; and perhaps provide the links to the CE pages:

1. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/893962 (already cited)
2. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/1434607
3. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/829230
4. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/829231
5. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/831693
6. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/951474
7. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/581475
8. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/180545
9. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/910947
10. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/315766
11. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/322971
12. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/817300
13. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/1201305
14. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/1635388 (peculiar because this includes one of UM's own webpages referring to cult allegations)
15. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/10251543 (a DMCA copyright complaint from last month on a blog article about NSW parliamentary inquiry report)
16. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/1201211
17. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/1201213
18. https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/910879

The complaints were made by various parties. XRii (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it necessary to actually post an itemized roster of the suppressed sites? I think the text of this section is fine and needs to be included, but adding a long list of the actual sites allegedly censored doesn't strike me as contributing enough to the article to justify inclusion. Further it could be seen as excessive, a sort of piling on with the intent of coloring the tone of the article. If the list actually contributes something meaningful not adequately covered by the text of the section than by all means keep it. But as it stands I am doubtful and think this might run afoul of WP:DUE. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not necessary. I didn't realize there were that many complaints until I collected them. Important perhaps to establish UniMed's attempt to suppress media reports and critical blogs is not an isolated incident. It's been done over two years, extending to media reports from 5 different news organizations and approx. 14 independent websites (excluding 3 blog sites run by same few authors). Their attempts to manipulate their reputation have been extensive and sustained. UM also runs about a dozen promotional websites as well as student blogs, and additional sites set up to defame critics, journalists and complainants. I suggest the entry could remain as is, but quantify the additional attempts at suppression. The Leser "Da Vinci Mode" article also refers to a book burning held by UM. It was reported followers burned books on competing alternative medicine modalities and philosophies. XRii (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

XRii. Perhaps you can put something simple at the end of that paragraph like "These are not isolated incidents by U.M. and S.B." and add a cite such as https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&term=%22Serge+Benhayon%22&term-require-all=true&sort_by= Thoughts Ad Orientem, admins and XRii? Wokit14 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Ad Orientem is right that the section is fine as it is, with some tweaks if relevant. As Universal Medicine has used both Private Investigator 'Phoenix Global' as well 'Internet Reputation Australia' to remove negative online comments the following may be relevant. Internet Reputation Australia (Zac Featherstone "Son") and Phoenix Global (Mick Featherstone "colourful identity" + "Dad") are one in the same business firm and seem to specialize in working for notorious people. Some info, comments and links:

• The following page has now been removed by Internet Reputation AUS via Google seemingly to remove info about associations to Internet Reputation Australia http://drbenway.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/conman-michael-featherstone-harasses.html . But it did say: "Apr 3, 2014 - Mick's next enterprise was internet reputation management through Phoenix Global, also known as Internet Reputation Australia. Mick now claims to be a professional in the field of internet reputational risk, while openly admitting crimes on the internet". (Someone may be interested to grab a cache of this page before it disappears?)
• Internet Reputation AUS's website www.internetreputationaustralia.com has a 'private whois registration' so the public don't know who runs it. What is there to hide?
• http://aussiecriminals.com.au/... Comment: "Sure Johnno will now get cease and desist threats from Phoenix Global or Internet Reputation Australia (run by Zach Featherstone) to remove posts. Tell them to get stuffed Johnno, they have been doing this for years. It is just a threat – not real legal action. They have removed MANY posts about criminals using legal threats – yes just threats not real legal action. Nothing illegal about it – just helping to keep the good name of Australia’s favourite criminals and favourite scam off the front page."
• Quote: "Zach Featherstone is the Internet Reputation Coordinator at Internet Reputation Australia..." on internetreputationaustralia.com/services/socialmedia/
• Quote: "See www.internetreputationaustralia.com for all your internet reputation needs from a trusted local provider." on phoenixglobal.com.au/internet-related-crimes + phoenixglobal.com.au/defamation-law-in-the-usa + www.investigationbali.com/seo-and-its-marketing-uses etc etc.

2013Ca55 (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

All this info about Mick Featherstone is not relevant to the topic nor are references 30 and 31 relevant to UM as I have pointed out before. UM paid a company for a service. Perhaps they had a valid reason to seek reputation management. Perhaps it was because they were being defamed. As I said before if my mechanic was charged with drug offences would that automatically make me a drug dealer? The links show a clear bias to suggest criminalityChoose12 (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

I think (UM?) Choose12's misleading comments show why it is important to leave cite 30 and 31 in. It is misleading for her to say "Perhaps (UM) had a valid reason to seek reputation management. Perhaps it was because they were being defamed". Some facts:

1. Organizations cannot be defamed. Public figures cannot be defamed in matters of public interest.

2. Defamation is something that has to be proven in a court of law. Not alleged in an email to Google.

So UM has not been defamed, and for Choose12 and UM to bluff Google and make them think UM has is untrue, misleading and a misuse of a DMCA takedown service. UM and Phoenix are 'two peas in a pod' when it comes to this type of misleading activity and it's no wonder they are associated with each other. 2013Ca55 (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing you have said changes the fact that the references 30 and 31 do not mention UM at all and are Choose12 (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)irrelevant and off topic.

UniMed and Benhayon has ample financial resources and a staff of lawyers, yet I've found nothing on public record to indicate they have taken legal action for defamation or copyright infringement. Instead there is public record they have exploited Google AU's removals policy which recognizes untested complaints. XRii (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to add further to the Google Removals section, either with links to removed sites or any of the information provided on Global Phoenix. Without further RS there's nothing more to add. I do think expanding the "background" section with chapter headings is a good idea - it jumps between subjects at the moment and headings could introduce some clarity. I also think the word "literally" in the sentence "It is reported that 'The Students' of Universal Medicine literally believe that Serge Benhayon "was the one sent from (the mythical kingdom of) Shamballa to awaken us all".[13]" should be removed. Either it's a belief that's held or it's not. At the moment the tone of the sentence is quite condescendingly in my opinion. A further RS to back this up would be good. 79616gr (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Wokit14, the Chilling Effects listings verify UM used PG for reputation management, but does not verify them hiring them for any other purpose. That would need a separate citation. Thank you for correcting the link I added. XRii (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There has already been discussion about the use of a current reference (an article written about criminal accusations made against Phoenix Global) to substantiate the mention of Phoenix Global in this article. At that time a senior editor, Cullen, wrote reminding editors about synthesis. As the reference has no mention of Universal Medicine in it, Cullen wrote that he agreed the reference should be taken out....and said to go ahead. That reference has been edited out a couple of times over the past month or so and is always put back in. Could a senior editor please clarify why it is ok to have this reference still cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tribscent08 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Tribscent08, it is knowingly untrue for you to state: "That reference has been edited out a couple of times over the past month or so and is always put back in." It is not acceptable for you to try to influence senior editors based on your false comments and hope they consider this. Rxet (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A senior editor can remove if they see fit. I don't see fit, and my argument for keeping it is that the reference merely indicates who head of PG is; that Featherstone has a public profile as a person currently under arrest for fraud, and provides services to convicted criminals, including child killers. That UniMed has hired such a person is relevant to the entry. XRii (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Rxet it is a truth and therefore not knowingly untrue - the edit has been reversed a couple of times. And yes, XRii, a senior editor can remove if they see fit, however, my point still remains - the cited article has no reference to Universal Medicine, it is the opinion of several here, not all UM supporters, that it should not be used in this article and that by using this reference, it is heavily suggestive that Universal Medicine is guilty by association. Tribscent08 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Expanded religious background discussion

I've lifted the current "Background" section and expanded it, and am submitting the edit here for discussion. I welcome review and input from admins Ad Orientem MrBill3 Gary D before editing the article. I've kept the citations intact as much as possible, so the edit could easily be inserted into the main article if it passes.

A few points I'd like to make, seeing edits including religious material are bound to be contentious:

1. I think some discussion of the belief system is important to the article because it informs understanding of the organization's healing practices and products.
2. Because the material is primarily to do with the group's spiritual beliefs, I have changed the title of the section from "Background" to "Religious Background".
3. I've relied mostly on Leser's Sydney Morning Herald article as he appears to have done solid research and the content is a reasonable rendition of primary source material. For example, Leser interviewed a man whose wife was told she had an evil spirit in her liver and kidneys. There are similar statements on "entity possession" to do with disease in Benhayon's books. There are also archived internet entries from Benhayon on "invasive spirits" http://web.archive.org/web/20070829075232/http://universalmedicine.com.au/node/124 and invasive energies http://web.archive.org/web/20070829075202/http://universalmedicine.com.au/node/123 Also, the idiosyncratic use of the word "prana" is backed extensively in Benhayon's books, with an example here on the UM main site: "...we are in essence not from prana but from a higher form of divine energy known as ‘fire’. Hence, prana is not ‘bad’ but neither is it truly harmonious to the human being." https://www.universalmedicine.com.au/questions/what-prana-it-negative-energy-what-does-it-mean-if-something-considered-%E2%80%98pranic%E2%80%99
4. I'd also like to point out a couple of pages of Benhayon's source material from the UM main sites indicating two more of UM's main beliefs. I imagine they can't be included in the article because they haven't come through secondary sources (and for good reason because the writing is ambiguous). I thought I'd link to them here to give all editors a better understanding of the context. The first belief is that "everything is energy" and therefore "everything is because of energy", which Benhayon backs with a misquote of Einstein. https://www.universalmedicine.com.au/questions/what-scientific-advice-does-serge-benhayon-draw-his-work The second is that illness and disease arise from emotions. https://www.universalmedicine.com.au/about/serge XRii (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the use of the quotation marks for religion in the introduction Rxet. I understand The Way of the Livingness was denied charity status as a religion in the UK, however I take that as meaning it does not fit a definition within charity law, not necessarily that it doesn't fit a broader definition of religion and certainly new religious movements or alternative religions. I understand the issue is contentious, and it's worth looking to the scientology articles which show that the CoS is recognized as a religion by some governments and not others. Personally I think the quote marks are superfluous. A solution might be to mention that the Way of the L was denied charity status as religion in the UK in the section on religious background. Also, considering some of the angst on this page I'd recommend you propose or discuss edits here before making changes to the article. XRii (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

XRii, Yes I agree with that change. Removing all the single quotation marks from the words 'religion'. And moving the sentence below to form a paragraph at very end of 'Religious Background' section. "The Way of the Livingness, a Universal Medicine brand and claimed 'religion', was denied charitable status in the UK in 2011 as it did not meet the criteria of a genuine religion.[29][30]" Rxet (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Religious Background (proposed article edit)

"I know more than any scientist in my inner heart ... I know everything about the universe and how it works. I can answer any question about any mystery in the world, any mystery in the universe."

Serge Benhayon's message for the "New Era", January 1, 2012.

"Esoteric healing" beliefs are based on the occult teachings of early 20th century theosophist Alice A. Bailey. Serge Benhayon has claimed to be the reincarnation of Leonardo da Vinci, as well as Alice A. Bailey, Pythagoras, Imhotep and Saint Peter. He teaches that he is "connected energetically" to an ancient lineage of "living wisdom", and more "High Initiates" and "Claimed Sons of God" will reincarnate "over and over again until each and every single human is united as one, by their true light".

Serge Benhayon devised Universal Medicine's healing practices based on the belief that disease results from "energetic disharmony" resulting from "ill choices" made in this and previous lifetimes. Benhayon teaches that there are two types of energy, "prana"(प्राण, prāṇa; Sanskrit word for "life force") and "fire". Most forms of established wisdom, knowledge and belief, as well as most music and certain foods are believed to contain prana, which is regarded as "evil". Prana is to be rejected or "cleared" to be replaced with "fiery energy" which emanates from the "Atmic womb of God". Universal Medicine healing modalities and products, including teas, herbal elixirs, creams and laminated healing symbol postcards, aim to clear prana. Benhayon also teaches that illness is caused by possession by evil spirits and is reported to have told a terminally ill patient that an evil spirit had entered her liver and kidneys.

Universal Medicine has followers in Australia, the UK, North America and Europe. Critics have characterised it as a cult, which has left a "trail of broken families". Benhayon, who is reportedly referred to as a "fifth degree initiate" and "The One", rejects these claims. According to the Chilling Effects website and other sources he has used legal threats to attempt to have cult allegations, including those within media reports, removed from Google search results. An ex-partner of a Universal Medicine supporter complained that Benhayon "controlled every aspect of our lives". XRii (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: Latest edit February 3rd - may no longer correspond with some comments below XRii (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. 2013Ca55 (talk)`

I think it is great and all reads well XRii apart from the last 2 sentences. They seem out of place. The rest of your proposed edit flows well, is informative and balanced, and is not just a slightly tweaked "lift" from reliable sources (which quite a lot of this article is, and it would be good to move away from that - read pretty much any other Wiki article to get my meaning). But these 2 sentences do seem like lifts. Could you expand them or reinforce them with research from other sources? 79616gr (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

To XRii, I mostly agree with what 79616gr says above. - To 79616gr, thanks for advice on opinion in article. - Rxet (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Rxet I would ask you to reconsider the quote you added to the article concerning nurses. While the Medical Observer is undeniably a reliable source, this quote added without context or further references/reinforcement could come across as an attempt to reinforce a negative POV. 79616gr (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. You will see I've made some minor changes. I'm not aware of other sources mentioning how the healing symbols are used, or any referring to possession, however, I think one secondary source is sufficient if we can show it can be backed by primary source material. The possession angle is important because it is central to Benhayon's teachings and business - much repeat business is gained from followers' fear of entity possession. It is also a teaching the group are exceedingly shy about making public. Thank you to Rxet for sourcing the MO article mentioning prana is evil. I hadn't checked that one. I agree with 79616gr about overdoing the article. It's an encyclopedia entry, so I don't think necessary to add every minor statement in order to establish a point. One more point in the above background article proposal is that I can probably reduce the Leser citations to 2 or 3 within that para, but have put the cites with each statement here on the Talk page so that editors can see each comes from that source and I'm not inventing. XRii (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The only comment I have on the rewrite above is that this sentence "Benhayon also teaches that illness is caused by possession by evil spirits and is reported to have told a terminally ill patient that an evil spirit had entered her liver and kidneys". the word 'reportedly' should be added as in " Benhayon also reportedly teaches..." There is no evidence he actually does teach this - it is a statement by a journalist - whereas most of the rest is on the mark.

I note and this is important that there is a photograph that has been added that states it is a photo of a sign outside 37 Converys Lane Wollogbar- it is not. It is a made up picture that was used at some stage for promotional material and the sign itself does not exist. This could easily be confirmed by one of the editors who live locally. I am sure there are some who may have already done a drive by at some stage, or by looking at Google Maps. It would be more appropriate to have a picture of the Universal Medicine Clinic which are on the Universal Medicine websites since wikipedia is supposed to be a factual encyclopaedia Choose12 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have asked User:2013Ca55 for information about this image. Moriori (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, Choose12, your justifications for alterations to the article are incorrect, have no factual basis, and this is a consistent pattern within your remarks. Benhayon teaches that illness is caused by entity possession, and this is amply backed within the primary sources of Benhayon's published writings and recordings. For example from "The Way It Is", UniMed Publishing, 2006. "It is through these lower three chakras that the consciousness of the astral discarnates enters and influences thought…Schizophrenia is the result of such over-stimulation from the solar centre. The over-stimulation is caused by an excess in entity activity, allowing the discarnates access and control over their host. Recognition of this will go a long way to helping those that are not too far gone. The multi-personality syndrome is true, but it occurs because there is a multiple range of discarnates accessing and expressing through the incarnate’s vehicle using his or her lower-mind via the lower three centres. Knowledge of this will one day be the accepted norm." (Benhayon, 2006, p.371) I also posted a link above to a page listing Benhayon as author that begins a discussion of entity possession with the following: "IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE TALK OF INVASIVE SPIRITS AND OF POSSESSION IS VERY OLD AND NOT SOME NEW AGE TREND."

I wasn't saying he didn't teach about entity possession as clearly he does . I was saying he didn't teach that illness is as result of entity possession. I stand by this as he is talking about sprits influencing thought - pity we cant use direct quotes so that misinterpretations aren't made. He teaches that 'disease results from "energetic disharmony" resulting from "ill choices" made in this and previous lifetimes" as you have stated earlier in the piece and I commend you for getting a lot of things correct in this section you have worked onChoose12 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition, you've referred us to Google Street View of 37 Converys Lane, Wollongbar to an image taken in 2010, a year before the College was established. I suspect your invitation to editors to "drive by" is an attempt to identify which of the editors are living locally and to add them to UniMed's public campaign of vilifying those who do not portray UM in glowing terms. XRii (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

XRii, it seems you have a general consensus on your changes as you proposed.

Choose12, I have updated the provenance details of photo as requested by Moriori. If your are claiming copyright of the fair-use photo, not the author as listed, then make your claim through proper channels. Rather than frustrating and whining for effect. 2013Ca55 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoa! What gives here? You left me a note saying you had updated the "rationale/details of UM photo" and you were disappointed they are trying to frustrate the fair use of their logo". The only change you made to the image file was to add "(support group now shut down)". The source already given was a blog linking to another blog which said "In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed this blog. If you wish, you can read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org." Okay so I looked, and that led to "Not Found Error 404". Nowhere can we establish with certainty that the image is actually from the UMblog, and even if it were, we cannot establish whether or not it was subject to a copyright notice. Consequently I am removing the image from the article. Moriori (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened here, but can we keep editorial discussions here on this page for everyone to see? The image looked a lot like this one:https://factsaboutuniversalmedicine.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/coumgate.jpg I'm suspicious of Choose12's remarks that the sign is a "made up image" and does not exist, which is different to saying the sign never existed. I imagine it was removed when the charity authorities started investigating the charity's links to the UniMed commercial business. There's also no copyright issue when images are used for the purposes of education. Choose12 has previously declared a conflict of interest and her objections to use of the image are unfounded. XRii (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The image was created by Clayton Lloyd who holds copyright on it and as someone has correctly stated can claim copyright infringement through the correct channels. It is not a real photo of a real sign and the sign NEVER existed. I cant believe that this has become such an issue. Why would I care if it was a real sign that really existed either now or at some point in time? What is 'suspicious' exactly in me pointing out that something is inaccurate. The photo had a statement on it that says it is the sign outside the Wollongbar property - it is not and never was -end of storyChoose12 (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The image is taken from a sign at the College of UM property showing the street number 37 as is shown in the link above. 37 Converys Lane, Wollongbar. It's difficult to imagine why Clayton Lloyd would create a fake photo for UM publicity of a fake sign for UM's commercial business at the charity property. Why has he done that? Why was it used in UM publicity? For what purpose? Or is it that it was the sign at Converys Lane before the charity investigation, which was changed to comply with the regulator's requirements, and you, as an advocate for UM are attempting to cover that up? That is what is suspicious, as is every other disputing remark you've made here that has been rebuffed with evidence. Furthermore, Clayton Lloyd cannot claim copyright infringement when an image is used for the purposes of education, journalism, criticism, commentary or satire. That is called the Fair Use or Fair Dealing clause in laws internationally. Copyright infringement occurs when someone falsely claims authorship of an image in order to profit from it, which no one here is doing. Finally, schizophrenia is an illness. It is not just "thoughts". I ask you again to please conduct research before posting your remarks. XRii (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be operating on a high level of paranoia here which exposes your agenda and the fact that you are not a neutral bystander despite your best attempts to reinvent your self as one here. Why on earth would the regulator ask for a sign stating " Universal Medicine The Way of the Livingness" to be changed?" There is nothing illegal about the sign. The image's purpose was an example of future directions of the Way of the Livingness. Now that the false statement that it is the street sign outside Convery's Lane has been removed the image is a bit of a non issue. If everyone here is happy to have an image of a sign on a wikipedia page that never actually existed, except in promotional material on a website about future directions then, fine. It seems to me however that it would be more appropriate to have an image of something real, since I was under the impression that wikipedia prided itself on accuracy.Choose12 (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help XRii (rather than hinderance). Moroiri was telling fibs about my update to the photos details. So thanks very much for the other link to same/similar photo and info in pics for educational purposes. I will make changes to the photo details later so it can be reinstated as logo on UM article. 2013Ca55 (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

OK I've added the 2nd image link to image details to prove the first is genuine. Any other technicalities to be used against us using a genuine fair-use logo as a fair-use logo ladies? 2013Ca55 (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Logos. Choose12: you are straying towards implied legal threats. That is instant banning territory., Don't go there. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Obfuscation

Choose12, am glad you are now satisfied with the image, but the place to discuss the questions you have raised is on the talk page of the logo image, not here. One could conclude that you have invented yourself as rep from Clayton Lloy, senior accountant at UM, Serge Benhayon and many other individuals over last few weeks, to name a few. But all you are is a major obfuscator with an adenda to frustrate and distract this WP page. 2013Ca55 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have declared a conflict of interest. What is yours and the several other editors who miraculously appeared on wiki int eh week this article was created and only are editing on this page?

I apologise if I have strayed towards legal threats I was simply confirming what someone else had already stated about copyright - there was no intention for it to sound like legal threat . I don't understand the reference to inventing my self as a rep from the persons you have noted.I am simply providing relevant commentary. I am surprised that bringing to the attention of the editors here that the image is not a real sign would cause so much controversy. I did not realise that there was a talk page Choose12 (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)regarding the image itself and I will use that page in future on this subject. Thanks for the advice.

I have no interest to debate the ridiculous with you Choose 12, and my final comment to answer your question, I have no COI on this topic. 2013Ca55 (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph The final sentence of the first paragraph is written as a claim against a living person, is not encyclopaedic and has no verifiability according to wiki rules regarding living persons. There is no evidence from any body or authority that Benhayon has engaged in unethical practices, and whilst his practices may have been questioned by the many media articles, there is no actual proof of any wrong doings, it is all by suggestion only. This sentence should not be sitting in an opening paragraph identifying a living person as a person of unethical standing with no proven evidence to back it up. I would like the opinion of a senior editor on this. Tribscent08 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

See Also

It's been bought up before, but no consensus was achieved, so wanted to gather thoughts on the UM companies listed in the "See Also" box. They seem out of place and researching other Wiki articles I can't see the this box being used in a similar fashion to display connected companies. If they are relevant to the article, would they sit better as a section at the bottom of the article? Or would it be simpler to change the first sentence of the article to this:

"Universal Medicine is an organization providing esoteric[1][2] alternative medicine[3] treatments..."

The word "organization" would encompass the other companies without the need for the list.

I also propose removing the New York Post cite. It's not a reliable source, and it's inclusion has opened the door to claims that many of the sources cited are tabloid which is clearly untrue. 79616gr (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Simpler to change the first sentence of the article to "Universal Medicine is an organization providing..." and leave the "See Also" box as it is. Fine on removing the New York Post cite. 2013Ca55 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"See also" should contain a bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles WP:ALSO. Nothing in this list is referenced elsewhere in Wikipedia. 79616gr (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The list is useful in that it includes UM companies, which is in keeping with an encyclopedia entry. But as you say "See also" is used incorrectly, as it implies there are WP entries for each. It might be better titled "Universal Medicine Companies". XRii (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with XRii as the companies and projects need to stay (without internal links if so) as they are all part of the UM group/organization. But "see also" is not a good title for this list. 2013Ca55 (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to change "seealso" to "UniMed Companies" in that box? If not, I propose we add a section to the bottom of the page dedicated to a list of those companies. XRii (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a more complete, alphabeticised list of Universal Medicine companies and enterprises.

1. All Rise Say No to Cyber Abuse (UK)
2. College of Universal Medicine (registered charity)
3. EPA EU/UK
4. Esoteric Practitioners Association Pty Ltd
5. Esoteric Women's Health Pty Ltd
6. Featherlight Productions
7. Fiery Investments Pty Ltd, Fiery Impulses Pty Ltd,
8. Glorious Music
9. Real Media Real Change Pty Ltd
10. Spherical Living Clinic Ltd (UK)
11. Teachers are Gold
12. The Girl to Woman Project
13. The Sound Foundation Charitable Trust (UK registered charity)
14. True Movement
15. UniMed Brisbane Pty Ltd
16. UniMed Perth
17. UniMed Publishing
18. Universal Healing Symbols
19. Universal Medicine Pty Ltd
20. Universal Medicine UK Ltd
21. Women in Livingness Magazine

I don't believe they need secondary source citations if they are companies or orgs that can be found on the Australian and UK business registers. Fiery Investments and Fiery Impulses no longer appear on the ABR, so if they remain, they would need the citation. XRii (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC) What is the relevance of naming all these companies ? What does it add to the article about Universal Medicine? There is nothing out of the ordinary for a business and its directors to run other companies under different names and some of these are possibly personal companies i.e. Fiery Investments. It feels a bit like a witch hunt and not adding any NPOV substance to this already imbalanced article. Tribscent08 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It's worth looking at these pages for an idea of how to format this section on associated organizations: List of Scientology organizations & the link at the bottom of the page to the Scientology org category page. Citations aren't required when these are publicly searchable organizations with stated links to CoS. Citations are required for some of the secret Scientology groups.XRii (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

XRii I think that format would work well 79616gr (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

XRii and 7961gr, 'Subsidiary companies & associated groups' section presently has general consensus as no admin has challenged otherwise. But I agree it could be changed to that proposed list by XRii (like Scientology list) and perhaps a heading name change. But if the lessening of references as proposed by XRii could be a problem could a senior admin/editor say so here?2013Ca55 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I can do two edits. In case admins or senior eds decide the citations are needed. First edit will keep them, second will remove. That way it can be restored easily. Any other ideas for the heading name change? 2013Ca55 Rxet I think 'Subsidiary companies and organizations'? XRii (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll also indicate which are located in the UK. It's possible there are some located in Germany seeing there is now a German edition of the Women in Livingness magazine. XRii (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the current name covers the full list. But if you are reformatting to the template you proposed in the Scientology article then you can be specific with each section. "Charities", "Merchandising", "Publishing" etc. 79616gr (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds OK but try to keep simple and not to be too wordy otherwise someone will question it's POV 'weight' to the page. Even though it's relevant important info and really NPOV. Rxet (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The list isn't long enought to warrant subheadings. I'll leave the name as is, but I think 'groups' is meaningless. For example, UM has numerous meditation groups. 'Organizations' more accurately refer to organized commercial enterprises and publicity initiatives. XRii (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Then leave the section as it is and change the heading. As I've stated previously I am not sure this list adds to the article, but the consensus appears to be otherwise. 79616gr (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The list is important to show the largeness of the organization. This list is similar to some other WP pages of orgs.Rxet (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It adds because it gives a more complete picture of what UniMed is in terms of its commercial structure and the scope of its activities, which is not immediately apparent to those seeking information from UM's publicity. It adds in the same way that the Scientology org list adds to an understanding of what Scientology is and how it operates. I don't think an encyclopedia entry would be complete without such a listing. Eg. Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses. JW and other organizations' entries include property listings as well. Just as entries for corporations list their subsidiaries, projects and properties. XRii (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, but in the JW link, all the companies have extensive details to accompany them. I don't want to split hairs over this, but adding entries such as "EPA" which on a simple Google search leads to a multitude of options and none of them anything to do with Universal Medicine, and "UM Cold Storage & Warehousing", which seems quite fantastical and comical, but beyond that, where's the source to back this up? If this is WP:NOR it has no place here. 79616gr (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's good points 79616gr. I can't get the EPA EU UK to list on listcompany.co.uk but I can get https://listcompany.co.uk/company-esoteric-practitioners-association-pty-ltd-uk/ closed in 2013.

Apologies, found it at http://www.endole.co.uk/company/08353168/epa-ukeu . Should this be a cite?

Rxet (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

79616gr you're the only person apart from the UM promoters whose objected to listing the associated orgs. All companies listed are found on the Australian and UK business registers, mostly registered to Benhayon family members, and with full historical details. No need for cites when they are searchable on those registers. UM Cold Storage is owned and registered to Serge Benhayon. The UM College premises at Wollongbar is or was a cold storage facility. http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=71488022720 XRii (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Cite for newly registered UK charity, Sound Foundation Community Care: http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1160449&SubsidiaryNumber=0 XRii (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe add these 2 link ref as cites? http://www.endole.co.uk/ http://abr.business.gov.au/ And put those [ref] next to some orgs that aren't so obvious. I sort of agree that maybe the cold-storage co. shows how ridiculous things are but may be irrelevant in context. Rxet (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

All the references appear solid so I shall accept the consensus view. Thank you XRii and Rxet for engaging in an informed and constructive debate on this point. 79616gr (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Rxet I have concerns about your last edits that you are over cooking the article. You added an unnecessary cite in the middle of material gleaned from the MO article about exercise & diet. You've also added material that is repeating what's already been established in the article from more reliable sources talking about a "trail of broken families" and Serge "controlled every aspect of our lives". At this point I wouldn't be adding anything unless it is new material, and what you've added doesn't enhance the quality of the article. In my opinion it's doing the opposite. I'd also ask that you respect all of us who've contributed by flagging your edits here for discussion first, as we were asked to do by admins above. Also, the Cold Storage thing probably does seem out of place, but the listing wouldn't be complete without it. We also don't know what that company does. XRii (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. And the Town Talk Frome cite refers to an article that has been removed. It's perhaps not the most respected of sources either. These edits should be reverted. 79616gr (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok understood. XRii could you please remove those changes I made. I think the offline cite is good and inline with WP rules. And would realyy like it to remain somewhere if possible as it seems to have a some original research to it. But XRii please go ahead and change what I have done. Sorry. Rxet (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that TT Frome cite would be OK to use just once with a small quote (that seems researched original to that article) and use the |quote= format in the reference. : In the FTT article it seems they may have interviewed an exmember and Mr Aron independently. Do others think that OK to include that ref in some way? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_news#Quote Rxet (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not propose the text of your additions here and see what the consensus is? 79616gr (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new sentence at end of paragraph: Extremely high relationship failure rates are reported.[cite] - and (|quote= "A cult expert (says) Universal Medicine... amplify natural gender differences which seems to be resulting in extremely high relationship failure rates.") in the reference below. Rxet (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Rxet is this from Town Talk Frome? There was no cite visible. If so, that publication can not be considered a reliable source - it's a local advertorial where the 'news' content is submitted by readers. 79616gr (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to fit reliable source standards, and a quote from an unnamed "cult expert" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.XRii (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks for info and feedback XRii and 79616gr . So it's probably a well written article from a local disaffected UK exmember and submitted to FromeTownTalk and is not a reliable secondary RS at all. Thanks. Rxet (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Further additions

Hi Rxet. I undid your recent addition to the article as it would be incomprehensible to a reader who did not have previous extensive knowledge of the subject. Do you have further reliable sources that could explain and expand upon what "EDG readings" are in this context? 79616gr (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry 79616gr, don't have any further specific RS detail. I believe it is related to the esoteric ability to detect the "effect (of) fluoxetine (Prozac) on lab values". Or possibly in other words ability to read the student's mental mind-state. Rxet (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is too long. It's time to start archiving the older discussions. I am setting up ClueBot III. Sometime in the next couple of days it should begin auto-archiving threads that have seen no activity in the last 90 days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Edits for Discussion

The following is inaccurate - "Benhayon has disclosed that his income is around $2 million dollars a year from courses and retreats offered by Universal Medicine" _ In the television interview that Jane Hansen quotes, Benhayon did not say his income was $2 mil he said that the business Universal Medicine turns over 2mil a year. This is consistent with the Courier Mail article that Josh Robertson wrote. Josh Robertson says the business turns over $2mil per year.http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/new-age-medicine-of-serge-benhayon-leaves-trail-of-broken-families/story-e6freon6-1226467645378. I have made other edits to bring some balance back to this article as has been discussed throughout this talk page, including by senior editors.Tribscent08 (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The mention of Serge Benhayons' income as $2 million is incorrect according to both the (Today Tonight) television interview and the Courier Mail, Josh Robertson article. What they both said is that the turnover is $2 million. The Jane Hansen article has misquoted the television interview. As income and turnover are two vastly different things, for accuracy I propose that this should be changed. Tribscent08 (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you outline exactly what you want to change or add, and lay out your sources. Ping JzG -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ad Orientem. --- On this issue I propose to change sentence to:- Benhayon has disclosed that he grosses at least AUD$2million dollars a year from courses and retreats offered by Universal Medicine.[6][25] --- On another issue in 'Religious Background' section I propose the following simple quote added to this sentence:- Serge Benhayon has claimed to be the reincarnation of “Claimed Son of God”[25] Leonardo da Vinci,[1][16] as well as Alice A. Bailey, Pythagoras, Imhotep and Saint Peter. --- Rxet (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were going to say Alice B. Toklas for a moment there, which would have explained a lot :-) Guy (Help!) 09:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The rewording of the income/gross sentence reads well to me Rxet. I think adding the "Claimed Son of God" quote prior to the sentence of the article that expands on that matter will muddy comprehension. There will also be 2 repetitions off the word "claimed" in one sentence which does not read particularly well. 79616gr (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed "disclosed" from that para as Benhayon's comments are known to be unreliable. Claim is more suitable in this instance because the actual income was likely to be substantially higher. I agree there's a lot of repetition of certain words, though. XRii (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new paragraph:- Created by Benhayon and practiced by followers and physiotherapists of Universal Medicine, "esoteric connective tissue therapy'" claims to improve energy flow by "allowing the pulse of the lymphatic system to symbiotically correspond with the body's own ensheathing web". John Dwyer described the claim that a lymphatic pulse exists as "utter nonsense".[7] Rxet (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

DO NOT...

...post personal attacks against other editors. Period. If you have a problem that cannot be resolved through polite talk page discussion then ask for help from an admin or more experienced editor. If you perceive a serious breach of policy or guidelines you can take the matter to WP:ANI. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest and single purpose accounts

First, welcome to Wikipedia, new friends.

I have received allegations privately regarding conflicts of interest in respect of editors stated to me to be active on this article - this may or may not be correct, I do not make any judgement on that (see below). Several of the people editing this article are what we term single purpose accounts, and are editing with one of two diametrically opposed agendas. This is not evil, it happens all the time, but it leads to some common misunderstandings and incorrect behaviours - not to mention frustrations - which I see coming to the fore by now in the discussions above.

As it happens, the independent sources currently largely support, at least in outline, a point of view which is much closer to one of the competing sides than to the other, but this is a coincidence and should not be taken as an endorsement of conflicted POV edits by any party. We will continue to follow the sources whatever they may say, if you have a problem with the overall tone of the article it's probably not actually our problem to fix: take it up with the sources (pro tip: consider not provoking nerd backlash by trying to suppress negative coverage).

Our policy on conficts of interest is important to maintaining trust and objectivity. If a COI is suspected, an editor may be blocked, topic banned, or banned from the project entirely.

Our policy on outing and privacy does not require you to own up who you are, at least not by name, nor do we permit you to say who you think anyone else is, but that does not override your obligation to acknowledge any conflict of interest. "I work for X" is enough. On your userpage is fine, you only need to put it anywhere once so that people can check. You don't need to wear it like some kind of Judenstern, just don't be coy, please.

Having a conflict of interest - either as advocate for the subject or as critic - means that you should not edit the article directly. However, you are at liberty - indeed are encouraged - to propose useful changes on this talk page. Let me state clearly and unambiguously what the Wikipedia community supports as useful changes, if you are vested in one of the two groups.

1. You should not edit the article directly.
2. You must not attack other contributors or impute motives.
3. Do not, under any circumstances, make any legal threats, direct or implicit. Anything that even looks like a legal threat if you turn it sideways and squint, is very, very likely to get you banned outright, there and then, with no questions asked and no quarter given. We really really mean this.
4. You should propose changes on this talk page. The changes should be:
   1. Specific
   2. Supported by reliable independent sources
   3. Verifiably accurate (note: disagreeing with something does not make it inaccurate)
   4. Actionable by an independent editor without spending three months unpicking the back story (e.g. "change sentence from X to Y based on Z source, this is a correction of the misattribution of a quote")
5. Wikipedia articles abide by the neutral point of view. That does not mean a sympathetic point of view, it means a point of view which an independent observer in full possession of the facts, should agree is fair and balanced (in the proper meaning, as opposed to Fair And Balanced™).
6. Do not snowstorm with hundreds of requests.
7. Do not stonewall.

We have a range of technical measures in our locker to control abuse. Please don't make us use them, because not only does it annoy us, but it also makes it dramatically harder to get your point across at all. Wikipedia genuinely does care about fairness and accuracy.

I am sure some other things will occur. I started this article myself based on a news story I saw, I have no real opinion on the subject other than that the Google search suppression was widely covered as an illiberal act. I'm not Australian, but I have friends Down Under including members of Australian Skeptics. There are other admins watching this page, I'm here as an editor not an admin, but the above is from my experience as an admin of long standing.

Thank you for your attention. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Judenstern I would be considered to have a conflict of interest as I know the organisation and Serge Benhayon so now that I understand I will not edit but will continue to provide input here as seems to be acceptable. I am pleased to see that now that some experienced editors are on board the biased tone of the article has been adjusted somewhat.Choose12 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

To check if you are being flamed for editing this WP UM article see their 'facts' website at universalmedicinefacts dot com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2013Ca55 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC) - RevTim0 (talk)

Several accounts who had posted on this talk page (and edited the article) were blocked two days ago as sockpuppets of the same editor, including RevTim0, 2013Ca55, Wokit14, and Rxet. I haven't read through this article or talk page so I don't know what exactly is going on, but I'm leaving this note here so other editors are aware that any apparent "consensus" between these accounts can be ignored. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

In January 2015 the first paragraph was edited to “ allegations to the contrary have been documented predominantly by the media” this was then reversed by Wokit, a now known sock puppet, to “ significant evidence to the contrary has been documented”. As there is no reliable source that states any evidence, they only refer to allegations, I have reverted the statement for accuracy. Even the Parliamentary Committee comments, if you look at the actual source, are citing two newspaper articles that are making allegations - there is never any mention of actual evidence. Tribscent08 (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

JzG - evidence is a body of facts but there are only, in all quoted sources allegations and personal accounts, which means that at this point there is only allegations, not evidence. Hence my understanding that this statement should be reversed. Even if the media deem it ok to print such unsubstantiated allegations - should an encyclopaedia be calling that evidence? Tribscent08 (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

An outsiders opinion of Wikipedia entry

1) Having read the majority of available internet literature regarding Universal Medicine, I find it appalling that this Wikipedia entry is so obviously and brazenly biased against this organisation. It is verbal poison - a good example of truth distorted to appear evil. 2) Really, the blatant sarcastic use of 'The Student Body' and 'The Teachings' to imply they are somehow not to be trusted. These terms could apply to any number of business, social or teaching organisations. 3) How underhand to call them a 'Religion' but then state it has been refused charitable status in the UK on account of not fitting criteria for a true 'religion'.

Someone who has a deep vested interested in destroying Universal Medicine has written this material - peppering truth with very big lies in order to entirely extinguish an organisation. Magnify the lies, minimise the truth and hey presto! you have a wikipedia article ready to misinform the public.

Is it any wonder that the internet has become a battleground for good versus evil - with google playing a very ill equipped judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.98.27 (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have material that you believe should be added to the article and think has been left out, and it is backed by reliable sources (see WP:RS) then by all means contribute. But please refrain from attacking other editors or impugning their motives. This article has been the object of a great deal of work and attention from many editors, including some who are very experienced. Just because an article does not reflect well on its subject does not mean it's biased. We only repeat what exists in RS sources. If the available and reliable source material overwhelming is negative in its treatment of a subject then that's what we go with. Sometimes a person or organization gets negative attention from RS sources because they deserve it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopaedia. This is by design. Universal Medicine is a cult, and as a reality based encycloaedia we reflect the views of independent sources which credibly identify it as such. I started this article and I have no vested interest at all. I have been a Wikipedia editor for a decade and have tens of thousands of edits, see JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Guy (Help!) 21:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Tidying Up

1. In accordance with the below suggestion made some time back by a senior editor, Cullen, I have taken out the unrelated article cited in paragraph Search Results Removed from Google , Phoenix Global now has its own Wikipedia page and mention of the company is now linked to that page.Tribscent08 (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a real problem with some of the references in that section, which to me, do not meet our standards for reliable sources. One is a profile of the owner of a detective agency which offers internet reputation services. But that source doesn't even mention Universal Medicine. Why do we need to know about the background of the owner of that firm, unless reliable sources discuss his background when also discussing Universal Medicine? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tribscent08 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, Trbscent08 you can't sweep away Universal's unhealthy involvement with questionable firms just because authorities revelations may expose the cult soon. I intend to replace the reference you removed and add another reference to satisfy the issue you created. Secondly, I am using a friends computer, so don't do impose that sockspuppet rubbish upon me and get my account suspended as an excuse just cause you dont like my opinion. OK? Mrinfart (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

2. Under Regulatory and Other Issues, there is a random sentence about Serge Benhayon which is not relevant to this section and I propose should be moved somewhere else. The sentence says, Benhayon is a father of four, whose second wife Miranda is 18 years his junior. While this is a cited fact it doesn't seem to fit under any heading in relation to Universal Medicine. Tribscent08 (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Tribscent08 To your first point, can you highlight exactly which cites you take issue with, and why, beyond that which you have now removed? 79616gr (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

79616gr From what I can gather the citation removed was a link to an article about Phoenix global Michael Featherstone which contained no mention of UM. See above comment from Cullen in this regard. Since there is a link to Phoenix Global's wiki page there seems to be no reason to have an unrelated article cited. This would seem to be Tribcents08 reason for removing it. They dont seem to be suggesting having an issue with any other citation You will see that they are quoting Cullen who originally made the comment about having a problem with some references Choose12 (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

So I note that the reference to an article that is not related to UM has been put back by Mrinfart. Please explain your reason since clearly a senior editor has commenters previously that it is inappropriate to include reference to an article that has no information in it about he subject. Phoenix global have their own page and there is a direct link to that page from their mane on this page so what possible reason is there to continue to go against wiki rules? Again here is the comment from Cullen " I have a real problem with some of the references in that section, which to me, do not meet our standards for reliable sources. One is a profile of the owner of a detective agency which offers internet reputation services. But that source doesn't even mention Universal Medicine. Why do we need to know about the background of the owner of that firm, unless reliable sources discuss his background when also discussing Universal Medicine? Cullen328" Please explain why you feel the need for that reference. Also what is your comment about sock puppets about?From what i can gather the sock puppet issue was found by a senior editor not Tribscent 08Choose12 (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the cite as the investigation in to Phoenix Global is irrelevant to this article, and has been recommended to be removed by several editors now. Mrinfart, if you disagree with this, please state on this talk page exactly why you feel it is necessary to include. 79616gr (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Noting that 79616gr changed back my edits, a couple of proposals on two sentences in the Regulatory and Other Issues para. The words 'youthful influence' are not cited and do not have relevance to the citation offered, therefore appearing to be written in order to present some sort of bias. Is this written to be about all the members of the Benhayon family or only the children - as it is, it is not clear one way or the other. I propose the sentence reads as - All members of Benhayon's family hold positions within the organization.[39] OR Benhayon is a father of four children who all hold positions within the organisation (39).

Mentioning that Benhayon's second wife Miranda is 18 years his junior is irrelevant to this article and although true adds bias here. Why add personal detail about Mr Benhayon when this article is about Universal Medicine - the age of his wife is irrelevant.Tribscent08 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The second option you suggest seems the most appropriate, as the first does not make note of the number of children. I word it: Benhayon is the father of four children, who all hold positions within the organisation. 79616gr (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The second option is fine. In addition, I'd like the line about Benhayon's wife reinstated, with the addition that (as reported in the Da Vinci Mode article by David Leser) she first moved into his home at the age of 14 against her mother's wishes. Those details are relevant because Benhayon is the founder of UM, the acknowledged source of all its "ageless wisdom" and has devised all its practices - including its range of women's health products and modalities (esoteric breast, ovary & uterus massage and the like) and the associated "Girl to Woman Project" and "Girl to Woman Festival". Most of the group's followers are women, and we have seen from the most recent article the organization's extreme aggression to complainants and those asking critical questions of these dubious enterprises and behaviours. Benhayon's estranged mother in law had eggs smashed on her car for speaking with the journalist. We know Benhayon practices and teaches amateur gynaecology and sexual abuse therapy and encourages group confession and privacy invasion. He also teaches relationship and parenting advice. His wife is on display in a great deal of the companies' marketing. It's relevant. XRii (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I've ammeded the sentence and moved it to a more relevant place so there is a natural flow from talking about one of the children, to detailing the number of offspring and their involvement. 79616gr (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to ask Tribscent08 to declare if they have either a paid role in Universal Medicine organizations or at least if they are a contributor to any of Unimed's 30 websites. XRii (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC

XRii Thanks for your question. I do not have a paid role in Universal Medicine and am not employed by the organisation in any capacity. Obviously given that yours and my and 79616gr accounts all started at around the same time and have focussed primarily on Universal Medicine we all have some sort of knowledge and/or interest in this subject. Since the article went up I have done a lot of extensive reading about Universal Medicine and also have read all the articles written by the media and a lot of the blogs written by the 'students'. Hope this clarifies. Tribscent08 (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of the words 'a multi award winning swim coach' in paragraph Regulatory and Other Issues - I added these words with the media references regarding Simone Benhayons occupation as a further indicator of what she does other than be the 'reincarnation of Winston Churchill'. It is a fact that she has won several awards, however 79616gr deleted this stating that the awards were trivial. Probably the awards are not considered trivial in that industry if the local UK paper saw fit to report it, but the main point is that it is giving a wider perspective of who the people are who are running Universal Medicine. Any comments from other editors? Tribscent08 (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Local newspapers are not generally considered to be reliable sources. I have looked extensively for notability in the awards you mention, but all seem to be publicly nominated/peoples choice awards which can be easily be manipulation by supporters, hence my description as trivial in encyclopedic terms. I also disagree with you that they are relevant to this article. 79616gr (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the point you're making here, but... "Local newspapers are not generally considered to be reliable sources." -- that's just wrong, entirely wrong. Maybe you meant to say something else (like being mentioned by local media doesn't make something notable). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Tribscent08 used 2 local sources to reference a swimming award - The Blackmore Vale Magazine and The Frome Standard. I don't think either could be considered a well established news outlet, and as such a reliable source. 79616gr (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

In that case those sources might have other problems but being "local" is not one of them. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps my original comment was too much of a generalization, so I withdraw it. 79616gr (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If the only source you can find for a claim to be an international multi-award winner is a local paper. then you have probably not established the validity of the claim. That's irrelevant anyway as the claim has no bearing on the facts. One might as well say that Charles Manson was good to his mother. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That would encapsulate my point entirely. 79616gr (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The first mention of Serge Benhayon, a living person, in this article opens with him being a former bankrupt. This sets a tone. Is the fact that he was bankrupt in the early nineties of such great relevance here? Lots of people, including celebrities, have been bankrupt prior to being successful. Bankruptcy is not always necessarily a negative thing, but here it is being used to suggest something questionable.

As it is currently, there is not an encyclopaedic balance about Serge Benhayon in this article. The article is written to support what has been alleged in the media, yet no official findings have found Serge Benhayon guilty of any one crime or in breach of any serious misdoings. Whilst the media have reported on complaints that have been made, I note that there has never been any media reports on what the outcomes were. My question then is, as there is no evidence nor media reports, shouldn't the article be taking a more neutral perspective?

I suggest that we take 'bankrupt' out of the first paragraph and I suggest that we change the sentence ' while Benhayon has denied in engaging in unethical practices, significant evidence to the contrary has been documented' to read ' Benhayon has denied in engaging in unethical practices.' Because there is no real evidence as such, there is plenty of supporting material as far as allegation goes, but how I read it - there is no hard evidence of any wrongdoings. Plus there is no citation that says 'significant evidence' - so this is a personal point of view. We need to remember that Serge Benhayon is a living person and to make allegations such as this is misleading. Tribscent08 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Tribscent08 You are recycling issues that have been decided. I believe this to be deliberately disruptive. Benhayon's bankruptcy was decided - in an archived discussion that I believe you were part of - to be relevant because the fact reported by News Ltd contradicts UniMed's publicity about him being financially successful before he started the company. Prior to the inception of Universal Medicine as an organisation that teaches, practises and hence brings true healing and true-wellbeing, Serge spent 20 years in the sports industry. And thus, this background gave Serge insight into the usual and more commonly known understanding, schools of thought, tenets and up-to-date sciences to do with fitness, wellness and health. Personally, he was very fit and healthy, very content and financially successful with little need to change, as one would normally understand ‘change’ or ‘needing to change’ from something that is not working or from being ‘not happy’ or ‘discontent’ and therefore wanting to move on in search of more, etc. https://www.universalmedicine.com.au/about

In addition, much of the material in this Wiki article indicates unethical practices. It is a neutral statement. The trustee conflicts of interest for the UK charity was just one. Making claims to prevent cancer; mass vilifying of a HCCC complainant; health professionals making referrals to quackery...I could continue. Those behaviours are unethical. No one has mentioned criminal behaviour. Your colleague also took issue with my remark about privacy invasion and amateur gynecology as if those outside UM invent such things. The workshop enrolment form currently on the UM Study site asks for medical history and detailed questions about any history of mental illness. I viewed it a couple of months ago and it also asked for HIV status and lists of medications. No one at UM has medical or formal allied health qualifications. Publicity for esoteric breast massage states it can assist reproductive disorders like endometriosis, and it states on the UM website that its unqualified practitioners take a full gynecological history. Members of the Benhayon family are practicing ovary and uterus massage. They have no qualifications, let alone to treat gynecological disorders. To state that these practices are unethical is a neutral fact. It appears you and your colleagues struggle to distinguish between the words unethical and criminal.

You also evaded declaring whether you have made contributions to any of UM's websites via comments or posts. XRii (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

JzG: I have a question in regards to edits made regarding money spent on Universal Medicine treatments. Within the cited sources it is quite clear that monies spent have been spent over years. These direct quotes from already cited articles - "One man said his wife had spent $50,000 on Universal Medicine in the past three years, another said his wife had spent $40,000 in four years." Courier Mail. "During the course of her two-year treatment Ms McClure says she was sent to Universal Medicine for “esoteric” treatments." She also talks about receiving medical treatments and she stated that a ‘lung massage cost $70. Daily Telegraph. And this quote from the article I added and you reverted, "But Mr Martin, who claims an estimated $60,000 to $70,000 was spent on retreats and treatments in the three years before they broke up" Daily Telegraph.

My question is, shouldn't we include exactly what the cited sources are saying rather than short hand it to what is currently in the article - it is much more accurate to say that thousands have been spent over a period of years. I quote the two examples here for ease: Currently the article says: "The cost of Universal Medicine's treatments are reported to be in the tens of thousands of Australian dollars." I propose we change it, (and it doesn't have to be the following words, but something along those lines) to: "The cost of Universal Medicine’s treatments, courses and retreats, for some individuals over a period of years, are reported to be in the tens of thousands of Australian dollars."

And regarding the other edit reverted - it is fact, as written in the cited media, that Universal Medicine grosses over 2 million and not that the individual Serge Benhayon grosses over 2 million a year. This is now inaccurate as you have left it. Again I propose that we adjust this for accuracy to the cited sources. The Courier Mail says this directly, the other citation from the Daily Telegraph misquotes the Today Tonight television interview, I encourage you to view it - this can not be taken as fact if it is a direct misquote. We need to keep this article factual.Tribscent08 (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Tribscent08 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You've evaded the question about contributions to UniMed websites via comments or blog posts. Your objections to this article echo the complaints about media bias on those websites practically word for word.

The statement that treatments cost tens of thousands is accurate via simple arithmetic.

I wouldn't object to changing the sentence to say Serge Benhayon claims the business grosses "at least $2M" - however the statement from the Courier Mail article says "he boasts", and the Channel Seven interview has him attempting to evade the question the turnover was $6-8M, and saying "more like 2M". Benhayon's word is unreliable as we've shown with his public claim he was financially successful when he was in fact bankrupt.

Several reports put the number of his students at around 2000 at the time of that interview. It's also clear Universal Medicine consists of a number of businesses - as listed in the article. Given the charges for treatments, events, subscriptions and other products, and the numbers shown to attend events, Benhayon's claimed turnover was understated. UM's websites show many followers self reporting that they have had healings and attended events for years; publicity photos showing the same faces at multiple events per annum, and testimonials stating some clients have received esoteric breast massage and other treatments for years. The original website recommends the massages may be required daily for "acute cases". Therefore talking about facts in relation to any statements from Benhayon is misguided.

I propose we could keep the article factual with the addition of a sentence or two about how one of the Sound Foundation Charity trustees donated £1.2M to its building fund between 2011-12 according to publicly available UK Charity Commission documents - at the time Benhayon was claiming his turnover was $2M. Because apart from the expenditure on healings and other esoteric stuff, followers make significant donations. And we could include the recent crowdfunding of $126K raised from 337 followers to produce a digital TV show for Natalie Benhayon and "Women in Livingness". http://www.pozible.com/project/196122 XRii (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow XRii ..…you have done a lot of background research about this company. My suggested edits were purely based on the available reliable sources and the desire to try to bring the WP article in line with the facts.

Gross Income

Two things need to be clarified here. The gross income of Universal Medicine , as stated in the media, is $2m – so lets say that, as you agreed. The second thing - A treatment is a treatment….not an amalgamation of retreats and courses. The cost of a treatment is $70. So the statement - the cost of Universal Medicine treatments are reported to be in the tens of thousands of Australian dollars – is inaccurate. It may be simple maths how tens of thousands can be spent, however this statement makes it sound like one treatment costs tens of thousands of dollars and quite simply the treatments do not - as stated in the Daily Telegraph - the treatments cost $70 – that is simple maths. For clarity, I propose the article refer to Universal Medicine treatments, courses and retreats over a period of time costing in the tens of thousands.

Confusing other companies and charities with Universal Medicine.

It seems that you are confusing the two organisations - the Sound Foundation charity and the privately owned company Universal Medicine – clearly they are two separate entities, one is a charity and one is a company so I’m not sure why you refer to them and reference the donation and Universal Medicine income in the same sentence.

Re raising money on the Pozible Crowdfunding platform – where are you getting your information from? This is not mentioned in any reliable source and therefore is not relevant in this article.

There are no reliable sources cited to say that all the businesses listed under the heading Subsidiary Companies and Organisation are in fact subsidiaries of Universal Medicine - this list has been created by who? What is this list saying? Why is it here, i.e. what does it add to the article? Tribscent08 (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Tribscent08 You continue to evade the question of your role as a contributor to UM websites. Even the comments areas on those sites are closed to outsiders. You are again recycling resolved and archived issues and wasting time splitting hairs over changing one word in the article - "he". Universal Medicine Pty Ltd is Benhayon's business. He claims it grosses at least $2M. There is no dispute. The article needn't be changed.

I agree about not including the Pozible funding as the source is UniMed - which is certainly unreliable. I included it to indicate to other editors that you are attempting to manipulate the article according to the company line. i.e. attempting to obscure the organization's many income streams.

Charity Commission documents show the Sound Foundation charity raised funds to construct conference and treatment premises. Those are used near exclusively for UM commercial activities in the UK. Same in Australia with the Fiery Building Fund. Those reliable sources could be used to show other forms of income for the organization as a whole. I did not suggest a change to Benhayon's claimed income.

If you are objecting to editors knowing their subject then you've missed the point of Wikipedia. XRii (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I support the topic ban of Tribscent08, who persists in recycling issues that have been resolved and attests to wanting to bring the article in line with "the facts", whilst carefully cherry picking certain facts to align identically with the cult's propaganda. For example, saying that UM treatments are $70, as stated in one of the articles, to justify the claim that treatments don't commonly find their way over tens of thousands of dollars per annum. However, the articles also state a patient consulted a UM doctor at the headquarters at Goonellabah, who was obviously not charging $70, and neither are the physiotherapists and psychologists working there. I've also seen the breast massages advertised for $180, and we know from the publicity about "acute cases" that overservicing is encouraged. The doctor referred the patient to other UM practitioners, and according to the article she spent $35K. In other words, Tribscent is attempting to manipulate the goodwill of editors who've done less research by cherry picking from articles. I don't find that acceptable. I reject Tribscent's proposed change, and instead propose this change to the line on expenditure: "Clients have been reported to spend tens of thousands of Australian dollars on Universal Medicine products and services." XRii (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to keep issues relating to ANI discussions on ANI noticeboard such as topic bans, but I agree with your proposed change to article content. 79616gr (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made the edit as suggested. 79616gr (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Universal Medicine

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Changing Religious Background to Religion and Philosophy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that we change the title of the paragraph Religious Background to Religion and Philosophy to improve the wider picture of the philosophy behind Universal Medicine. Then as part of the second para of Religion and Philosophy after the first sentence we include the following which is a quote from an article recently published in a UK magazine called 'The Bath Magazine'. 'One of the many pearls that the modern day philosopher, Serge Benhayon has offered is that we have to acknowledge the fact that we are the creators of our own society and that society is a direct reflection of the choices we are all making.' And then the citation. This is a link to the article - http://thebathmagazine.co.uk/a-true-man-in-the-21st-century/Tribscent08 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Tribscent08 (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Tribscent08 Can you expand on why you think the title amendment is more appropriate? The current descriptor seems perfectly adequate. And to your second point, The Bath Magazine article could be viewed as questionable - have a read of WP:QUESTIONABLE. The article appears to be an op-ed piece and to quote from it "Inspired by Serge Benhayon and the teachings of Universal Medicine". As such it is self-promotional and I believe not suitable for inclusion. 79616gr (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Any sources for this actually being a genuine religion? 23:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Beyond self-declaration I can't find any sources to qualify this. This document states the UK Government's Charity Commission does not consider it a religion "as charity law understands that term", but in the broader sense it does seem to fulfil the criteria of a religion, being a particular system of faith and belief. 79616gr (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case we could use Religious Background and Philosophy as a title. Re the suggested use of quote from The Bath Magazine article. This publication is a legitimate print and online publication with a readership of 25,000 as such it qualifies for inclusion. The writer is a well respected UK film and TV director and as such has written an article for this paper. If we are to exclude anything written by anyone who has a positive experience of universal Medicine then we are not truly representing a neutral POV - we are making selections of what can and can't be included based on our own perspective. Many of the articles already sourced on this page have been based on op-ed, this piece is no different except that it has a positive tone. And to say it is self promotion is not correct - the writer is not writing a promotional piece about himself, he is writing about another. I propose we include the quote to state further what it is that Serge Benhayon is presenting. 124.170.192.61 (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A Google search shows the author of the Bath Magazine advertorial, Otto Bathurst, has written promotional blogs for UniMed websites; has a Twitter account tweeting UniMed promotions; has conducted men's health presentations for the Sound Foundation charity; and publicly represented the anti-cyber bullying enterprise All Rise Say No. Not a reliable source. Not neutral. XRii (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I would also refer the IP editor to WP:QUESTIONABLE. The article clearly has no editorial over-sight, is based on a personal opinion, and is promotional in nature. 79616gr (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment that the Bath Magazine has no editorial oversight; every magazine goes through an editorial process before they publish. If we are to exclude this based on it being personal opinion then we would also have to exclude reference 11 and the associated information from this reference, as this is an opinion piece by Jane Hansen. Not only reference 11 clearly stated to be 'opinion' at the top of the article but I also know that the Australian Press Council ruled this piece to be an opinion piece. Choose12 (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The quote that has been asked to be included is actually a helpful reference in terms of what Serge Benhayon presents. I have copied it again below as reminder of what is being asked to be included "One of the many pearls that the modern day philosopher, Serge Benhayon has offered is that we have to acknowledge the fact that we are the creators of our own society and that society is a direct reflection of the choices we are all making.' Choose12 (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no way we are including that promotional fluff. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Lets keep personal opinions out of this where possible and discuss what is on the table. I remind all that as part of WP:QUESTIONABLE the following is stated: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". 19:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)124.170.192.61 (talk)Tribscent08 (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It takes time and experience to become familiar with how Wikipedia works—someone with a small number of edits who focuses on a single topic (see WP:SPA) is rarely in a position to explain procedures. The proposal in the opening comment is not suitable—one indication is the phrase "many pearls" in the quote from the source which reveals more of a reverential promotion than an independent reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite so. After more than ten years as an editor of Wikipedia and tens of thousands of edits to thousands of articles,I probably understand our policies better than some guy who's quote-mining them in an attempt to get more flattering coverage of a cult with which he is quite obviously associated. There is nothing here which is not generic anyway. Every new-age guru claims to have unique and profound insight into the human condition. Guy (Help!) 06:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree 'Many pearls' is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia, however the quote starting at 'Serge Benhayon' could be included. i.e. 'Serge Benhayon has offered that we have to acknowledge the fact that we are the creators of our own society and that society is a direct reflection of the choices we are all making' As stated this quote offers an insight into the philosophy of Universal Medicine teachings which makes a contribution to this article.Tribscent08 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Universal Medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.esoteric-breast-massage.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 13:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional Sources

There's been a fair amount concerning Universal Medicine in the news recently. I've not updated the article as per WP:NOTNEWS, but wondered about including information from any of the following sources:

"Universal Medicine's Serge Benhayon to inherit bulk of devotee's million-dollar estate" http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/universal-medicines-serge-benhayon-to-inherit-bulk-of-devotees-milliondollar-estate-20151227-glvl7u.html

"Cancer victim’s children lose appeal to overturn will which bequeathed majority of $1.1m estate to healer" http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/cancer-victims-children-lose-appeal-to-overturn-will-which-bequeathed-majority-of-11m-estate-to-healer/news-story/ebe4db1a431eec20a02844a35d6b9e9d

"Court rejects bid by the two children of a woman who died of breast cancer to get a share of the million-dollar estate she left to a 'health guru' whose followers call him the 'new Messiah'" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3376253/Children-woman-died-breast-cancer-left-majority-1-1million-estate-health-guru-fail-legal-bid-challenge-will.html

"Universal Medicine defamation hearing today" http://www.echo.net.au/2016/05/universal-medicine-defamation-hearing-today/

79616gr (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Value Adding

Could editors please take a moment to review the recently added sentence, 'The Australian has referred to Serge Benhayon as a "picaresque individual".[40]'. I am querying how does this sentence actually benefit the article or add to it in any way? There is no actual new information about the character of Serge Benhayon, just another sentence maligning a living person. Tribscent08 (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. The sentence is clutter. XRii (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

No claim by Benhayon

Just wondering if the below sentence could be changed to reflect the facts.

"In December 2015 Benhayon appeared at the New South Wales Supreme Court when his claim over the estate of devotee Judith McIntyre was challenged by her children." . Benhayon made no claim over the estate, the children challenged her will leaving assets to Benhayon despite an agreement that they would not. I realise this is minor but it makes a difference since it was Ms McIntyres wishes that were challenged and not any claim by Benhayon. So perhaps it could read " In December 2015 Benhayon appeared at the New South Wales Supreme Court as a witness when the children of devotee Judith McIntyre challenged the terms of her will in which she left a sizeable portion of her estate to Serge Benhayon" ( the term 'devotee' is inaccurate but as it is the term used in the source it will have to stay) . Choose12 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the references confirm your version. I will make an edit. Moriori (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why you view the term "devotee" as inaccurate. As the definition of the term is "a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about someone or something" or "a strong believer in a particular religion or god", McIntyre would seem to be exactly that, both in her documented following of Benhayon's teachings, and further reinforced in her donation to him of approximately $1.4 million. She was most certainly a devotee. 79616gr (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

NSW Medical Council Reprimand

Added new material from the recent NSW Medical Council investigation in to a UM affiliated Dr. It may sit better in the "Treatments and Practices" section? The full report can be found here but I've used the Echo report (previously cited as an RS in this article) as the basis for this edit. 79616gr (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Trolling and Cyberbullying/Abuse,Publishing lies etc

Bold text

Hello, to whomever it may concern (everyone I trust),

I want to make a formal complaint and call for an investigation in the above page on wikipedia. I have valid reason(s) to believe that the person or persons responsible for creating and providing the (mis) information about the group Universal Medicine have personal and unfounded axes to grind and have provided false information regarding this group.

This is unlawful and it must not be allowed. Not by you, your organisation, nor anyone.

How can you justify and allow this behaviour?How can you allow any old body to supply or submit you 

information about an organisation that is not owned or belonging to them? And then not follow up to check facts

and accuracy? This shows to me that Wikipedia has sloppy and inaccurate practices and takes no care in the 

gathering of its information, so then why would I trust Wikipedia as any sort of reference destination?

It is unlawful in any part of the world. and as a responsible and law abiding citizen I am requesting you not only

review this case thoroughly, but to also make sure you are providing accurate information to the people of the world.

(This not only applies not only to Universal Medicine but also to all people/organisations/everything you represent on your site.)

yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Trenear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.132.111 (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Elizabeth. This article has had much oversight since its creation and if you look up at the top of the page you'll see it was subject to a full review as part of a deletion request some time ago. Since that debate the article has been further improved and expanded. The article is sourced from reliable sources which adhere to Wikipedia's criteria. If you have information to add, that is also sourced according to that criteria, you are more than welcome (as anyone is) to edit it. 79616gr (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Trenear is a member of the UM cult. The comments above are part of their thuggery targeting Esther Rockett. 82.21.88.44 (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Trenear is a healer of the religion and "a Chakra-puncturist in training" under instruction from "Serge Benhayon" [1] 58.167.90.32 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Regulatory and other issues section

This section has now become very long with all the investigations that have occured in to Universal Medicine and is perhaps not as clear as it could be. I propose grouping the medical investigations in their own section. Any thoughts? 79616gr (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Australia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-16/uq-researchers-accused-of-promoting-dangerous-cult/9636836 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-02/doctor-gave-patient-medical-history-to-universal-medicine/9710412

also https://factsaboutuniversalmedicine.wordpress.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.117.51 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I am wondering if the opening couple of sentences reflect the reality of what UM is, now that there is more accurate description provided by the recent court ruling. Is it still ok to say that UM is an ‘alternative medicine’ and ‘self-proclaimed religion’, or should it say “UM is a ‘socially harmful cult’? The majority of recent news articles label it so, a Supreme Court jury’s verdict was that it was ‘substantially true’ to say this. I’ve looked up substantial truth on Wikipedia for guidance and that article is certainly worth a read. I thought it would be good discuss here before such a change was made. And perhaps more experienced eyes than mine that are on the article could help? Themotorcycleboyreigns (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

As no comment on this, and a deluge of RS back this up, it seems appropriate that the opening paragraph of the article has been edited as such. If anyone has an opinion to counter this, please do comment below, but the overwhelming information on this group is that it is a cult and should be referenced as such. Themotorcycleboyreigns (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Subsequent Proponents

Is this really necessary? I note several names added, all with refs, but not sure of the relevance as the names are not of noteworthy people (in an encyclopaedic context). I’ve looked at a variety of other articles with a similar subject matter - Scientology etc - and see no similar list. Perhaps it is relevant, but I think it should be discussed. Thoughts? Themotorcycleboyreigns (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

- This section is probably relevant because Serge B has disapeared from sight and now has left the mess to others after the trial disaster. Who's in charge of what department is not exactly clear. At a minimum the other 4 Benhayons mentioned are relevant in this list as they are still living the life on the UM payroll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.189.50 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Serge Benhayon

Further to the Universal Medicine article, it would seem time that Serge Benhayon has his own Wikipedia article. He fulfils the criteria required by Wikipedia and an article on him would add to the knowledge base on Universal Medicine. I’m short of time currently, so if anyone is able to do so, please do, if not I’ll get to it when I can. Themotorcycleboyreigns (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Other

Referenced news mp3 link re orgasm and hermaphtodite here [2]

Thanks for the source material :) Unfortunately it does not say "hermaphrodite" at any point.

To include that word in the article would be original research WP:OR, as it is assuming something not presented by the sources.

It simply states "as both man and woman" and "more woman". Chaosdruid (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The video at the top of page on this abc ref used in the wiki article [3] has him stating ' when you orgasm as a hermaphrodite' at 00.35. If geoblocking is occurring a copy of this reference is at 2.15m at youtube [4]. If geoblocking is causing confusion to those outside AU I apologise.Efefvoc2 (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Restored as per discussion on your talk page (after watching the youtube video).

Only issue (that I can see in that sentence now) is the (sic) comment - Why is it in there?

It is exactly as he says it, and sic is only used if there is a spelling or grammatical mistake, which I cannot hear in that video. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand when something is politically incorrect and offensive to some, or just plain wrong, then we put (sic) that means we, or wikipedia, don't agree with its connotations. But we keep the quote as accurate and what he/she said. Similar to a spelling mistake in a quote. Efefvoc2 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, but usually it is only used as per first paragraph of the wiki article here: sic (for spelling or transcription error).

That is why it would only also be usually found inside the quoted text, "blah blah blha(sic) blah", for example, to show that is how it was, and it wasn't us cocking it up :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

OK will put it inside quote "..." Efefvoc2 (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hi

I am going to attempt to tidy-up the article over the next few days.

My intention is to do a full copyedit, and I first wish to establish that I am an impartial editor.

* Fragmentation - sections contain extremely short sentences as paragraphs:

• Combine into easily reabable flowing paragraphs Y [thanks whoever did that :¬) It looks great!]

• Accuracy - I have found several statements in the article unsupported by refs:

• Find new refs - otherwise match the article material to the refs quoted

• Grammar/Punctuation - There are a few areas where punctuation and grammar need touching up

• Ensure refs are after punctuation and not in the middle of word pairs and sentence parts

• Correct any gramatical issues that cloud clarity, for example, uses of "she" or "and" that confuse

• Sections - some sections should be sub-sections of others:

• I have already combined some into "legal issues" and "regulatory"

• Move material into relevant sections and separate into sub-sections where necessary

I realise that there has been some contention over past material, but would like to stress that I am not intending to change anything that does not NEED changing.

I am against rewriting, and will try and avoid changing the original editors' writing styles, prose, etc.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Please

remove the references from the leads. I can grant a few in supporting controversial lines but the current state is outright ridiculous. ∯WBG^converse 09:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As the subject has proved controversial (and not without conflict) I suspect editors are being extra cautious in references. The suggestions of more experienced editors in conforming to the precedents of Wikipedia in the area you mention would be welcomed. Themotorcycleboyreigns (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

That's correct. So I have tidied up the lead to be less jagged within sentences and removed some duplicate references. Unfortunately the facts relating to UM are so cringe-worthy that unless the the facts and practices in the lead are solidly referenced then it may read like a piece of fictional satire. Alas it is not. Also also not referencing the points gives followers of the group an excuse to remove facts if they wished to edit. Efefvoc2 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and thank you. Themotorcycleboyreigns (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Court case archive

@03hotlips: Any reason to remove [5]? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: No reason, except I thought other sources supported the section. Nothing wrong with that source[6]. 03hotlips (talk)

Defamatory edits

I have made defamatory edits. Please ensure they are not re-instated.

Vicmang1 (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Defamatory Edits

I have made defamatory edits from this account also. Please ensure they are not re-instated.

Jerkguy (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

UK Court Ruling

I added a new section to detail the recent UK Court of Appeal ruling, but am unsure that the heading of the section is correct. Any suggestions for how it can be improved? The ruling relates to the harmful influence of Universal Medicine over a minor and while I considered including that in the heading I thought I was unsure how to word it and maintain a NPOV in the title. Any suggestions? Themotorcycleboyreigns (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

How about something like 'UK child protection court case'? It is purely a descriptive indicator of the section contents and expresses no point of view. Mramoeba (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good. Thanks for your help. Themotorcycleboyreigns (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Battleground?

What purpose does listing of individuals serve here:

Subsequent proponents, In Australia: Natalie, Michael & Deborah Benhayon.... 

? Is it to settle scores? Right great wrongs?

-> Let us remove these names from such a prominent place.

Zezen (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted those individuals as suggested. Undo if not agreeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3176:7701:E115:1EA:1B34:E8A2 (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, IP.

Hm. Yet I would much prefer named editors or admins to have handled this.

Zezen (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a long list of names in this context is inappropriate, especially since most of them are barely (if at all) mentioned in the article and can hardly be said to be leaders in the organisation. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 claim 'blogs had been removed' & media reports 'removed from Google search results'

I tested a couple of links from the quoted Chilling Effects RS, e.g.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/07/23/3551582.htm

Not only they still are "in the Internet" (i.e. not 404) but also indexed by (non AU) Google:

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=0xYfX4LOFYbSrgSxm6bABg&q=Controversial+health+provider+under+investigationBy+Samantha+Turnbull+and+Bruce+MacKenzie+The+Therapeutic+Goods+Administration+is+investigating+a+north+coast+health+provider+accused+of+being+a+cult+with+1000+members&oq=Controversial+health+provider+under+investigationBy+Samantha+Turnbull+and+Bruce+MacKenzie+The+Therapeutic+Goods+Administration+is+investigating+a+north+coast+health+provider+accused+of+being+a+cult+with+1000+members&gs_lcp=ChFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocBADMgIIKTICCCkyAggpMgIIKTICCCkyAggpMgIIKTICCCkyAggpMgIIKTICCCkyAggpMgIIKTICCCkyAggpUOIOWOIOYO4saABwAHgAgAEAiAEAkgEAmAEBoAECoAEBsAEP&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp

Just FYI and a bit of OR, to test the past extraordinary claim, which has been since fixed since in the article.

Zezen (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to read this [7]. It explains the deletion of a person's blog by google (this one here [8] specifically). Doesn't seem to be due to an "act of god". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3176:7701:2525:E81A:AC79:EFC7 (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, IP. Indeed, if one foregoes archives and caches. I had checked some non-Blogger blogs from the reffed Chilling Effects list and they are still live. And Google indexed. Let us leave it at that. Zezen (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to undo the edit you made after you had said "Let us leave it at that". Have amended the reference to point to the UM legal team's complaint to Google[9] that has caused the blog that was here[10] or here[11] to be geoblocked in Australia and the UK still to this day - where instead it displays: "Blog not available. Blogger. In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed this blog..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:C989:E401:B80D:C81E:F786:E6DE (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of text

In October 2020 several lines of the article were removed by an editor who then tried to get the article deleted though "speedy deletion". This was rejected and the removal rebutted but several lines of text have not been reinstated. The editor who made these changes is called: Anonymous2926272618276261991.

I have tried (unsuccessfully) to revert their edits. Can someone please look in to this? 217.138.32.226 (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I've done what I can to restore it but may need someone with better eye than me to make sure! There's little snipping going on here to try and skew the article. Seems some people would like to whitewash it little by little. Perhaps protection is needed? 217.138.32.226 (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

See previous discussion. Hardly "unexplained". Lard Almighty (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I find nothing in that discussion that relates to the removal of the phrase "socially harmful" in para 1 prior to the word 'cult'. The other phrases I restored also are not discussed on the previous Talk Page. The edits I refer to were made on 4th October 2020 and in comments by the edits there are no explanations, hence them being unexplained. If you can point me to why that editor felt these were appropriate edits, fair enough, but I see no such explanations and it appears CatCafe when removing the deletion request did not revert the edits done prior to this being added. I wold ask that you, or someone else can. 217.138.32.226 (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The restoration you did on the proponents section I thank you for. My intention was not to restore that, only the other words/sentances removed by Anonymous2926272618276261991 217.138.32.226 (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not clear what you want. The words "socially harmful" have been restored. Are you saying they should be removed? If so, why? This is sourced so the onus is on you to get consensus for any removal. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)