Talk:Spiritual practice/Archive 1

Untitled

Why are Aikido and jujutsu listed under Chinese practices? These are both "Japanese Practices".

I wonder how many Jujotsu practitioners really consider it "spiritual". The term "jitsu" refers more to a "science" or "technique" as opposed to 'do', which is "a way". The japanese art of Shorinji Kempo was, until recently, classed in japan as a religion. (79.190.69.142 (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

Removal of devotee-published sources

I have removed the reference to Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu. For discussion, see RS/N and this Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Kidd (talk • contribs) 08:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The RS discussion said "They can be used solely for the purpose of describing themselves, not third parties", which is what had been done here, so I restored the material; however, a separate header seemed contra WP:DUE, so I did not restore the header. Also, please note that writings about Christianity, as by Foster (in this article), are also in some sense "self description," as Foster is a devotee of Christ and Christianity. Please make sure to prevent WP:DONTLIKE from masquerading as a double-standard-driven interpretation of WP:RS. -- Presearch (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how you can claim that Kalchuri is describing himself. He is referring to Meher Baba's teachings. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the RSN page you link to that gives you the right to remove referenced text. You are removing valid information from articles acting against consensus. Hoverfish Talk 20:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I linked to two pages. Fifelfoo said on his Talk page: "I'd suggest editing out OR and inappropriately sourced content, citing policy and appropriate discussions, and discussing at length on the talk page." The relevant policy/guideline says that an article "must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if [among other things, it] is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials". Kalchuri fails this test, since he is published by an organisation affiliated with the subject. Simon Kidd (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Simon Kidd, in that case, it's OK because it's self-descriptive. Let's not split hairs. Remember that sources can be reliable about some issues but not other issues. I see every reason to think Kalchuri is reliable about the topic for which he is being used here as a source. That does not mean he would be reliable for all other topics. Please apply common sense. Otherwise you will put yourself in a position where the arguments you develop for removing Kalchuri should also be used to remove Foster, a Christian, who is affiliated with Christian organizations. Is this what you would wish to argue? I would contend that allowing Foster to speak to Christian practices, and Kalchuri to speak to Meher Baba's recommended practices, is merely common sense, which Wikipedia guidelines tell us we should retain. -- Presearch (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Presearch, I still don't see your point about the source being "self-descriptive". Fladrif's RS/N comment would have been referring to Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. If Kalchuri's book was an autobiography or a book about his own ideas, then it would be "self-descriptive" in the sense you mean. But it isn't - it's a book about the life and teachings of a third party, Meher Baba. Regarding Foster, the significant point is not religious affiliation, but rather who is publishing his book. The book by Foster, cited in the article, was published by an independednt third-party publisher (Hodder & Stoughton) in 1998. It therefore crosses the threshold of reliability (in the Wikipedia sense). Kalchuri's book on Meher Baba (Meher Prabhu) is published by an organisation affiliated with Meher Baba and his followers (Manifestation). According to Policies and guidelines requiring third-party sources:

An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if:

Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication.

Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials.

Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective.

Based upon: These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance.

Lord Meher and several other devotee-published works in the "Meher Baba" group of articles fail this test. As Fifelfoo said elsewhere, they "do not even approach [the] threshold" for partial reliability. What has happened over a number of years is that the Meher Baba followers have inserted references to his teachings in a number of articles, using Kalchuri as a source. But Kalchuri is not a reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense of the term). Hoverfish's reference to a "consensus" on Kalchuri is not relevant, because Kalchuri simply does not pass the threshold test, indeed does not even approach it.

Perhaps most importantly, Lord Meher is known to contain errors of fact, including the reporting of Meher Baba's words. I have posted at length on this elsewhere, and can provide links if you wish.

The section of the article citing Kalchuri seems to contain an arbitrary assortment of "new age" beliefs. Many, many others could be added to that list. Having Meher Baba there is not critical to the article, but if he is to be kept then the same ideas can probably be found in an alternative source that is reliable in the Wikipedia sense. Simon Kidd (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't unilaterally decide that Lord Meher is not a reliable source. You can't unilaterally decide that it is devotional and not a reliable biography. What is "Devotional"? and who decides. Not You, Mr Kidd. Hoverfish Talk 16:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hoverfish, it is the publisher (not the author) that makes it reliable or unreliable in the Wikipedia sense. I don't have to decide anything, unilaterally or otherwise. The facts speak for themselves: Meher Prabhu is published by an organisation affiliated to the Meher Baba movement; it is not independent. I'm not sure if I can spell it out any more clearly than that. Simon Kidd (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

All the people who worked on the article Meher Baba, whether affiliated or quite contrary to the subject, including the administrators who reviewed it twice have accepted this 12 volume biography as a source of valid information. Turning a guideline to a policy is your decision and removing information from articles is your doing, not that of the community. Before your recent attack, the community had not expressed any complaints about the sources. Hoverfish Talk 14:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hoverfish, why did you delete parts of my comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpiritual_practice&diff=486436214&oldid=486421181 Simon Kidd (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I was following the advice of Fifelfoo, an uninvolved editor with RS/N experience: "The article shouldn't pass GA, given that much of it is original research based on primary sources. I'd suggest editing out OR and inappropriately sourced content, citing policy and appropriate discussions, and discussing at length on the talk page." His opinion was backed by Fladrif, also uninvolved. As far as I am aware, previous consensus and the flexible interpretation of guidelines are both irrelevant if the source doesn't even cross the threshold of reliability, as Fifelfoo had already pointed out. There were indeed earlier doubts about the reliability of sources in the Meher Baba article. These were explicitly referred to as the weak points of the article. However, there does not seem to have been consideration of devotee-publication as such - this only came up as part of the recent investigation of self-published sources. Simon Kidd (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. I had been copypasting your statements and by mistake I erased them. Now I edit them back manually. I didn't mean to do this. Hoverfish Talk 15:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Returning to the point, apart from the GAR itself, the issue of third-party sources came up on the MB Talk page in June 2008. Jossi comments: "The main concern is the need to make the tone of the article more encyclopedic, as well as look for and represent material written by third parties. Otherwise the article can never achieve NPOV, let alone GA status. Do you know of any authors that discuss Baba, that are not close to the subject (besides Brunton, that is)". In response, Nemonoman admits: "As I have stated, I know of NO repeat NO reputable scholarly sources who could not be characterized as devotees. Maybe Shepherd, but I have never seen that volume" (note that the discussion here concerns devotee authors, not devotee publishers). And in October 2008, several months after the conclusion of the GAR, some concern was expressed on the NPOV Noticeboard. Editwondergirl had noticed the proliferation of articles relating to Meher Baba, many of which she didn't think were notable. At the top of the section, she refers to "sourcing problems" and later, in reply to Nemonoman, she remarks: "I take your point about the difficulty in finding sources on Meher Baba-related issues that are not written by devotees and/or published in Meher Baba newsletters, websites, etc - but if people and organistations that are not closely associated with Meher Baba have not written about a topic, then that may well be a sign that it is not notable. I do not suggest that Meher Baba himself is not worthy of at least one entry, but at things stand he has effectively got many entries, many of them not of a high standard and with questionable claims to notability." Even Editwondergirl doesn't seem to have noticed that the major source for these articles (Kalchuri) is a devotee publication. So, in your comments above, I believe you are glossing over the problems with the Meher Baba group of articles. Simon Kidd (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Simon Kidd, I continue to find your perspective lacking in common sense. At no point have you made a case that Kalchuri is unreliable on the specific issues for which he is used as a source in this article. And I do not think you can make such a case. A devotee and a publisher dedicated to a person would have every motivation to give a full and reliable description of a spiritual figure's core teachings (even if there may be doubts on reliability related to issues such as lineages, as is discussed by scholarship on the historical Jesus). Please note that the WP:RS guideline ("a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow") says

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is not unduly self-serving;
• the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
• the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Furthermore, it is immaterial whether or not these principles are adequately reflected in the particular opinion essay that you have cited (and as an essay, it "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints," and we should "Consider these views with discretion").

Please, SK, drop your quixotic quest to apply a standard in a procrustean and destructive manner, in defiance of WP guidelines and of common sense. It is wasting a lot of time that could be put to better uses. --Presearch (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. SK is also wasting a lot of time on the Meher Baba talk page in a destructive manner. Its best to nip this in the bud now as its a huge waste of time and he repeats himself endlessly I am also so tired of the ' Advice of Fifelfoo ' which Kidd pulls out like its a trump card. It is not. HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Presearch, thank you for your advice. I have also received advice from Fifelfoo, on his Talk page. Simon Kidd (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Simon, thanks for your gracious words and for taking my thoughts into consideration. Best -- Presearch (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Categorisation

I think it makes more sense to categorise the various traditions according to cultural region, i.c. Asian and western, since those traditions are connected/related. An alphabetical categorisation suggests that they are all the same, or interchangeable. But, that's my point of view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that Asian-Western adds much, but think dividing them into Abrahamic, Indian religions/Dharmic and East Asian religions/Taoic would be helpful. Editor2020 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have restored your earlier organization, but with Abrahamic and Indian religions as headings. Nothing here about East Asian religions, but that section can be added in the future. Editor2020 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is actually kind of "weird", I think, because it takes a topic which forms a part of various religions and takes it as the main subject. In this way, "spirtiual practice" becomes kind of decontextualized. Maybe it should function as a kind of "hub", to link to the relevant, longer articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan. I agree that if we must organize spiritual practices in a more constructive way than alphabetically, it should be by culture/religion groups and I prefer naming these groups like Editor2020 offered, though I see how some spiritual trends may not fit well in any group. Then of course we come to the issue of not having an established name for these other trends. I also agree with your evaluation of this article. What people in general take to be "spiritual" today is a very confusing issue and hard to encompass in an encyclopedic way without reducing "spiritual" to a fashion keyword (to say the least). Even so, I am for an effort to make things better and more encyclopedic in this area. Hoverfish Talk 15:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

One thing I consider a mistake is classifying Meher Baba as "New Age". Meher Baba's teachings are mainly based on Advaita Vedanta and approach other some spiritual traditions, mainly Sufi and some Christian mystic views. They do not belong to the New Age pantheon of trends. Hoverfish Talk 15:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spiritual practice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720005908/http://www.mussarinstitute.org/wisdom-way.htm to http://www.mussarinstitute.org/wisdom-way.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)