Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-16 Sahaja Yoga

Will Beback Evidence

Note: Both Sfacets and Sahajhist acknowlege living in or near Melburne Australia. Some IPs which resolve to that area have been included in among these edits.

Adding unsourced assertions about SY

Removing sourced material

Removing material, albeit unsourced

Removing editing tags

Removing links and sources

Adding favorable links, even if not to the standards of WP or of the removed links

Watering down criticism

Adding weasel words

Demanding quote from a source, removing material 8 hours later, refusing to restore it once quote was provided.

Reply

"Adding unsourced assertions about SY"

[111] I wasn't adding anything controversial here that would merit immediate inclusion of a source - according to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source."
[112] This was previously part of the Sahaja Yoga International article that was nominated for deletion, and which did at the time contain sources.
[113] Adding relevant further reading links is now considered adding unsourced information? Give me a break.
[114] Sources where then added. What's the problem?
[115] Ah how nice of you to include my comment after you removed the section mere hours after it's creation
[116] You will note here that Although Will Beback added the sentence in question, he failed to provide a source, and when the sentence in question was rectified, demanded one.
[117] (idem)
[118] ...And then he complains that not enough information on SY practices is being included.
[119] ...Once again, source was later added.

"Removing sourced material" I am not going to go through this again, as I have previously mentioned, all discussions and debates were held on the article's talk page.

"Removing material, albeit unsourced" - Isn't this just a tad hypocritical in light of the accusations made against Sahajhist and myself in the sections above?

"Removing editing tags"

[120] You know what? You are right.
[121]
[122] In the edit summary, I specifically pointed to the source in question.
[123] Again, please read the edit summary, where I justify removing the tag.
[124] An anonymous ip edit.
[125]
[126] An anonymous ip edit.
[127] Did you contest this removal at the time?
[128] Ah. Here is a prim example of using unreliable sources, which I discuss - at length - on the discussion page.
[129] I believe my edit summary said "see talk". This was in regards to including bothe the unbalanced and npov tags.
[130]
[131] I moved the template, see edit summary, further edits.
[132] Since I was the one who added the template I removed in the 1st place (and which I recall Will Beback questioned) I don't see the problem here.

"Removing links and sources"

[133] According to WP:EL external links should add to information not already found on the article or other links. This was not the case here, with information already found in the article and the main Sahaj Site. Please compare [134] and [135]
[136] Please refer to my edit summary, which refers to the discussion page on the Sahaja Yoga article, where a lengthy discussion had already taken place.
[137] The website provided no new information per WP:EL (hence my edit summary)
[138] Oh look, someone is attempting to maintain a favoured version of the article.
[139] This was discussed - the link in question(Sahajcult) does not conform to WP:EL as it is not WP:EL#What_to_link/tasteful.

[140] Anonymous edit.
[141] Again.
[142] Again.
[143]
[144]
[145] A reason was given, it seems. This led to the debate on the inclusion of the website in question.
[146] In any case it beats the edit summary "restore "old page" which gives no reason.
[147] Once again, I direct the reader to the discussion on the articles talk page.
[148] Was my edit summary not clear enough?
[149] See discussion on Talk:Sahaja_Yoga
[150] "rmv link per WP:EL "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research")" was my edit summary. Also discussed on Talk:Sahaja_Yoga.
[151] I questioned the validity of the link, as it did not mention it's author, or other publication information.
[152] Again, an attempt to re-insert a questionable source. In cases like these CAPS MUST BE USED :D
[153] I believe I was eloquent in my edit summary.
[154]
[155] My patience is staggering, isn't it? Same source.
[156] :D
[157]
[158] I believe I conceded that this link is acceptable under another heading.
[159] Didn't I point in direction of the talk page?
[160] I think I have a point in my edit summary.

"Adding favorable links, even if not to the standards of WP or of the removed links"

[161] These are official websites for different countries, each one of them to WP:EL standards, except for the language part, which is why they were removed.
[162] Is the website now in the article? No, for reasons above.
[163]
[164] This was a link to a SY-related bibliography. Please explain why "not to the standards"?
[165] These websites are not being used as sources. Sources≠External links.
[166] Add "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." link - problem?
[167] Video on the beginings of SY. This is as relevant as it gets, featuring an interview with the founder of the mouvement.
[168]
[169] Wow. This is what Will Beback was going on above when complaining about Sahajhist and I adding unreferenced information. ([170]) - contradiction?
[171]
[172] Added two links in conjunction with the "Sahaja Yoga culture" section previously created. The importance of music in SY is discussed.
[173] Part of the SYI (Sahaja Yoga International) part mentionned in the article. Why isn't this to standard?
[174] Idem
[175] Sahaj Culture.
[176]
[177] "informational video link" has a nice ring to it, I thought.

"Watering down criticism"

[178] Less POV is not the same as "watering down criticism". The word "critics" is a Weasel word.
[179] I asked a legitimate question, no answer.
[180] As much as I love "a host of other activities" it simply ain't Kosher.
[181] This is a dupe from above, again, what did the extra source reference?
[182] It's not a claim, if a reference is provided.
[183]
[184] ...because NRM is a criticism now?
[185] I was following what the source said. Nothing more, nothing less.
[186] ...And yes, again (also please view previous and following edits) I mirrored what the source said, and not what I wanted it to say (unlike the previous editor).

"Adding weasel words"

[187] "many" in a Weasel word.
[188] ..."claims" isn't.
[189] Well, provide a source showing that all ex-members do.
[190] Again, claim is not a weasel word.
[191]

"Demanding quote from a source, removing material 8 hours later, refusing to restore it once quote was provided".

I removed it because you were refusing to provide it[197] (selective memory, perhaps?). Refusing to restore it? Why couldn't you just restore it? I was BUSY, as I stated[198]

Dseer's comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I wish to comment on this mediation request, as an interested party also deeply concerned about the Sahaja Yoga issue, which also relates to the coverage of same in the articles on (but not limited to yoga and self realization). The article simply restates claims made by the organization and skeptical/critical information is almost totally deleted, and it has been in this condition for some time; rapid resolution is in order. I had intended to get around to editing it and requesting mediation when reverted by the editors associated with the NRM as has been the practice with the contributions of the other editors deemed critical, but I see this is already active. I find Will Beback's comments quite insightful and relevant, and he is by no means alone in his concerns and in the frustration with the way Sfacets and Sahajhist respond with accusations to anyone who in good faith disagrees with them about the NRM they are advocate, which demotivates more NPOV editors as well. I (and other editors I know who may choose to weigh in as well) ahare the same concerns about the editing patterns of Sfacets and Sahajhist in relation to a NRM where they have an apparent COI, even if they do not recognize it in part because of that COI. I appologize for the length of these comments but the issues here of NRM advocates disputing with those less favorably disposed are not new to articles related to NRMs, so much of what has been developed in resolving similar disputes regarding other NRMs applies to this case as well.

It is not just the fact that Sfacets and Sahajhist are admittedly associated with this NRM per se, which in itself would allow them to contribute with care, particularly on the pro-NRM portions, but that they are POV editing while assuming a non-Wikepedian, pro-NRM standard for the reliability of the NRMs claims and materials vis a vis others. And, that when informed they may have a COI in good faith by responsible editors, including NovaSTL, Will Beback, Milo, among others I can see recently, and now myself, they do not consider the concern in good faith or modify their behavior. This behavior is clearly in direct contradiction to what Wikipedia expects, to wit: "As a rule of thumb, the more involved you are in a particular area in real life, the more careful you should be to adhere to our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability —when editing in that area. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you in that direction. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say and consider withdrawing from editing the article...If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest." Since the end result of their edits is consistent deletion of dozens of lukewarm or critical references while maintaining related NRM references with extraordinary and disputed claims (including religious, medical, and historical, and since they have been reasonably asked by several editors to consider that they have a COI and have simply accused them of it in turn rather than look at their edits, when the burden is in fact on those associated with an advocacy NRM organization disputing the concerns of multiple other editors, you have what appears to be a prima facia case of excessive COI editing. Whether they honestly believe they have crossed over the COI line is not the issue, and it is because of the alleged COI that I doubt they do, it is simply the POV article resulting; the treatment and resulting lack of skeptical/critical information speaks for itself.

Now, I want to point out that Sfacets has even gone so far as to falsely and recklessly accuse me of deleting Sahaja Yoga from the Yoga article, which the edit history can easily verify to be false, I explained what I was doing and I simply moved it. This bogus and reckless claim alone makes it perfectly appropriate for me to comment for this mediation, particularly since I assert the same position as Will Bebeck from personal experience now. The entire dialogue resulting in the latest reckless and false accusation by Sfacets is below:

Sahaja Yoga as Unorthodox and Contemporary, not Orthodox An editor with a suspected COI regarding Sahaja Yoga advocacy throughout Wikipedia simply reverts the inclusion of Sahaja Yoga in the Unorthodox and Contemporary Category. My easily demonstrated point, as stated, was simply that "Shri Mataji's controversial Sahaja Yoga is a NRM founded in 1970, hardly orthodox or mainstream yoga, definition of self realization as cool breeze or second baptism not mainstream". This editor replies: "RVT - Sahaja Yoga originates from a long lineage of Nath traditions, where Cool breeze is described (as well as in other litterary sources))". Really?

This revert without discussion simply restates that NRM's controversial claims as gospel, and part of a contribution pattern of a pattern of deletion of any thing deemed crticical, even if the claim is only the easily demonstrated fact that Sahaja Yoga is Modern, Unorthodox Yoga, and not Orthodax. This is another example why Wikipedia clearly states that the materials of religious groups are to be treated with caution, that editors with COI need to be cautious in their editing, and that the burden of proof for extraordinary claims lies on those making the claim.

That Sahaja Yoga is a modern movement founded in 1970, and widely considered an NRM, can be demonstrated simply by referring to the Sahaja Yoga article and talk page. And even if the claim that Sahaja Yoga originates from a long lineage of Nath traditions were true, the Nath article not only does not support this claim, but does acknowledge that Nath is a heterodox tradition, refuting the editor's contention that Sahaja Yoga is orthodox, even if the suspect Nath claim were valid. In fact, Sahaja Yoga is a modern movement, the founder has no formally recognition from the claimed lineage, and instead, there are pictures of the founder meditating with the late Rajneesh just prior to founding the NRM, see [199], along with comments about her by Rajneesh himself. Reviewing Sahaja Yoga material shows that the NRM clearly claims to be original in many of its doctrines and interpretations, even down to the functions of the classic seven chakras, and its leader makes extraordinary, unique Avataric claims: "I am the Adi Shakti. I am the One who has come on this Earth for the first time in this form to do this tremendous task. The more you understand this the better it would be. You will change tremendously. I knew I’ll have to say that openly one day and we have said it. But now it is you people who have to prove it that I am that!" (Shri Adi-Shakti Devi, Sydney, Australia, March 21, 1983). Hardly Orthodox!

Regarding the claim that experiencing a cool breeze above the head and at the palms is a sign of self-realization, that is hardly orthodox, certainly not confirmed in the Upanishads or Pantajili, and not even among kundalini yoga based sects. This editor restates the claim Sahaja Yoga makes: ("One can actually feel the all pervading divine power as a cool breeze, as described in all religions and spiritual traditions of the world"), but fails to provide the evidence in context to support this extraordinary claim that it is so described in all religions and spiritual traditions. And with Sahaja as with a lot of other NRMs that consistently redefine traditional terms, one does not look at just the words, but at whether what Sahaja Yoga defines as self-realization is similar or completly distinct from orthodox definitions. While it is true that many sects consider enlightenment to occur when the kundalini has risen up to and stablized in the sahasrara, which is considered the seat of Self and enlightenment in some Upanishads, that does not imply support for the "cool breeze" as meaning this has rise has occured nor for the "self realization and second baptism" claim, and the editor has provided no documentation other than restate the claims of the NRM to support this claim.

In fact, when you examine the Sahaja Yoga "self-realization" claim, Sahaja defines it merely as "A connection with the Self", where as more mainstream Upanishadic and Vendantic based traditions define Self-Realization as the permanent Union or Identification of the jiva with Self/Atman/Brahman/Parabrahman, or God Realization, not just some energetic baptism or "connection" with the Self. Also, note that there is a sigificant, also ancient Unpanishadic tradition that the seat of the Self and self-realization is found not in the sahasrara, but beyond that, in the Cave of the Heart, see for example Ramana Maharshi.

In summary, without making definitive judgements on the claims of that NRM, which is not the function of Wikipedia, Sahaja Yoga is properly where I put it, along with other, contemporary modern and unorthodox Yogas, and the burden of proof for the extraordinary religious based claims based on dogma and materials from that NRM is not on me, but on that editor suspected of COI regarding Sahaja Yoga to show why I am incorrect. --Dseer 04:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am going to answer briefly to your long tirade. Yes, Sahaja Yoga is considered an NRM, but it comes from a long lineage of traditions. 'Sahaj' has been described by various teachers and academics. Actually I don't even dispute that it is Unorthodox, I dispute that you removed it from the article altogether. By all means, place it in the Unorthodox category if you wish, no need to go on about it. I also do not appreciate as being described as an editor with COI. Judging by the length of your post as well as the counter examples you used, perhaps it could be you who has COI?

Sfacets 10:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you document this "long lineage"? As Dseer points out, our own article indicates that it was created in 1970. -Will Beback · † · 19:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The "long lineage" claim, when there is no recognition of it by those with whom the lineage is asserted, and there are actual pictures and published accounts of the founder meditating with Rajneesh, and meeting with Muktananda, just prior to founding the group, is a controversial and minority religious claim requiring exceptional evidence, not just claims by the NRM and those favorably associated with it. --Dseer 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting that you call it a "tirade", when it is simply a sound refutation of your claims, and thus your insult more evidence of improper ownership and a COI investment here. I recognize that your faith in your NRM blinds you to the COI which others see clearly, nothing personal, but it still must be addressed so that an NPOV can be restored. Let me remind you first that contributions are a matter of record, and your pattern in dealing with what you consider the slightest criticism of Sahaja Yoga is clear, and has been noted by editors other than Will B. and myself, and this is just another straw, so to speak. I assure you that this pattern in your contributions relative to Sahaja Yoga will be addressed as needed to produce NPOV articles. In this latest response, where you accuse me of deleting reference to Sahaja Yoga, this is more COI evidence in your flippant, reversion response. Either you are not telling the truth hoping others will buy it, which seems unlikely, or you did not even take time to read the change. Had you done so, you would have seen that I did not delete it, I simply moved Sahaja Yoga to the Unorthodox and Contemporary Section just exactly as I said, and thus your false claim I deleted it is just another case where your position can be proven wrong by simply looking at the edit history. You yourself now acknowledge, when your NRM based statements are confronted with evidence, that it is fine where I put it. And you have not yet produced one shred of evidence yet to demonstrate this claimed "lineage", while I assure you I am well versed in such matters and I can produce much more evidence to the contrary and will not be deterred by the well worn approach of questioning the critic instead of answering the question. Let me remind you that this is one of many controversial and exceptional religious claims you have made, which are to be taken with appropriate caution. Thus, the "long lineage" claim, when there is no recognition of it by those with whom the lineage is asserted, and there are actual pictures and published accounts of the founder meditating with Rajneesh, and meeting with Muktananda, just prior to founding the group, is a controversial and minority religious claim requiring caution and exceptional evidence, not just claims by the NRM and those favorably associated with it. You've been gently warned over and over, but evidence shows you simply don't want to accept that, despite many discussions where you were informed about the necessity for NPOV. Thus it is unfortunately necessary to go to the next level, and I now support the mediation request regarding Sahaja Yoga and any where Sahajists have inserted mention, and if needed, arbitration regarding the edits that I will pursue myself, until NPOV prevails. Again, nothing personal, it just has to be done. --Dseer 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

This demonstrates all to well IMO the fundamental fallacy and error the Sahajists in question make in all sincerity in applying an unconscious double standard due to their COI, that the information from their NRM is reliable and verifiable because the group they believe they have benefited from and believe in affirms it (often through repetition in communications which only makes it appear more validated) or a known sympathizer with some expertise reports it, while skeptics and critics are unreliable and to be dismissed. This COI based thinking is rationalized, even though Wikipedia states "the websites and publications of... religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution", not that only one is to be treated with special caution, and meaning there is to be no a prior assumption of reliability or lesser burden of proof for the NRM over its critics/opponents. This issue occurs on a number of articles about NRMs, and what NRM advocates fail to understand is that as a religious group, particularly one making exceptional claims about the special divine role of their leader, in this case AKA "Adi Shakti", whose claimed mission, if true, has unprecedented historical an religious implications, as quoted above, all their publications and sources, however crafted and organizationally self-published, must be viewed with caution according to Wikipedia guidelines, and the more exceptional the claims, the more they require exceptional sources, and this does not instead just apply to those sources with any critical information.

In this case, I submit the Sahaja Yoga article (and the same seems to go for the article on the NRM's leader, Nirmala Srivastava), reads like it was written by the group, with only a proforma mention that there is criticism. I submit there is clear evidence that several editors have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and have not taken the cautions regarding COI seriously, that they are exhibiting Wikipedia:ownership, that they are not following the principles described in Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest, and that they are not editing in good faith WP:Faith. Furthermore, I submit there is evidence of unconscious, COI based Wikilawyering, WP:LAWYER, the technical exploitaton of selected guidelines contrary to NPOV for purposes not in the best interest of Wikipedia. Usually, as is the case in this article, the primary issue is imbalanced suppression of information, which can be by those either pro or con, by advocates, sympathizers, or in some cases, simply zealous deletionists who do not acknowledge the impact on NPOV. The fact remains that Wikeipedia clearly states that in partisan and religious disputes, the statements of both sides are subject to caution regarding reliability and verifiability, there can be no a priori assumption that one side is more reliable than another. The following logic has been recognized as relevant (see for example Ken Wilber talk and mediation [[200]]):

As an inclusionist, I am particularly interested in maximizing NPOV, and the idea that websites and blogs can be appropriate depending on what is available, and in particular that when the subject of an article opens the door by using self-published materials like a website or blog to communicate ideas and respond to critics, critical websites or blogs, if they are the best available sources and the person who wrote them is noteworthy relative to the subject and can be identified, can be considered.

In this case, the subject is a controversial religious guru, which triggers some caveats in the Wikipedia guidelines. Because of dispute between inclusionists and deletionists which occurs on this and related sites, a few of us have developed a framework regarding the inclusionist response in these matters as follows:

WP:V#Self states that: "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as it is: relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." But, in this case, a religous claim, that of the groups founder being an Avatar, and claims about other religious figures and movements, are being made. This advocacy, and the dearth of independent, objective consideration, makes the essentially self-published sources from Sahaja advocates themselves of limited verifiable reliability. The Sahaja material is contentious, arguably self-serving, makes claims about events not related to the subject, and makes unverified claims about third parties.

Additionally, WP:RS states: "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." The Sahaja organization makes subjective and even exclusive religious claims about its leader and serves a religious function, supporting the mission of its guru founder, and deserves the same initial caution as critical material. Therefore, under Wikipedia principles and guidelines, both the advocacy and critical publications and websites related to this subject must be treated with appropriate caution, with a NPOV result in mind, meaning there is no excessive burden of proof on critics vis a vis proponents regarding religious groups and religious claims. The more exceptional the claim, the more exceptional the sources requred. (Note: there are even many suspect medical claims being made that also require exceptional sourcing).

Because WP:V, WP: NPOV and WP:NOR complement each other, "they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another". Relying only on published material or websites of dubious reliablity, while excluding based on reliability and verifiability issues all critical material from known, noteworthy critics familiar with the subject (to whom the organization has responded and criticized in websites and blogs and thus opened the door), when that is the best available source, impacts NPOV. In these cases, selected critical material, including sites and blogs of named former associates/followers and those notable within the NRM for analysis of NRMs, may meet the "particularly eminent" criteria relative to this subject alone (NRMs alone do not determine who is particularly eminent among their critics) for inclusion where other sources are not available and where the material is not libelous. The alternative view, which assumes that there is a ready economically justifiable market for published and academically reviewed books critical of Sahaja Yoga, and that everything else, simply isn't realistic, and erroneously assumes the Sahaja material is presumed more reliable because they have the resources to polish the presentation.

In this one case, it is particularly interesting that Sahaj advocates find the even University of Virginia site unacceptable, since the site is considered by NRM critics to be more apologetic to NRMs and excessively cautious regarding critical claims. Again, the lack of formally published, academically reviewed material is an unavoidable by product of the relative lack of mainstream academic interest in Sahaj. The article needs an appropriate balance. That is why I continue to urge that we need to balance WP:V, WP: NPOV and WP:NOR here, both in letter and in spirit. The article as it stands is so suspect, so far from NPOV, and so below Wikipedia standards as to be unacceptable.

Now there is room for debate on the interpretations of some of these points, but what the article clearly needs is the proper balance of skepticism and criticism, including responsible critics of aspects of the unorthodox Sahaja dogma itself. This requires more NPOV editors and experts in the field not associated with the NRM or similar NRMs to develop a balance that is clearly lacking. Nearly every statement in the current article has an implied but unstated preface of "according to the organization and its followers and advocates", and is not confirmed by neutral third party observers and not uncontroversial and/or undisputed. To the extent that is the case, reasonable and appropriately best sourced skeptical and critical claims and material can merely make reasonable assertions and do not not have to be undisputed and confirmed as totally accurate by some neutral third party to be suitable for the article.

Therefore, the acceptable resolution IMO should be: (1) an acknowledgement by the Sahajists in question that the burden of proof is on those who meet the Wikipedia criteria for COI by a pattern of assertive advocacy for an advocacy NRM they are close to or associated with to demonstrate they are not COI, POV editing; (2) that because of this they should gracefully acknowledge good faith assessments that they are COI, POV editing, and modify their language and actions accordingly; (3) they should acknowledge that the burden of proof should be on those with a COI regarding editing of skeptical/critical material and in responding to bona fide claims of suppression of material they consider critical; and (4), that if they open the door by adding statements or citing NRM material making a religious, medical or scientific claim, or make claims about critics, particularly an extraordinary claim, the demands for and burden of proof on supporting evidence are proportionate to the extraordinariness and controversy surrounding the claim, and reasonable, critical/skeptical best sourced responses are warranted and do not require a higher burden of proof than the assertion. Anyway, that is my good faith desired resolution on this issue. --Dseer 08:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

References to links like "Official Response from Sahaja Yoga International to False Allegations" [[201]] for example, which the Sahajists have added to the article, make contentious, self serving and libelous assertions about critics and their truthfulness, character and motives, and should have been removed. Neither the subject or critics are entitled to present suspect libelous claims like this as fact. According to WP:RS, Sahaja Yoga materials require significant caution, and should be only used as a primary source with appropriate caution regarding their own views and activities when they are NOT contentious, self serving, self aggrandizing, making claims other than related to the subject about others, and presenting an extreme religious view, as is the case here. Appropriate critical balance is required. Bottom line, this is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a recruiting platform for NRMs or a vehicle for effectively swamping and/or defaming and silencing critics and their responses. --Dseer 08:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dseer, actually, I did mention that you should take your differences to a talk page earlier today when editing the Mata Amritanandamayi article, but hey, if you wish to blow off some steam, feel free. Just don't say that all your edits are good faith ones.

Why waste my time on your talk page? As a Sahajist (a true believer in your guru being the Adi Shakti, answering below), you have an obvious COI which you have applied critical links while not saying anything about Sahaja propaganda such as the "facts" link above which provides no proof that critics are lying and immoral, etc., as charged. The existing title needs some clarification if it were to be listed here, and there is no point in it being here when you suppress the critics. Your edits here prove you shouldn't really have much to do with editing the SY article at all, and that may be where this is heading. As for the Mata Amritanandamayi article, I find your approach unhelpful. --Dseer 00:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's just courtesy, instead of smearing my name around with your imaginary claims, you could discuss your issues with my edits without all the accompanying theatrics. As an editor who has been active on many articles regarding spiritual teachers and teachings, your assertions are bit rich coming from you. Do you have a COI? What does the fact that an external link expresses detractors of the movement in a less than favorable light have to do with anything? Just a few days you described this link as a source. Critical links are not being suppressed, if justification is given for keeping them - something that more often than not doesn't happen, which some editors being more keen to disparage other editors than justify their own edits. Sfacets 00:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no effort of "smearing" your name around, but unaware editors should be informed of your COI as a confirmed Sahajist and SY proponent, particularly when you are editing on other gurus besides your own. It was perfectly appropriate to refer to your COI and editing at that site. Your edits at Mata Amritanandamayi repeatedly supporting the supposed relevance of an isolated outbreak of measles seemed at first glance extremely dubious but you did go with the flow. I now accept your explanation that you deleted scientific fact from that article on technical grounds which fall within the elements of good faith presumption, but which also fall within your unhelpful pattern. It is telling that you take time to request citations as if there were not any when that same time could be used on google to provide the readily available citation. It is frankly much easier working with editors who try and build on what others have done, but that is your pattern, and talking won't change it at all. As for the issues with the SY link which makes libelous assertions against critics, the point is you have repeatedly excluded a comparable by critical link [202] and I was just reflecting your own logic back. I see no reason to feature the libelous SY link under the given title which only has value as a response to the criticism you have excluded. But I have no problem if both are listed as EL, and explanatory comments are added to clarify that Wikipedia takes no position on the issue of falseness. Regarding this article, as a Sahajist and proponent of SY, IMO your COI edits have proven that you are in no position to edit this article in a way that fosters NPOV. Thus, I would advocate that your role here should be a secondary one to make sure SYs case is adequately presented, not a primary "owner" of the article. That is not to say that many of your edits here have not benefited Wikipedia since a class of styles is a necessary part of the mix here, but regarding SY related topics you are like Hugo Chavez writing about Fidel Castro. You talk about my COI, but I do lots of homework on these subjects and on the cultic frame of mind, and what I work for is a concise discussion of all sides, which means adding missing information and putting a balanced perspective on information where needed, not the flooding of an article with excess PR fluff and unbalanced suppression of critical information by advocates of respective NRMs. IMO, there is a reason why all the religions that SY attempts to lay claim to do not accept those claims, and why SYs claims about the significance of religious experiences are not accepted either, that needs appropriate attention. --Dseer 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Naturally, Sfacets, as a Sahajist, you would refuse to discuss the libelous Sahaja Yoga "Facts" link. You asked what was libelous, and then when I provided it in context for discussion, you deleted it, including my comments. Again, let me point out to all the most libelous and totally unsubstantiated statements put out by your guru's organization in that libelous link are:

"An organized attempt by a small group of dissatisfied ex-practitioners of Sahaja Yoga" "Most of these people were asked to leave Sahaja Yoga for reasons of immoral misconduct or financial impropriety" "These people are now used by some fundamentalist groups" "They are trying to orchestrate an internet media campaign in an attempt to dissuade genuine seekers from finding the truth" "Evil spirited people have in the past tormented the great incarnations, sufis, saints other great souls. They were the kind of people who fought Mohammed, killed Zarathustra, crucified Christ or poisoned Socrates....authors of such defamation and calumnies...these evil-minded people. The mediocrity expressed in making false allegations on the internet web-sites by a few disgruntled ex-yogis must be recognized for what it is: failed yogis who want to prevent others from achieving what was beyond their reach". "We know those who are writing these false articles against Sahaja Yoga and their motives behind it".

Obviously, though the comments are reflective of the nature of your cultic minded group, this is the most vile libel, even accusing critics of being like those who killed the prophets and saints, and crucified Christ, far worse than the true but unflattering statements made by critics backed up with pictures and medical records. It shows the depths of your COI that you would defend this vile link as informative while suppressing milder critical links. Therefore, the vile link you are definding, while it does show what you think about evil minded critics, sets a standard which would allow those far milder critical links (who provide evidence to support their claims) also. The purpose of the article is not to indulge your COI, recruit members, or give information on the SY position on everything ad infinitum as you desire, but create an NPOV, encyclopedic article. --Dseer 07:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have two questions for you; 1) Could you give an instance where the SY facts site was used as a reference and 2)what is a Sahajist? Appreciate your input, Sfacets 11:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

RMHP reliable source dispute at SY and LOGRTAC articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to present context for how the RMHP research evidence on the article's talk page was ignored, and also to rebut any objections to this context.

My connection to this case is through List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC), where Sfacets and I are both regular editors, and the further connection of reliable sources in common with Sahaja Yoga, where I've been an occasional editor. I have identified Sfacets as a true believer in Sahaja Yoga. True believers are notorious as ideologues, for engaging in psychological denial, and having a failure of consensus reality on anything related to the subject of their belief.

Overall, I think Sfacets strategy to avoid article consensus is ~~proactively~~ removing criticism sources, then Wikilawyering endless quibbles and details about restoration, then ignoring or miscalling consensus in a carelessness resembling "willfull blindness", then kicking the can down the road to some new issue, and starting the process all over again. There is an occasional hard-fought concession to consensus, but minimal progress toward consensus overall. It's very discouraging and time wasting to try to edit the SY article.

Sfacets is a long-time opponent of LOGRTAC, and lists his opposition to it on his user page. While he is an overall opponent, I welcome his POV at LOGRTAC. I have seen him unreasonably oppose consensus only when Sahaja Yoga is involved. Sfacets has made a number of good edits to LOGRTAC, and I have occasionally quoted him in support, but also he's made a few bad ones. Recently Sfacets carelessly removal-edited a valid source: 2006-12-24T20:58:50 Sfacets ("Is Seventeen Magazine considered a reliable source? Seriously doubt it."). I replied 2006-12-24T21:38:21 Milomedes ([...] "Sfacets, it's lame editing to rm a standing source *before* you vet it."), but he didn't check his work or restore the source, which is a disruptive burden on other editors. In fact, Seventeen Magazine is the world's leading teen magazine, a flagship of Hearst Communications (the newspaper empire), and has a staff of 40, meaning it's thoroughly fact-checked reliable.) ~~That source still hasn't been restored.~~ [On 2006-12-25 Will Beback restored both groups with sources to whom Sfacets had objected, Seventeen Magazine and Jewish Times.] This kind of carelessness for some edits combined with Wikilawyering for others is inconsistent with the balancing and centering that yogas are supposed to promote. As a practical matter, such inconsistency also pushes tolerance by fellow editors to its limits.

I, on the other hand, am a reporting proponent of LOGRTAC, though I'm very concerned that the reporting be regular (by LOGRTAC's consensed rules), that the rules be consensed as reasonably fair, and that the resulting list reasonably meets the content expectations of global citizens as represented by the POVs of various editors (for example, "cult" is a word with about eight meanings, "NRM" does not replace "cult", cults engage in [abuse,] excessive control, and exploitation of members, and major religious groups are no longer cults, even if they formerly were).

LOGRTAC is frequently opposed by members of those 80 to 250-some groups who are listed as having been referred to as cults, because they don't like the decision by global citizens and their governments to engage in "cult-watching", in wake of the security fears provoked by about 10 high-profile destructive cult crimes. The principal cult watching theory (presented by the 1995 government French Report) is that potential destructive cults will do small things generally against the law, before engaging in major crimes, and that cult watching will halt the legal infractions before they grow into major crimes. Governments in many countries are believed to have implemented this cult watching theory. By my statistical estimate, of the 3000-5000 USA cults, only 2-4% are ever seriously cult-watched, due to not getting along with their neighbors.

Sahaja Yoga apparently is or has been the subject of cult watching [, as mentioned in the French Report, and there was a UK incident that suggests a probable cause for listing them]. In one case reported by RMHP, SY members were confronted by police in the street at an SY function held in the Albert Hall, UK, where a protester claimed those members had engaged in assaultive behaviors. This is exactly the kind of minor lawbreaking that global citizens want to know about, to prevent the rise of another cult like the Branch Davidians, who were notorious for flouting the USA immigration laws.

I assume Sfacets is doing everything possible to prevent this SY-Albert Hall police incident from being reported in Wikipedia. One way he tried to do this was take down RMHP as a reliable source, and if that happens, LOGRTAC loses an important set of sources. In case of failing to suppressed RMHP as a whole, he also engaged in an unlimited set of quibbles about the actual SY report at RMHP.

On 2006-10-06T04:03:08 Sfacets tagged the master LOGRTAC entry for Religious Movements Homepages Project (RMHP) at a University of Virginia website, with {{Verify credibility}}. I briefly checked reliable source vetting of RMHP, removed the tag, and replied by edit summary: 2006-10-06T17:50:41 Milomedes "Checked "Religious Movements Homepage Project" at U of Virginia - totally credible professor(s); article titles appear to be balanced viewpoints)".

Responding to a request for comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sahaja_Yoga#Examining_RMHP_reliable_source_policies, I posted a large amount of research on the reliability of RMHP. Step by step I provided detailed answers to every objection from questioning the professor's supervision of the original student author, through the applicable Wikiguide policies. Sfacets didn't wait for the debate to wind down (I hadn't finished posting in debate) or for a consensus to be polled or summarized (see that below).

On 2006-11-17T22:22:32 Sfacets (rmv entry with unreliable source -please refer to Talk:Sahaja_Yoga#Request_for_Comment:_Religious_Movements_source for rationale and discussion.) removed *[[Vishwa Nirmala Dharma]]/[[Sahaja Yoga]] [http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sahaja_yoga.html {{Sup-sources|RM}}] from LOGRTAC. I then posted a further long rebutal (Milo 16:28, 23 Nov 2006) on the SY talk page, to which there was no further reply.

The summary to the RMHP debate was done by Will Beback in section "Archiving".

"Have we decided there's a consensus that the "Religious Movements" is reliable? You asked for input and most if it seems to favor it. -Will Beback · † · 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. The editors doing the bulk of the editing (ie you, me and Sfacets) have yet to agree. Sahajhist 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That's why the RfC was held, to bring in new voices. Those new voices seemed to think that it is a reliable source. -Will Beback · † · 04:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually the majority of views expressed here seem to be to discard it. Sfacets 06:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
HeBhagawan: ...you can't take what they have to say as definitive. At most, you can use it to prove that some people say what they are saying--as evidenced by the fact that they are saying it in the article.
Lethaniol: Use the information but dont quote from it as fact - if you need the facts search for them in the references.
NovaSTL: Valid and credible source.
Milo: RMHP may not be perfect in theory, and it may not have a future without Prof. Hadden, but I conclude that in Wikipedia practice, it's good enough to 2003 at least, to hold its existing reliable source consensus.

So we have two editors who argued we can use it as a source with attribution and two who said we can use it as a regular source. Andres made some comments but he never gave a clear opinion. None of the respondents said that it shouldn't be used at all. -Will Beback · † · 11:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC) "

Yet as far as I know, the RMHP source was never added the SY page, and also has not been restored at LOGRTAC. I conclude that Sfacets' true believer Sahaja Yoga article agenda mattered more to him than the consensus policies of the encyclopedia project.

Sfacets did accept research and consensus on the bogus cancer statement debate, and the unverifiable "70%" endorphins statement debate. Also he did accept a standard "Criticisms" section found in most religion articles.

There are few items in "Criticisms", but it's seriously underpopulated. Most seriously, it lacks mention of the SY-Albert Hall incident with an external link to the expanded story. Sfacets has opposed criticisms from both the right and the left. I pointed out to him that accepting both criticisms made SY look like the moderate center, but this good PR strategy apparently fell on deaf ears.

SY is not to be criticized, I think because the SY guru claims to be Goddess omniscient and infallible, which is another important left criticism that is not in the section. The criticism from the right is that the guru has not been openly proclaimed and worshipped as Goddess. The issue here seems to be that Sfacets refuses to recognize small SY's yet smaller expert rivals, expertise about the specific issues for which they presistently (six years) criticize (i.e., Goddess worship). Who is any more expert than they? But then SY is not to be criticized.

More mundanely, Sfacets also seems to be insisting on duplicating a lot of chakras charts instead of charting just the differences between SY's and the standard chakra system. I think this goes a lot less to the no-criticism example set by the guru, than it does to the complaint of WP:ownership.

While I find SY superficially appealing, I judge a belief system more by what its members are like. All politics is local. I think about why citizens might not want to live near an SY ashram. I personally would not want to risk having to be constantly frustrated in dealing with Sfacets and Sajahist over consensus neighborhood issues about the operation of the ashram — parking, noise, hours of work, and so on. I think that I would begin calling the police or the mayor over every issue. Of course, that would likely result in cult watching of SY's local ashram, which in turn gives me some insight as to why SY is on international cult watching lists. I hope this insight is of some behavioral improvement use to Sfacets and Sajahist at Wikipedia. Milo 08:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Re-edited 09:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like you have me all figured out, not a mean feat for someone you have never met in person. Congratulations. Do you seriously believe that you can categorize me in the true believer category? That would imply I would have no rational or logical thoughts of my own, which I do.

Not even close to all, and I'm not trying very hard to figure you out. If I read everything you ever wrote just to win a side debate, I'd be setting a bad example when I'm arguing against fanaticism. I don't need to meet you in person, any more than I need to meet a pen pal or Paul of Tarsus to know their beliefs. At WP I can know writers even better through interaction.

"True believer" is the best-known phrase I could think of. Hoffer's book as WP-reported deals in stereotypes that sound heavily influenced by big city cultures who debate Marxian class analysis. My quick take is that Hoffer's quoted statements are half? wrong, but some of the correct ones are brilliant insights. Hoffer seems to focus on proletarian mass movement "fanatics", rather than intellectuals of the same mind set who are usually known as ideologues.

I know ideologues well. They are normal or superior intellect people in all other areas of life, who begin to think and act from a program whenever the current situation reminds them of their true belief. The more rigidly programmed a person is, the easier it is to figure them out. People who lack these programs are classically known as freethinkers. Milo 09:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Overall, I think Sfacets strategy to avoid article consensus is proactively removing criticism sources, then Wikilawyering endless quibbles and details about restoration, then ignoring or miscalling consensus in a carelessness resembling "willfull blindness", then kicking the can down the road to some new issue, and starting the process all over again."

Proactively removing criticism sources? You make it sound like I remove them outright withut discussion, which I don't. Following discussions quite a few sources and external links have been used.

Your removal of SY/RMHP at LOGRTAC sure looked that way. Maybe strike ~~proactively~~. Milo 09:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

"I assume Sfacets is doing everything possible to prevent this SY-Albert Hall police incident from being reported in Wikipedia."

Yes, absolutely, but not because it is a "bad" link, rather because I do not see how one incident involving one person is notable. Maybe I am being blinded by all that "true belier" stuff. Sounds sticky. Also the incident had nothing to do with any cult-watching activities by the government... not sure why you would connect the two.

SY is a small NRM, so one significant incident matters. Remember that this happened at UK-SY's annual flagship recruiting event at Albert Hall, when every member should have been on their best behavior. It further goes to being a police-specific incident, using a legal entanglements standard for cult watch reporting. It also provides a simple calculated estimate of proportional fanaticism, which is by this time well-known and obvious to global cult-watching police and their allies.

By using web research, I make a rough estimate of the SY regulars at Albert Hall, 1999, to be 500, with 4 reported goons among them. If SY grows to be a global religion of 10,000,000, there could be an army of 80,000 goons roaming the world. Even if SY only grows to 1 million, the goon militia could be 8,000, which is on the order of the estimated global size of al-Qaeda. 8,000 fanatical bullies are an obvious risk to human rights and public safety, with a future concern that they could arm like Church Universal and Triumphant, or the Branch Davidians, and/or turn destructive unprovoked like Aum Shinrikyo.

Your debate style is to quibble every detail of this estimate, without holistic insight as to what your neighbors think. Your global neighbors are frightened of this obvious little estimate, irrespective of your quibbles.

The correct PR way to handle this is the way ISKON and the Catholics handled their scandals. Admit to it, apologize for it, preach against it, and internally discipline your own membership to prevent it from happening again. Initiating that sort of corrective feedback loop is one thing that cult watching is supposed to accomplish.

Pardon, my cult-watching-connection thought was missing. Try this fix:

"Sahaja Yoga apparently is or has been the subject of cult watching, as mentioned in the French Report, and there was a UK incident that suggests a probable cause for listing them. In one case reported by RMHP, SY members were confronted by police in the street at an SY function held in the Albert Hall, UK, where a protester claimed those members had engaged in assaultive behaviors. This is exactly the kind of minor lawbreaking that global citizens want to know about, to prevent the rise of another cult like the Branch Davidians, who were notorious for flouting the USA immigration laws."

That's all the comments I have time for this session. Milo 09:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Step by step I provided detailed answers to every objection from questioning the professor's supervision of the original student author, through the applicable Wikiguide policies

There were also counter arguments, yours were not the only ones present, demonstrating how, even according the RMHP website it wasn't a reliable source as it relied on unqualified students as well as members of the public for input, and didn't mention any overview by qualified persons. I wasn't aware that formal concnsus needed to be made (it never was) but one think I can prove is that

SY is not to be criticized, I think because the SY guru claims to be Goddess omniscient and infallible, which is another important left criticism that is not in the section.

hen plese add it, by all means.

Sfacets has opposed criticisms from both the right and the left.

I have also opposed and removed pro-Sahaj websites and sources when these did not meet criteria following Wiki policy.

More mundanely, Sfacets also seems to be insisting on duplicating a lot of chakras charts instead of charting just the differences between SY's and the standard chakra system

How is the chart duplicating anything exept for the chakra names? I would like to know.

While I find SY superficially appealing, I judge a belief system more by what its members are like. All politics is local. I think about why citizens might not want to live near an SY ashram. I personally would not want to risk having to be constantly frustrated in dealing with Sfacets and Sajahist over consensus neighborhood issues about the operation of the ashram — parking, noise, hours of work, and so on. I think that I would begin calling the police or the mayor over every issue. Of course, that would likely result in cult watching of SY's local ashram, which in turn gives me some insight as to why SY is on international cult watching lists.

Thak you for your opinions.

The Sahaja Yoga article as well as other minority groups is under constant attack by "anti-cult" proponents, who are overwhelming in numbers and organized between themselves to coordinate edits on any article so that it meets their POV.

There are two main editors on The Sahaja Yoga article which are proponents of SY, and are attempting to build the article from the mess it was last year, to the well structured (albight unbalanced) one it is now.

I have no qualms about including criticisms, none at all, I have said so before. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but those opinions do not count unless backed sources that are both reliable and balanced. If you will refer to prior discussions on the SY talk page, or just read above to the justifications of my edits, you will see that all my edits were discussed, and backed by Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, both for sources and external links.

Once again I must ask that your comments be directed at the article and my edits. Giving your opinion on my character and your perceived view on my personality is almost a personal attack. Please keep this in mind, and do not question my intelligence, I am no mindless zombie. Sfacets 10:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

P.s I'm not sure what you meant by

The issue here seems to be that Sfacets refuses to recognize small SY's yet smaller expert rivals, expertise about the specific issues for which they presistently (six years) criticize (i.e., Goddess worship). Who is any more expert than they? But then SY is not to be criticized.

- could you elaborate? Thanks.

active?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is this dispute still active? Do you need another mediator? --Ideogram 09:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Add topic