Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Sahaj Marg/Archive001

Starting questions

I'd like to ask a few questions to understand where you stand as we start off in this mediation. Please try to keep your answers brief and avoid casting blame on other editors. Vassyana 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

1. What is best about the current state of the article?
2. What needs the most work in the current article?
3. What is the dispute exactly about regarding the sources, in your view?
4. What is your understanding of how WP:UNDUE should be applied?
5. How do you judge whether or not something is an extraordinary claim?

Responses

Sethie (talk · contribs)

1. Sethie appreciates the progress made over the last 2 months. He particularly apprecites the NPOV around the split or schism in lineages.
2. It is hard to choose one issue.... and if forced to, Sethie chooses the length and the number of quotes.
3. From Sethie's perspective there are two disputes around sources: 1) Accurately portraying what the sources say 2) How often can one source be used?
4. Sethie looks at undue weight in terms of what is the accepted paradigm "in the world" and how much weight/time/attention is given to a particular view in WP:RS's. Anything that is known or reported in those realms- gets "airtime." That which isn't gets slim to none.
5. For Sethie an extraordinary claims are something controversial (generally about a person) or outside the realm of accepted science.

Sethie will need to proceed slowly, due to lotsa issues and he will participate! Sethie 11:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat pandey (talk · contribs)

1. Article has now moved into a state which is fair and balanced, tnx to edits by Don.
2. Phelosophy and method, it should be balance and not advertising the groups POV only, media reports and govt. observations should be taken into account when refering to method and teaching's and the outcome of these aspects, groups theory should be referred to as "claimed by the group" and not represented as facts.
3. Living dead section should be part of the main article, dispute is regarding this only [1]
4. Claims like leader is God, represents inner divinity of human's and is the representative of THE ULTIMATE are extraordinary claim's, from my POV.
5. WP:UNDUE I find article fairly balanced in its current state. few more edits are required, may be we can wait for some more time to see the outcome of current edits by Don. and then come to any conclusion regarding WP:UNDUE

--Shashwat pandey 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Observations and questions

Please confirm or deny any observations I make, to ensure I have a correct perception of things, and answer any questions I may present. Please try to keep responses concise, but do not worry about length if it takes a bit to explain or answer. It is more important that I, and the other party, get a solid understanding of your view, than to keep it short. Thanks for your continued patience and cooperation as we talk things out. Vassyana 23:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1. (Observation) There is agreement that the article has moved towards a more neutral state.
2. (Question) Length and number of quotes, and presentation of philosophy & method were presented as needing improvement. Are these issues related? Are these issues related to the dispute over sources and their use? Could you name one or two things that could be done to improve these concerns?
3. (Question) Are there further sources that cover the same material? Could you describe some specifics of the disputed source? does anyone feel the source should be entirely excluded, or is that the feeling from some parties is that the source should be less heavily relied upon? What is your opinion about this source and the information it presents?
4. (Question) (I'm seeking further clarification on this issue.) Regarding WP:UNDUE and extraordinary claims, how does one create an objective standard that applies across all articles? Is an extraordinary claim something that would seem extraordinary to an average person? Is an extraordinary claim something that is contradictory to the main body of sources? Is an extraordinary claim something presented by one or few sources not presented by others? Is an extraordinary claim something that is contradictory to "common wisdom" or general mainstream views?

Responses

Sethie (talk · contribs)

1. Sethie definatley sees the article has moved towards a more neutral state.
2. For Sethie they are seperate issues though with a bit of overlap. In terms of quotes, Sethie is looking at the "teachings" section which is quite long, yet looks like it is roughly 85%+ just quotes. Sethie would like to see the quotes summarized and some of them removed. He doesn't see the "be like lions" section as neccesary, nor an entire paragraph on homosexuality.
3. Sethie thinks [[2]] is a slightly reliable source and is fine with a few citations from it, however to use a translation of one paper over and over, with a lot of material that isn't elsewhere, doesn't work for Sethie. And to be fair, some of the material from this source IS elsewhere too. Sethie doesn't dispute the reliability of the source so much as the overuse of it and accurately summarizing it.
4. Undue weight... if a view is not represented in a wide variety of sources, don't give it a "wide" :) place in the article. Per extraordinary.... Sethie does not have any issues with extraordinary claims in this article. Sethie loves your idea of an objective standard... and let him know when you have found it! :) Sethie 08:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat pandey (talk · contribs)

1. Yes article has moved to a balanced state.
2. I don't see any issue with number of quotes, as it reflects direct view without any WP:OR any translation may result in dispute related to WP:NOR as this is a controvertial issue. hence number of quotes are OK length may be reduced for better reading and page overview. Regarding section "Be like Lion" i am Ok with either it is there or removed, but view on Homosextuality is an important aspect, as it deal's with view of the group, relating to one section of the society and cannot be omitted in an encyclopedia article. It is an important section.
3. The source pointed by Sethie and accepted as reliable is used in section of Constant Rememberence and Obedience, in all 3 referencs are provided. In CR section, it can be trimmed to one, I don't see any heavey use of the reference, They are direct quotes from the leader, without any WP:OR.
4. One reliable source is enough, insted of several unreliable sources representing a view, which might give a picture of "wide" this needs further understanding of subject matter, as what can be accepted as widely accepted view and what cannot !
5. Extraordinary claims. Stated policy of the group, Leader is represntative of The Ultimate and it should be stated as a claim only and not as fact. I have never come across a represntative of the ultimate involved in court cases related to finance and control over property!! :)
6. Would like get your view regarding Living Dead [3] section which is the ultimate state for member's of the group, section is still under discussion, if it is not wiki i would like to make it wiki and then add it in the main article. kindly refer [4]--Shashwat pandey 06:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Points of dispute

1. "Be like lions."
2. Group views on homosexuality
3. Use, misuse and/or overuse of a single source
4. Differences of opinion about the use of quotes
5. Differing interpretations of undue weight and extraordinary claims.

Questions

1. Why is this section necessary or helpful to a reader? What about it is good/helpful? (Or if you disagree, feel free to explain why it is not.)
2. Why should this section be included or excluded?
3. Can additional reliable sources be found for the claims made by this source? Does the information provided by this source provide new material not found in other sources? Does this source make any claims that are contradictory to other sources?
4. How should quotes be used in Wikipedia, generally speaking? Are direct quotes preferable or is paraphrasing what sources claim preferable? How should we determine when quotes or paraphrasing should be used?
5. I have some questions about this, but I will ask them after other issues are clarified.

Responses

I have placed an additional comments line in case you have any further questions or comments, in addition to what we've covered.

1. Sethie believes that this section doesn't really add much to the article, especially since it already contains a section of SM values. Plus, it is just one more quote.
2. Sethie believes that the groups views on homosexuality are worthwhile in an encyclopedia. He doesn't however see the need for a whole quote or whole paragraph. That feels like undue weight to Sethie- the groups views on homosexuality have not recieved major media or scholarly attention.
3. Does not believe there are additional sources and he may be wrong. Some of the claims are collaberated, some are not. Sethie doesn't find any contradictory claims.Sethie 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Sethie agrees that quotes should be used sparingly, and only when the quote is significant, or meaning would be lost. For Sethie much less then 10% of an article should be quotes. Sethie 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional comments.

1. Be like Lion section, can be removed. not of much value.
2. Homosextuality section is important, and since there is much debate as what it is, hence direct quote are helpful with some NPOV explaination, I feel what currently is, is balanced, trimming might result in ommission of one POV, this section has been discussed between editor's before as well [5]
3. There are no contradictory claims for the source (could not find one) Source is again simply quotes from the leader, and observation of member's of the committee which studied the action of the group. Quotes from the leader can be found, (if searched) but interview of committee member's may not be availabe elsewhere.
4. For non-controvertial topic's paraphrasing can be used, but for controvertial topic's direct quotes may be safe to use.

Additional comments.

Page is under complete change, which i tried to prevent, can we get the original page back and put a lock on it, till this process is over ? as changes made can effect this process as well.--Shashwat pandey 12:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)