User talk:Cult free world/Proposed page

Step one would be translating it.... I am not sure how to proceede, do you speak French? Sethie (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is really circumventing the process. According to the AFD rules, a deletion review would be required to re-post the page. And, to conduct a deletion review, secondary sources are needed.

This page has absolutely no sources (not to mention no secondary sources), and it contains court cases only (some of which are misused, for instance, the last case is on a procedural/jurisdictional question, and not related to SRCM as a group). User:Willbeback has already noted court cases won't cut it without secondary source citation here, and, it merely repeats what was already in previous incarnations of the Sahaj Marg or Shri Ram Chandra articles.

I am absolutely open to an article but we must follow proper procedures, which means a deletion review. Before that, there has to be reliable and verifiable secondary sources, like academic sources and/or mainstream, vetted newspapers. I've suggested before that Cult Free search for English dissertations -- this would be a good start.

So, even before I look at the text, could you please (pretty please) provide the new material and secondary sources that would justify a deletion review? This will save us all time. Renee (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. As background for people reviewing this, the exact same primary sources as appear in this French article were researched and discussed ad nauseum on the now-deleted talk pages in English. (If I appear exasperated, this is why and my apologies.) We have had a problem with socks coming on as "new" users (e.g., see this). They bring the same primary sources, ask the same questions, and because the previous talk pages have been deleted we have to go out and re-research and re-write all of the same arguments (because we can't reference them to earlier discussions).

For example, we talked about various court cases, I learned how to use the Indian on-line court case system, spent a great deal of time analyzing what the documents really said and what the rulings really were, and then wrote all of this out on the talk page with appropriate citations. The consensus of the editors at that time was (a) court cases were being mis-represented in the article, and (b) that anyone can sue about anything they want, doesn't mean it's noteworthy or true; if it were noteworthy there would be secondary sources. There were none, so hence, the AFDs and subsequent deletions.

I'm really bummed I just can't reference those talk pages as I really don't want to re-hash the same issues. This is why I think it would be useful to simply start with what secondary sources are available. If there are some that are reliable and verifiable, then it is worth moving forward on the article. If not, then we need to wait until some appear.

Hope this gives some background. Renee (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I can speak french, will start working on it soon. --122.162.52.203 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The first thing translated in this document is one issue that was discussed in depth and discarded in the earlier deleted articles. Specifically, the French report on sectes.

This report was disallowed in the earlier Shri Ram Chandra Article because (a) it is in a foreign language (needs to be in English if included in this article), (b) it was a primary document and hence would need secondary documents to back it up (and none could be found), and (c) it was found to be unreliable and unverifiable by both the United Nations and the United States.

The United Nations conducted a special investigation into this 1995 report here, go to page 7, 1st line. Here is the citation: CHR 62nd 3/8/2006 E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.4 Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir - Mission to France. She found that the report contributed to a climate of general suspicion and intolerance towards the communities included in a list established further to a parliamentary report, and has negatively affected the right to freedom of religion or belief of some members of these communities or groups.

At the same time the European Union heavily criticized the report and an academic group in Italy published papers on how the French report violated religious freedom. Shortly thereafter, (and actually by the time of the UN visit) the French government distanced itself from this report (the original talk page of this article detailed the documents showing this, I will find if I have to) and has never published the list again. In 2004 the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom found violations of religious freedom due to the report

For these reasons (foreign language, primary source, discounted by the international community, no secondary source) we cut that report from the Wiki article. Renee (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Building blocks

We will user Brahma Kumari and Sahaja Yoga article in addition to what is there in french version. Statements in both these pages have gone through ArbCom review or Intense discussion from both sides.

• Step-1 translate the complete page, as is.
• Step-2 add references
• Step-3 Add more material to the article (with references)
• Step-4 Publish the article.

--talk-to-me! (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cult Free,

Please provide the secondary references first, or the page will risk getting deleted outright. This groups is not as notable as Brahma Kumari or Sahaja Yoga, for instance, as far as I know there are no books on it. This is why it was deleted in the first place.

So, the first step is, could you kindly provide the secondary references? If you have them they should be easy for your provide here as an act of good faith. Renee (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am unclear what the Bhrahma Kumaris page or the Sahaja Yoga articles have to do with this article.

Just to be clear, ArbCom absolutely refuses to get involved in content of articles. Only the actions of editors.

Your process sounds reasonable to me.... if all four steps are carried out, in the order you present, it should go fine. If you skip any, the article will most certainly be deleted. Renee's request also sounds reasonable to me. What new sources do you have that you didn't have last time?

I have thought about is some more and would like to offer a word of caution. If you do things the same way as you did as Rushmi or Shashwat, there is a very good chance all of your edits will be merely reverted and deleted and if you persist, there is a very good chance you will be permanently blocked. WP:RBI. Hence I would strongly advise you to turn over a new leaf, and/or provide new sources. Sethie (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Step 1

Step-1 is over, any issues with translations ? I don't speak the European french, but Canadian, hence i cannot claim 100 % accuracy, but to me it appears fairly good. Any comments ? Now we will move on to step-2, i.e adding references. --talk-to-me! (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many things which are not accurate in the article. I have just started to edit. First, the French report does not belong there unless you can find a mainstream English secondary source that backs it up. I've checked on the U.S. government sites and Sahaj Marg does not appear as a cult. The United Nations lists it as a non-governmental humanitarian organization, but I am hesitant to put that in this article as there is no secondary source for that either (and I agree that we must have quality secondary sources). Renee (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the first part of the article but it desperately needs some secondary sources. I have plenty of primary sources but they won't fly without secondary. I've even found a copy of the recent jan 2008 supreme court case where the Independent Arbitrator summarized all past court cases on pp. 31-33 with SRCM-Shah (Respondent, e.g., Saxena) and SRCM-Chennai (Complainant, e.g., Rajagopalachari) and concluded that:

"It is thus observed that the Respondent (Navneet Saxena) has miserably failed to make out any case before any of these courts, authorities except that matter before the Hon, Supreme Court is pending since last so many years." And further, the arbitrator found in favor of the Complainant, SRCM-Chennai, in the Supreme Court case referenced in this sentence. Unfortunately, this, like the other court cases, is a primary document, so I have not included it as the other court cases are not included either.

Unfortunately, when I put "Shri Ram Chandra Mission" or "Sahaj Marg" into Google news, not a single thing comes up, so I don't think this group is notable yet. Renee (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why have you removed all the court cases links ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cult Free World, This is a collaboration. I spent a lot of time going carefully through each line and correcting it after your initial translation. Please add references to this version. Others are welcome to edit it too.

Regarding the court cases, they are primary sources and do not meet Wiki source standards (e.g., see this). Further, at least one was mis-represented (i.e., the libel case). Please see the above final Supreme Court ruling by the independent arbitrator, which actually summarizes all of the previous cases. Unfortunately, because it's a primary source it can't be included either so please realize it doesn't matter if the source is positive or negative -- that's irrelevant. What matters is, is it a reliable and verifiable secondary source.

By the way, can you please provide the secondary sources here so we can all review and discuss them? This article will not survive a deletion review without new secondary sources. So, it might save time and frustration if you were willing to do this first.

Thank you, Renee Renee (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI arbitrator are not above court, and arbitrator case was for doamin dispute, which is overruled by supreme court, we are not here to interpret order's but to simply place the link, for any interpretation, plz bring in secondary sources, else, let the links remain there as they are. Moreover onus to give references is on the user's who is writing the lines and not on anyone else, no-one else can give reference to what YOU claim. I can give reference to what I have translated, plz don't rush, only step-1 is complete if you have any issue with translation point them out, so that we can remove the commented french section.

Also given you extreme biased edits, it will be in benefit of the article that you limit your edits on talk pages. --talk-to-me! (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Cult Free, My edits are neutral. I just want an article in line with Wiki policy and would appreciate you holding to the same ideal.

Regarding the court case above, read the quotation, "Respondent (Navneet Saxena) has miserably failed to make out any case before any of these courts..." The court cases you cite were either lower court or mis-represented.

But, it is a moot point anyways as they are primary sources and not suitable for an encyclopedia like Wiki, so neither good/bad/neutral belong here. What do belong are good quality secondary sources that are verifiable.

Why the resistance to providing the new secondary sources that are needed to survive a deletion review? Please, let's work together if you're serious about this. Renee (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Step-2

I have started to add references to all the statements translated from french. kindly have patience, this is not an article yet, allow me to complete it, after that you can add your view's as well, you can very well have another version of the same article on your userspace. but here kindly allow me to complete it. Kindly point out any issue with translation so that i can remove the commented french. --talk-to-me! (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cult Free, The French reference you added was disallowed and discussed above. To repeat, it is not a secondary source, it is in French, and the UN, the US and other major bodies discounted it and the French themselves distanced themselves from this 1995 report. If you can find a current secondary source in English on this, then go for it. Please follow Wiki guidelines. Renee (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a 1995 French report does not meet WP:R or WP:V. This point was discussed previously. From WP:V: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. See this too. Do you have any secondary sources for discussion? Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Again?

I noticed this page and this discussion today, was really surprised. To respect the Wikipedia process, I will continue to edit it, however I have serious concerns about repeating the tough time we went through last year, please see my concern here [1]. Need to know some valid and strong reasons for doing this. Duty2love (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Renee's Version

You can place your page and edit as much as you want here /Renee's version kindly allow me to write the article and provide references to what i write and not for what you write. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

4d-don's comments

I will re-state that I will stay out of this debate for the same reasons I left in September. The statements by all, the admins included, to justify their position is not WIKI according to me. To attribute to the UN or the US a position (see above), as Renee does with her statements is not accurate. It is like saying: "WIKI says", because Sethie or Dutu2love said.

The UN and US is not a "homogeneous" body... not FOR or AGAINST the article. These are "committees" and like all religions or cabals, they infiltrate all aspects of society, including the US and the UN (and WIKI). If there is a committee that "lists", there will come another "committee" to de-list. In an encyclopedia, we can only "report" the facts. SRCM was listed and then some other "committee" put re-strictions and clarifications on the use of the info to "marginalize" and "demonize" using the "black list". Religions, once merged with "nationlism", all develop "black lists". It is interesting to see the reaction to being listed as they do others. I like the approach of the Belgian Government. The Belgian Government simply lists the Books of the "harmful" sects on their site. http://www.ciaosn.be/

Anyway, I am getting involved again, and I did not want to... If you continue with this article, my suggestion is to at least start with the "disambiguation" of the two articles so that the members of both groups don't get into the long debates that were going on before the "disambiguation" .... And then, be happy with a STUB with only the FACTS for now, until the court case is settled...

Just my Humble Opinion...

Keep smiling...this too shall pass...

Safely tucked inside the ONE, where we live...

4d-don...

Ok, was not fully aware of all the hot exchanges before, as far as i can see, the french version is no more then a stub already, everything which is there can 100% be sourced, (as in case of Sahaja Yoga article) we will not add anything more to it, i.e we will skip step-3, but will provide references to everything which is there, MeThinks we can remove the history section, to reduce the article, and may be we need to give new definition for doctrine as there are two groups now, so we should take the doctrine of 1997 group as it appears to do good business, then the earlier version of this group.

Stub, to start with, is no issue, as that will save me a lot of effort. --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you work on the doctrine part to make it more accurate. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India

User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Newspaper clippings

I found two interesting newspaper clippings, do we need to upload these two article's which are currently in jpg format? or reference as is, is sufficient ? neither of the newspaper's maintain archive of their daily print, There is one more interesting report from Indian english daily The Pioneer, it appears that sexual abuse case also referrers to same report, but cannot comment on that as it would be WP:OR. Why were people shouting there are no secondary sources ? there are plenty, i have already added few. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please upload the clippings or refer to website where the jpg's are held. Renee (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How do we upload the image ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This explains how. You'll have to state copyright status. Alternatively, you can email it to me. My email is enabled. Renee (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why email to you ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to review it as well. If you can't upload, please email me too at marathi_mulgaa@yahoo.com. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Review of Sources

Dear Cult Free,

I've looked at the sources you've provided and so far they're exactly the same sources that were ruled unreliable and unverifiable in the earlier versions (which led to the articles being deleted). Also, as in previous articles you worked on, there is the problem pattern of making claims and providing a reference, but then when the reference is examined it does not support the claim.

I'll go through the references one-by-one here:

1. The first two are from the French govt and prompted the U.N. and U.S. investigation (quotations above), who found them to be inaccurate, grouping new religious movements in with bona fide cults. Sahaj Marg does not appear on any U.S., British, or other English-language cult list. It does not appear on Rick Ross' list (though I don't think Ross is a reliable source as he is self-published with a clear anti new religious movement POV). There is absolutely no evidence this is a cult, and the site you pulled this from is clearly a self-published, promotional site. To the contrary, Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra Mission is listed as a humanitarian non-governmental organization with the United Nations, here.

2. The third cite is a self-published article, no vetting of information.

3. The fourth cite is a one-page writ with no information in it about what it means. Further, it's a court case and needs a secondary source to be a reliable, verifiable source, see this.

4. The fifth source is in Hindi, does not meet WP:V.

5. The sixth source may be valid, but we need to review because you have previously made claims not supported by references. For example, are you pulling a quotation from someone who said this, but then the police declined to arrest and said no, it was legal? That is my understanding of the situation and when we reviewed a source like this in previous versions (can't remember if it was the same source, probably is). Re-reviewing the article should settle the question.

7. Under the "Media Reports" section, first, these are all in French. Second, they are all self-published, anti-cult blog sites. Please see WP:V or WP:R.

8. Under Court Cases, you label the last case "Sexual Abuse Cases," but as you know, the allegations of sexual abuse were ruled by the district court as "prima facie libelous and defamatory." (page 4, #5) And, the court case you cite to make your point actually dismissed the appeal to have the lower court case quashed, saying, a "Prima facie offence under section 307 I.P.C. is appearing against the accused applicant [the Pioneer newspaper]. It is not a case where charge sheet may be quashed." Here is the full ruling and here is the summary judgement. I am fairly certain that repeating claims found defamatory and libelous by both a district and high court, and then repeating this claims, is a violation ofWP:BLP.

This kind of mis-representation makes it difficult to assume good faith regarding the representation of sources. To work together there must be honest representation of sources and there must be the provision of bona fide reliable and verifiable sources (not blogs, self-published, or primary sources). Renee (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Given your extremely biased view about this cult, no fruitful discussion is possible with this level of inflexibility. As such i request you to kindly do not disrupt my attempt in writing the article, I will for sure, get WP standard confirmed by other user's before published it. Thanks for all your contributions till now. I have placed a version for you, kindly edit it, and comeup with an alternative version if you can, but here, let me work on it. --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Shows up on Google

This article shows up on Google search for "Sahaj Marg India" hence I will be treating it like a published article. Sethie (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I have removed all the unsourced junk, along with all the sources and material which fails WP:RS.

I have also moved the page so that it does not get any google hits. Sethie (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cult free world/talk to me and Sethie

Sethie...

If you have already decided and are simply going to delete this article, please do not waste our (my) time attempting to write it or offering some contribution to the main editor...

Cult free World/Talk to me... I feel like I'm wasting my time editing an article that is listed under "miscellany for deletion" by an "admin", but I will give you what you asked for in your e-mail to me, and you can do what you want (around the SRCM(California) and Sahaj Marg, concept of God) and you can do what you want with it.

Although the concept of God to Chari has many descriptions in his many books (primary source) as most "such groups" are want to to (to intentionally confuse or to have the "targets" continuously keep looking for clarification that never comes or comes in more "confused" and confusing words). On their site http://www.sahajmarg.org/youth/story92.html, Chari is quoted as saying to the "children" (he would not lie to them would he?) :

Q: If God is formless and without attributes, why in the numerous books of literature in Sahaj Marg is God always referred to as "Him"?

Chariji: God is male. Nature is female.

In another book by this organization, there is this:

To Whom is the Mission Prayer Addressed and Why

"Babuji himself has written that ultimately He (pointing upwards) is the real Master . . . and all the human Masters who come on this world, on this earth, are His representatives. If that is so, then why do we address the prayer, "Oh, Master" and not "Oh, God". Now today I am giving you the answer for that. Because God, it is a living God who is before you in the form of the Master ...this is an embodied flesh-and-blood divinity . . . who can understand our needs; who can understand our temperaments; who can sympathize with us, being human himself; who can accept our failings, perhaps having failed himself in some way . . ."

Their concept of God and the role of the "Master" is pretty clear if one wants to see...The Guru replaces God as their "male" God is un-attainable according to them and most other "cults of personality". That is the "cult" part...Giving to a person a "god-like" qualtity akin to GOD, the Male, according to Chari, not Babuji. The "brighter world" (akin to the Christian and Muslim heaven?)is also a concept from Chari, not Babuji. The chanelling from Beyond the Grave in "Whispers from the Brighter World" is also from Chari, not Babuji.

I would say that the concept of God to the SRCM changes with the GURU or the writer of the many articles written by preceptors and other "biased" but mostly inspired by Chari, the "living" Master. Writers inspired by Babuji are not published by this group to my knowledge. I never hear about Babuji's theology of 16 rings and "egg-shaped" things near the "central region", but we hear about Chari's spritualism of "mediums" and chanelling", and the Brighter World and The "maleness" of God. etc (Spiritualism or Spirituality?).

If you look in other speeches since our making Chari aware of his "flawed theology", he tries to "brush it off" with other descriptions of the "attributes" of the ONE (what he calls the Male God) that are just as "arrogant" and not "thought-out", as his claims to know that God is MALE... Chari is in a "reaction" mode around his statements about the ONE (what he calls GOD)...He does not know and is just making as many statements as he can to "counter" any criticism and not deal with his own written statement on his own site to children, that GOD IS MALE... (is that PRIMARY source? and hence not "acceptable?)

One can't make more clear what SRCM and Sahaj Marg has "muddied" so much...

Maybe Sethie or another admin can "un-muddy" this issue for us and show what WIKI is capable of...

4d-don--don (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Don- you know me better then that. 99 out of 100, I play by the rules. I worked very patiently with Shashwat before.

A few things:

A-this is not an article yet.

B- I do not have the power to delete a user talk page or an article on my own. 

C- If you have been following the vote on the mfd, until Shashwat put in the unsourced nonsense and used lame sources, I was in favor of him keeping this page.

D- You calling Shashwat CFW is absurd. You know who he is and I know you know. So let's at least ;) wink about it if you are going to call him that!

E- Your and Shashwat's ongoing refusal or inability to learn the basics of wikipedia policy is getting to the point of absurdity! (Though I will give Shashwat credit, he is BEGINING to learn the ropes, a little).

F- You humor and attitude are a warm refresher. 

G Please learn about wikipedia and how it operates, or leave. 

H The rest is silence.Sethie (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Constructive Feedback

Dear CFW,

You asked for constructive feedback so here goes.

I think you might not understand what counts as a secondary source because you keep claiming you have lots of them and there's not a single one in there. A secondary or third-party source is one that "analyzes and interprets primary sources", is a "second-hand account of an historical event" or "interprets creative work". It also states that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets research results" or "analyzes and interprets scientific discoveries". What is happening here is you are using primary sources, like SRCM sites, government reports, court docs, (i.e., documents that are the first generation report or discussion of various topics) and then using them to support claims you make, which is original research.All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Willbeback noted this here, so you know that it's not just me saying this.

That's only part of it, the other part is that the source must be reliable, that is, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Further, exceptional claims need exceptional sources. You make many claims in this page that you back up with various primary sources that are just plain wrong. One example is the "brighter world," which is complete original research on your part (i.e., you selectively choose various quotations from the literature to support your view of what this is). It is not a core belief, for example. It is mentioned in passing that when one dies, one goes to the "brighter world" (like, the "other side" or "heaven" or any of a number of references to where one goes when one dies). Then, separate from that, there is one book called, "The Brighter World," which was written by some woman who happened to be a member of the group and SRCM published it. It is the only channeled book of the entire literature and somewhat novel in Sahaj Marg. So, to state that mediumship and channeling is a core belief is entirely false. No one engages in such things beyond this one women, it is treated as novel in the group, and it is nothing central to the practice of Sahaj Marg. But, based on your OR you're trying to present it as a central belief. This is the problem with OR.

Another example of OR is where you talk about the "split" in the group and then cite a pending court case. There was not a split in the classic sense; a very small group, namely Babuji's grandson and family and no more than ~20 persons, thought the succession should be through blood (this compared to the 100,000+ thousand that followed Babuji's court-verified letter (the courts verified that Babuji's grandson's group forged a letter). Babuji's grandson filed numerous court cases and has never won in court. Having said all of this, if this were a notable issue (i.e., a "split"), it would have been covered in a mainstream press (not a tabloid), and it wasn't. You are engaging in OR by making claims and linking to one-page writs.

So, we need reliable and verifiable secondary sources. The only one in your reference list that remotely resembles a reliable source is the magazine article in Australian Yoga Life. I tried using this in the previously deleted content and it was rejected because the person who wrote it was a member of Sahaj Marg. If it was rejected then, surely it should be rejected here. Renee (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work Sethie. Renee, I agree with what you wrote above about the Brighter World in Sahaj Marg. What Cult Free wrote here is completely inaccurate and not supported be even the primary SRCM works. I think what user 78.129.175.218 wrote here is NPOV and accurate and have replaced Cult Free's OR with this. Sadly, it just contains a primary source too, like the rest of the article, but it's at least accurate now. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on 4d-don's post

Consider this scenario - "A new user starts a page about Sahaj Marg, starts putting all negative POV about this organization, its guide or members, then other WP users try to work with it to conform to WP standard, nothing works. The new user has some associates who are so filled with negative POV themselves that even while saying I want to stay out of it, they end up posting a blog entry along with it." Now play this over and over again and we come to this page where you are now.

Admins: This is the very reason, last september pages on Sahaj Marg were deleted and for a very good reason. There are no verifiable or reliable secondary sources, just primary sources and lots of OR. The group Sahaj Marg does not appear on any English language cult group and as 4d-don points out above, these French-language reports (French and Belgium) put every group that was not mainstream on the list. But, this is all besides the point. The reason this page should be deleted is because (a) it is reposted material from previously deleted content, (b) the material is in no way about what this organization is about, (c) after all of this hand-wringing, opining, assertions, claims, and libel not a single reliable or verifiable secondary source has been produced, and (d) all of this is a clear misuse of an excellent tool called Wikipedia. Please delete. Duty2love (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Which one of the source is not as per WP standard ?--talk-to-me! (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

To start, all of the sources from SRCM websites or formal groups (like the U of Maryland site) are considered primary sources because they are from the group or its members itself. These sources are the primary or initial generator of knowledge. These types of sources are okay for non-controversial and indisputable facts like location of headquarters, year group began, current leader, etc.. The reason that primary sources cannot be used to "explain" certain practices or features of the group is that the text is selectively chosen from a vast amount of literature to support certain claims. For instance, Vassyana once wrote that that's the reason you can't use religious texts to write an article, because otherwise you could claim that the Bible encourages self-mutilation and then pull out passages like, "it is better to pluck out one's eye..." and so forth. Obviously, this statement was being used as an illustration and is not to be taken literally, but that's the reason that primary sources are not valid or reliable.

Second, court cases are considered primary documents because of the same problem above (see [2]). That is, someone could select out testimony and discussion that was later ruled inaccurate or worse, libelous, and say that's what the case was about when in fact, that was just a piece of evidence that was later found false. That's why you need a third-party, reliable source, that reported or interpreted the issue (like a scholarly legal journal or mainstream press with a vetting and fact-checking system).

Third, on English Wikipedia, one needs English-language sources so that editors can scrutinize and evaluate their veracity.

Fourth, government documents are primary sources, because again, they are the initial generator of knowledge or claims. i.e., The government is making the primary claim. For instance, regarding the French reports (besides the fact that they are French), the French govt made a primary claim. The United Nations conducted an investigation into these primary claims and found the claims to be inaccurate and offbase. Hence, if you want to quote anything it should be the U.N. report. If a third-party souce creates question about the reliability and accuracy of the primary report, then we should not use the primary source.

I think your best bet of getting an article that would pass deletion review is to look for scholarly journal articles on the group. Usually, these scholarly journals are peer-reviewed and have a high standard of accuracy. Best, Renee Renee (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as......

This page gets significant placement on Google, I will revert all crap out of it. Sethie (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit's

I welcome constructive edits like Don has done, do not remove anything, if you want to contribute, then kindly add.--talk-to-me! (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Only two sections are remaining, Achievements and Controversies and criticism. Hopefully they will also be completed soon !!--talk-to-me! (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize that all of the sources are primary from the group itself? Renee (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your input Renee, but we do not need them. feedback will be taken from community via RfC and not by a person who does not wish to see this article on wikipedia. for your reference, kindly see Sahaja Yoga and Brahma_Kumari articles to understand how articles are written on wikipedia. You have already nominated the page for deletion several times. --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you cannot pick and choose who works with you on Wikipedia. It is a consensus model. I am part of that community as is any of the other editors here. As you know, any article of previously deleted content is totally justified to be speedily deleted again, as noted here. You know full well the nomination for deletion is because this is previously deleted content with no new secondary sources.

I would love an article on Sahaj Marg with verifiable and reliable sources. Looking forward to seeing them. Renee (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you really love to see an article about it, then all you need to do is to stay away, behavior like this and nomination for MfD does not indicate what you state above.... neither your attempt to manipulate wikipedia user's [3] confirms that you really love to see an honest article about Sahaj Marg. --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Medium section

I think some of it needs to go, though I think some of it is salvageable. Sethie (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sethie and Murathi,

I'm not sure if I agree with what you've posted Murathi as I think the whole thing should probably just be cut. Sethie, for clarification, the idea that a medium gives daily messages is total OR on CFW's part and he's probably assuming this group does what the BK's do since he worked on that page a lot (it's like he's mixing the practices). Please read the quotations he provides and you'll see they are fragments and/or that they don't support his claims that this is a central practice.

First, read what he excerpts from the current guru about the book, i.e., "my invitation to the reader is to set aside all preconceived notions and prejudices..."). This shows the guru recognizes that a channeled book is not normal in the practice and then he asks people to "judge with their hearts" whether or not the book rings true. This quotation also refers to the fact this it was one woman who did this mediumship and that it is not a group practice. When I read this quotation I think, okay, this is a new thing that the guru is not sure how people will take it so he just asks them to "judge with their hearts" what they think about it. How can it be a central feature of the practice if it's brand new, presented as novel, and people are told form their own opinions about it?

Regarding the daily messages part (where CFW makes it sound like this woman gives daily messages like in the BK), this is total OR too. What CFW refers to is that the book is available on-line -- one can subscribe to receive a page a day or one can review the whole book at a time in the archives. This was done because the hard copy of the book was very expensive and the group wanted to make it available for free.

These examples illustrate the danger of using primary sources because of the OR that goes on. To me it seems a bit WP:UNDUE to signal out one book of the practice, but I guess since it's novel (I don't know though -- is this done in other articles?).

I think we should either delete the section (does it sound promotional?) or we can add that many of the books are available on-line and provide a link?

Having said all of this, my main problem with the whole article is that there are absolutely no secondary sources so this is all kind of a meaningless exercise. Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow... I made the mistake of trusting Shashwat.... I assumed he was being honest with the citations. I will not make that mistake again. Sethie (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with one user associated with this page

Here is where an unsubstantiated and groundless vandalism report was removed by an admin [[4]]. It was so groundless he/she didn't even bother to comment. Sethie (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Here an ANI report is "turned around," the user makes false complaints and the admins in turn complain about him! [[5]].

Here an admin removes the users complaint from his talk page: [[6]] Sethie (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sethie. I've moved this to the end so we can add on to it if need be. Renee (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Over

I hope i will be able to complete the article now, soon enough, without any disruption from Sethie, Renee and Marathi_mulga.

I welcome input from duty2love and Don. --talk-to-me! (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Need help

Can anyone provide link and references for achievements section ? need to find some more, in-order to balance the article.--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

no libel please

Dear Cult, The MFD was closed because the current content of the page was neutral, without libel. Please review what the closer wrote, particularly in the "Discussion" section. Specifically, he pointed that the COI collateral attack (regarding the blogging as well as the libel) were actually against you and your various comments and not the current content. "Therefore, these matters have not been considered in this closing." And, he was right, the version of the article he closed on was fine content-wise though not at a standard suitable for inclusion on Wiki (at least did not have the degree of OR or violation of WP:LIBEL that your versions had).

Please note that the closing of the MFD does not give carte blanche to violate Wikipedia policies. The MFD closer correctly pointed out that it may be a user problem instead of a content problem and he asked people to work together in good faith. Please note that Wikipedia does not allow libel in any space -- user, talk, project, or main.

By the way, have you been able to find any secondary sources? Those would be key to a successful deletion review. I still have not been able to find any. Renee (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So this was your only concern about the article !! in any case, a report published by a reputed newspaper in India, which is WP:RS is a valid source, and as such cannot be removed from a wikipedia article, more-over, I will be taking feedback via RfC, from the community, and would request you to kindly stay away from the article, and allow me to finish it. --talk-to-me! (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cult, This newspaper article was found libelous and defamatory by two courts of law in India. It cannot be allowed in Wikipedia space per WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Thank you, Renee (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to comeup with secondary source to interpret any court order, coz, as per my understanding, courts did not find the article to be defamatory --talk-to-me! (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A friendly advice, if you have to refer to me, kindly use Cult Free and not only Cult. :)--talk-to-me! (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A note to Renee

Just in case you missed the closing note from Doug. I am pasting it here for your reference.

With respect to the charges on the Discussion page. First, all of the editors on the discussion page are directly involved and the allegations made by the nominator appear to be a WP:COI collateral attack on the article. All claims against the page should be in the nomination or otherwise raised on the debate page, not on the Discussion page as these pages are rarely used and should be used to go into more depth on arguments already raised on the debate page. Second, the claims appear to be actually made against User:Cult_free_world and comments on his or her user or user talk page and not material in the article under nomination. Third, a quick review of the article did not indicate any such issues. Therefore, these matters have not been considered in this closing. Raise any such issues at WP:BLP/N, WP:ANI, or by contacting WP:OTRS. Editors are cautioned to Assume good faith and not to make tangential claims against other editors during deletion discussions which are about pages, not editors.

And I hope you will consider this advice from a neutral observer. --talk-to-me! (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cult,

Yes, I did see that and it made me realize he was right, it is a user issue as the content of the page he kept was neutral at that point (see where he says a quick review of the article did not indicate any such issues. Therefore, these matters have not been considered in this closing). Further, he was right in that the COI claims are against you as a user and not due to content (i.e., see where he says the allegations made by the nominator appear to be a WP:COI collateral attack on the article...the claims appear to be actually made against User:Cult_free_world and comments on his or her user or user talk page and not material in the article under nomination). So again, it's a user issue, not a content issue. Upon the closing of the MFD, when the content was neutral, you immediately reverted to non-neutral, libelous and defamatory content, and that is a problem in light of Wikipedia policies. Renee (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So may I presume that you will stay out of my user-space ?, kindly consider my friendly advice above as well --talk-to-me! (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as you post court-ruled libelous material on Wikipedia on any article, in any user space, I will revert. That is the right thing to do and in accordance with Wiki policies. If you start preparing a neutral article with reliable and verifiable sources, I will help you all I can. Renee (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks, I will take help from people i feel can help !, i cannot presume, constructive help from a person who has nominated the article for deletion many time, as such, it will be best for you and for the article also, if you stay out of it, this is what is stated in WP:COI also . --talk-to-me! (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Moreover you have made numerous personal attack against me, calling me with various names, assuming my association with n number of people and group, hence it will be best, if we just stop here. I will file for RfC about the article once i am done with it, hence your concerns will also be addressed by the community.--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The newspaper

In a report published in Indian daily The Pioneer dated 12th Feb 2001, an ex-member of the group named Pragya Prabhati Mishra was quoted as saying that Sahaj Marg propagates incest relations, where family members indulge in in-appropriate relation with each other, after the daily prayer, the report further states that Sahaj Marg is an atheist cult which does not believe in any kind of familial ties, its only religion being open sex, The report ends with a statement by Pragya Prabhati Mishra where she claims that during her initiation in the mission, she was raped. This report triggered a controversy and the Shree Ram Chandra Mission filed a case of defamation against the news-paper .

Sahaj Marg has also been subjected to heavy criticism in European media as well,, Most of cases reported in French newspapers were about various divorce cases, triggered due to involvement of females in the group, Michel Gilbert in his video testimony stated that illicit relations are encouraged during birthday celebration of the leader held yearly between 22nd July-26th July.

This is what is stated in the section, kindly point out the problem ? I will not interpret the court order, nor will i accept your version, just state that what it is, this is how things are done on wikipedia.--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)