Talk:Sahaj Marg/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi Folks, Here's a dissertation on the history of Sahaj Marg. This would be a great, neutral, secondary source if we could find it. (Dissertations have to go through rigorous review of committee members, presentation to faculty and incorporation of comments, etc.) I've searched and all I get is the abstract.

Yogic transmission in Sahaj Marg of the Shri Ram Chandra mission: A religio-historical study, by Naidoo, Priyadarshini, M.A., University of South Africa (South Africa), 1995; AAT 0666936

Abstract (Summary) In this dissertation the phenomenological method together with the hermeneutical concepts of experience, devotion, constant remembrance and transmission focus on yogic transmission in Sahaj Marg of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission. Sahaj Marg is an adaptation of Raja Yoga. Sahaj Marg emphasises the practical approach and calls for the aspirant to follow the teachings and methods of the spiritual Master. Yogic transmission is the unique feature of this system. Preceptors have been trained by the Master to aid in the spiritual evolution of humanity. Pranahuti is defined by he Master as a forceless force for the spiritual transformation of humanity. This system can be followed by all aspirants, the only qualification being a willingness to follow the practice. Sahaj Marg has been created for the present day aspirant to achieve liberation in the quickest time possible.

I've searched the UNISA site and they don't seem to offer full texts of dissertations that far back. Any ideas? Renee (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

God f*cking bless you Renee. That's a source! Sethie (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the best blessing I've ever received! Renee (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree - This is the kind of high-quality source everybody *has* to agree to. I have library access at Stanford - Let me check if they can dig this dissertation up. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
My university inter-library loan says they can't get it, but apparently they have two copies on the shelf at the University of South Africa (see this). Renee (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


A dissertation, also called a "thesis" is a Publication reporting original research that is a requirement for a Ph.D. degree.

If a member of SRCM does his doctorate thesis on Sahaj Marg that is OK but wether is is acceptable as "original research" is clearly mentionned in the WIKI GUIDELINES...

It is no more credible than an article by a member in a "commercial rag"...and is just another POV by a member...The reviewers of the thesis will not judge on the "efficacy" or 'truth" of Sahaj Marg but on the "DISSERTATION" or the THESIS. It will not judge wether this meditation takes one to GOD...or the morality, ethics or SRCM. You can bet that if this person is a member, he will not mention any "negative" impact of anything to do with Sahaj Marg and as thus is not "at arm's lenght" and is not any more credible that a report by a member, in a University Newspaper.

4d-Don--don (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Don - I'd like to see the Hindi original for this article. The translation looks dubious and a lot of liberties can be taken in that process.
Univ. of Amsterdam, Boston U, Harvard, MIT and U Conneticut libraries do not have the above dissertation. I've directly contacted the University of South Africa for it. If that doesn't work out, I'll try an interlibrary loan. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
A dissertation has to go through a high quality vetting source and for all we know it could be highly critical of SRCM. I don't know why you're discounting it already. If we all really want a neutral article we should be able to agree sight unseen what are quality sources, and then roll with whatever the source says. For all we know it may be very critical of SRCM -- would then it suddenly be a valid source. Renee (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper Articles


On one hand you say that we can't claim to know the TRUTH and then you go about claiming the the OPINIONS of 2 are not TRUE and should be "dismissed"...the larger the group does not make the MORE THE TRUTH. You use extremes to PROVE THE TRUTH...

This is a NEWSPAPER REPORT in a REPUTABLE Newspapers, and the journalist is not PUTTING OUT HIS POV but is REPORTING as an "arm's length" journalist...Do you mean, that it is a PRIMARY source and hence not TRUE? Or NOT WIKI ACCEPTABLE to be included in the ARTICLE...This is something that was done by SRCM members and is reported by a "secondary" source...WIKI says that is Acceptable...

I will repost it and hope that Sethie, showing good faith, will not delete it as it is not my POV but an article in a REPUTABLE NEWSPAPER, the content of which should be in the "controversies" section of the ARTICLE...because it is WIKI acceptable...It should at least be "discussed" here in the OPEN...



Since I don't accept that NEWSPAPER articles are PRIMARY as per WIKI, then I am asking that you not erase this post so others may openly give their opinions as to wether these article are written by the PRIMARY SOURCE or is it from "interviewing" of people and the reporter is a "second or third" source, not PRIMARY as most newspaper articles are...

PLEASE don't erase so others may read and see that the reporter was on the scene, after the fact and was "interviewing" the not PRIMARY as per WIKI...Please show "good faith" ...


Could we get a broader input than only one editors on this site on:

Are the articles covered by these two respectable newspapers WIKI acceptable according to a "WIKI court of OPINION"? Are they PRIMARY or SECONDARY using COMMON SENSE as per WIKI. Read the PRIMARY Source GUIDELINES and discuss below...

Dainik Jagran dated 8th Nov 2003

Dainik Jagran [Dainik Jagran] is the most read newspaper in India. See this WIKI artice: or this one: [Hindustan]

Thanks all for your comments!!

4d-don--don (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell which edition was it (which city's) and if you have, forward the link for this article, I would like to verify your translation? Also, you must have read my last post in a hurry to conclude this - On one hand you say that we can't claim to know the TRUTH and then you go about claiming the the OPINIONS of 2 are not TRUE and should be 'dismissed'... In short what I said above was, we have got to follow consensus to add anything to this article. Please read again if you would .. Duty2love (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Don: Are you suggesting that we publish this "translated" version onto the main Sahaj Marg page? What purpose would it serve? It this article even real? I tried searching in the web but could not find it. Even if it exists, can it be treated as a reliable Wiki source? How reliable is the translation? The number of questions that pop into my mind with respect to its validity seems to be innumerable. I would suggest that if you want to work on the controversies section, you should try to get access to sources which are more reasonable than this. Embhee (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
There are several problems with these sources, the first of which they are in Hindi! Can you please provide an English-language link that would justify its inclusion in Wiki? Second, is this is a tabloid newspaper? (Here it refers to Dainik Jagran as a tabloid newspaper.) When I enter "Indian newspapers" into Google, it does not appear on Indian newspaper lists, e.g., see this for list of "top newspapers" in India.
Third, when I read these translations of the articles , they read like a tabloid because they only rely on one source in each article and fail to give any quotations or perspective from the other side, like a normal newspaper article would. If there are no additional sources, then WP:V is not met, because "exceptional claims require exceptional sources,". Under this header it gives a special caution, "This is especially true of claims whose proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them." We have to be very careful about providing exceptional sources about these claims because they are about living persons, so BLP concerns come into play too.
Logically, if the events described really happened, they would be covered in an English language paper. The alleged events were three years apart. Can you provide secondary English language sources that covered each event? That might justify serious discussion.Renee (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To all...


You should wait and see the "original" before "judging" or you "pre-judge" called "prejudice"... It's good that Questions come to mind as "COMMON SENSE" demand thinking...Some part of the article may need confirmation, and some may not, but that is the nature of WIKI or "ENCYLOPEDIA" writing... It takes time and as a retired person, I have it...I hope you do...

I will contact the newspapers and attempt to get a "link" from them for the articles and PHOTOGRAPHS, so as to confirm the veracity of the incidents ... I am reading about some more such incidents at Karnataka, from Chari' s own words and verifying them also. In these articles, "they also have "pictures" so the credibility will be "VISIBLE"...Since the Supreme Court of India JUDGEMENT, Navneet has put this out: At last Chari, Uma Shankar Bajpai and 6 others have been charge sheeted for the criminal offence of tresspassing into the Ashram on 2nd June 2006. Their non-bailable warrants are being issued for the same from the lower court three days back. Navneet

So there will be "court" confirmation of the event soon...


To want to see the "original article" is legitimate, but to state that: Logically, if the events described really happened, they would be covered in an English language paper. The alleged events were three years apart. Can you provide secondary English language sources that covered each event? That might justify serious discussion.

That is not "logical" at all and/or show a "skewed" sense of logic. It is almost "insulting" to other "nationalities", who want to use "THEIR" language in their country and still remain "CREDIBLE". English is not the STANDARD of CREDIBILITY. These are "secondary" sources in HINDI and as such, can be deemed to be credible after viewing the ORIGINAL version and checking the Translation I offered... It was not mine so I can't comment on it...but as with most "faith-based" groups, I am sure you can find a translator you TRUST...

"Tabloids" are now the FORMAT of Many NEWSPAPERS and is not a standard of crediblity but a format for easy reading in a bus, train opposed to a "long sheet" which is the "OLD" FORMAT... As a matter of fact, the sources you mention in the articles already are probably "TABLOIDS"... should we check and take them OUT?

It could take some time to get a reply from the newspapers so "talk among yourselves" and...

Keep laughing because it's not FUNNY!!  ;-))

4d-don--don (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you have no other means to confirm, reading up the language of the articles you posted, I have serious doubts on the authenticity of these events. Simply because something is printed in paper, doesn't make it a truth. I am from India and having some friends and family members working in media, I know how possible it is to get anything printed, especially in local editions of newspapers of small towns. We see this happening all the time for political reasons. And looks like these are from local edition and not the national edition, that's why I asked you the edition, to which you didn't reply. You may see the kinds of complaints Press Council of India gets all the time here.

Please stop posting things which you yourself are not sure of (since you are not from that country and my assumption here is you don't know Hindi), which has no credible source and which looks very much like an attempt to do libel and defamation WP:LIBEL, which has been constantly done for this topic, by the same handful number of people, of which even Wikipedia has the history. If you are really interested in the entire article then can we first focus on more solid and credible sources, if not then please speak up? Duty2love (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)\



End of story. Sethie (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


There are TWO newspapers in question... are LIFESTYLE Magazines, University Newspapers, dissertations, not of the same credibility? But here there are TWO SOURCES, not only ONE!!

I am attemting to get a link to the newspapers (with translations) in question. Apparently, the same "writing an article promoting a point of view" can happen in all newspapers, Advertising rags, (that promote a LIFESTYLE such as YOGA), and dissertations, thesis, and magazines such as the ones which are presented as "credible" and WIKI acceptable in this article... If I can't get something credible (according to the BROADER WIKI membership) It will not make it to that article...but we should be able to discuss it in WIKI "assume good faith" and fairness guidelines... If I get a "link" I will discuss it here as per WIKI guidlines...

Your accusations of "attempts to libel or defame" are POV and "soapboxing" but no one here will STOP you, not even me...That is not a game I PLAY... Maybe I should have you "blocked" as some here do. ;-)) You have a right to your opinion...I will protect your right to voice it here in discussion. This is not the first time I handle "controversy" and I am still a FREE man, no court found me GUILTY yet..

4d-Don--don (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


I am aware or the RED FLAG and I think that a "secondary" at-arm's length source (another newspaper) makes this one WIKI acceptable. If I get a link to the "original" with "translation" that is from the two (2)newspapers with photographs (and names). Plus, there is now a court case regarding this whole matter, naming Chari and 6 other members of the SRCM, according to Navneet, the Founder of SRCM's grandson. There will be a "judgement" in that case by then also (I hope). But we have time. I will present it again on this discussion page and as many on this page have a POV and/or an "ax to grind", I will also present it to a more NEUTRAL Broader WIKI Community as I will do with the "FRENCH" reports (2) and the Belgian site (1).

That should be WIKI acceptable and NPOV!

4d-don--don (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"recommended" and "free" line

Hi Folks, I suggest we delete this line: The practice of Sahaj Marg is recommended for those 18 years of age and older [8] and is free.[9] It doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Any objections? Renee (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - Let's do this before Don launches into another 5000-word rambling tirade (with every THIRD word in CAPS) about the "free" part. :)

I definitely think the free phrase should go because its controversial acc. to Don. The 18 and older part adds no value really. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur, it isn't very encylopediac. The 18 year old thing sounds like trying to scare people off and the free part sounds like an add. Sethie (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Done - If you guys think it's a bad idea, we can discuss it!Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


"THAT" means that you know I answered you on your talk page. If that "insults" you then your comment suggesting that I did not reply, or "I would ask others to reframe from dialogueing with Don as well until he has been open and honest about that" should be covered by the same "STANDARD" and it is, but you apply the standard differently for some, such as Shashwat and others including 4d-don. I don't care either way...You are allowed your POV and "soapboxing" but as an admin, you should try and be concensual with all, and seek concensus from all, not just some.

I guess some of you don't want the fact that SRCM is targeting children to be included (even as a gentle warning of under 18). Some of the PR material quotes children as young as 9yrs old "meditating" at their schools. Is SRCM PR material "wiki Acceptable"? SRCM is also one of the few groups mentionned in the Mivilludes Report of the French Government also (specifically as relating to children) and MIVILLUDES is the report that is to be used in "conjunction" with the 1995 report which is now deemed "less and less pertinent" (of course), but still used "in conjunction with the MIVILLUDES report, according the the Sources discussed above (Prime Minister Raffarin's Report).

There is not concensus here, but does that matter? (These reports are in French...Is French credible? Are any other languages? What about French NEWSPAPER ARTICLES? Are they Acceptable here? There are many of those and I can understand them and translate.

4d-Don--don (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Don - This is classic - You wrote 10 pounds of stuff, took off in a tangent, and didn't even answer my question under discussion requiring no more than a simple yes/no objective response. Then you went ahead and reversed my deletion in the article without discussing it here. Please get consensus before making any article changes.
I took a closer look at your [source] for the "under 18" thing and found a few issues:
1. It is a paid report costing $30 to access. How can any editor verify that you aren't making bogus claims?
2. This article seems to be referring to meditation in general and not Sahaj Marg, so it's not relevant to this discussion - You may want to place it in the meditation article.
3. It is speaking of the inappropriateness of meditation from a pediatric standpoint (supposedly - I haven't read it). The wiki article on pediatrics says that this science is relevant to children up to 14 to 21 of age. So how is this specifically relevant to the "18 years of age" point under discussion here? If you want to put in a criticism of Sahaj Marg making younger children meditate, don't hide it in an irrelevant footnote.
4. Going by the lousy grammer and the apparent "opnion" tone, these sentences don't seem to be part of the original abstract of this study and seem to have been slipped in later: "For young children, it is not considered advisable for children to sit for extended lengths of time with closed eyes which might in any case 'go against the grain' of the active nature of children. Different meditation techniques have different recommendations of meditation practice for children i.e. Sahaj Marg Meditation, a system of Raja Yoga."
5. Finally, the sentence "Sahaj Marg guru recommends a minimum age of 18 before beginning the practice of meditation, implying this technique is not suitable for younger people." is your extrapolation of the motivations for the SRCM rules, i.e. original research. Not admissible. I will be removing the "implying this technique is not suitable for younger people" part.
Please try to be brief, objective and to the point in your response. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As per normal, your post is full of so many errors Don, I don't know where to start.
1 I am not an admin.
2 Most of the first paragraph is a bunch of unconnected ideas that just don't make sense.
3 I have never "sought consensus"... much less only seeking it from some. I just look at what people are saying.
4-10 mentioned ad nauesum already. Sethie (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Meditation age for SRCM

Is this short enough for you? This is put out by [Santosh's family Group]: Is it not Acccurate? This is more [PR from SRCM] This is from another [PR site]

Sahaj Marg Meditation is MEDITATION so the report is NPOV and covers all MEDITATION...

Babuji's limit on age is also in your Literature that you have already bought so can be read and added to the "sources"...Is Babuji still a Master of SRCM (Chennai)? His name and picture is still in the PR. Do you have any instructions from Chari that removes the age stipulation by Babuji?

The safeguard was to protect the children from "endoctrination" before the AGE of REASON, which some manipulative groups want to ignore. Some governments in some countries take NOTE of such groups who target children, and include them in REPORTS by commissions, specially when the groups are "foreigners".

4d-don--don (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Friends: After doing some reading on the topic under discussion, I feel that is that it is good to have this point mentioned about the age "recommendation". These days in the Internet, kids are "surfing" more than adults! I think this single sentence will help.

Renee: Can you please explain what you mean when by saying "It doesn't sound very encyclopedic". I guess that was the root cause why this was deleted. If you want to re-structure the sentence, that would be good.

Don: I feel the reference you have for this line is not needed. If people want to know why meditation is not recommended for age below 18, they can figure it out in other places. Embhee (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For Embhee... as I said to Don, arguements about including things as a form of public service just don't fly here.
For Don- this is classic WP:NOR. Sethie (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess my objection to the statement is it sounds a bit like trivia and I agree with Sethie about the intent (per the long posts...). However, it is an error to say that it is "only" recommended but it is correct to say "recommended." For us to add "only" or "implying" something is not neutral. The sites Don lists above look like University self-published webpage sites, so do not meet Wikipedia standards, but the academic article would. Oh, and the problem with the academic article is that Sahaj Marg is just mentioned as an aside. I'm open to what others think too. Renee (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Persian Poet Gal agrees with Renee and I [[1]]. Sethie (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

All (except those who obey above divisive "recommendations"

Cultfreeworld, talk-to-me, Shashwat, (some think they are the same person) and even Babuji (the Founder), and many more from SRCM (Shahjahanpur) agree with me...Age limit should be left in...Take my word for it or ask them, as we are supposed to believe other such statements above ... ;-))

4d-Don--don (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

+1 point to you for a short response. -1 point for not actually replying to a single question I've listed above. My issue with the age statement are 2-fold:
1. It's a meaningless and uninteresting statement on it's own. You have to be above 18 to do a lot of things, and yet you won't see that mentioned in all the relevant wiki articles. I think that's what the admins meant when they said it isn't very wiki-esque.
However, it looks like you want to use this point (yet again) to further your POV and do some more preaching. That is a whole different discussion, for which I'll summarize my response as follows: "Ain't gonna happen!!".
2. I take *strong* exception to the source used for this point. What about this source substantiates that SRCM's minimum age is 18? The footnote is a completely tangential reference to the point being made in the article. In addition, it looks like this footnote has been doctored with the original research. Everything after "Studies of meditation in pediatric populations are still limited" looks like someone wrote it up to ride on the coat-tails of the original abstract. The "Sahaj Marg guru recommends a minimum age of 18 before beginning the practice of meditation, implying this technique is not suitable for younger people." isn't something any self-respecting academic would put into an abstract of a scholarly article.
So I move that this entire footnote should be deleted. Opinions?
Again, please be brief in your response and please do try to actually address the concerns I've raised. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Don's Reverting of Article
Well, all three of us - I, me and myself - disagree with Shashwat, CFW and Talk-To-Me (Also keep in mind that unlike them, none of us have our wiki accounts currently blocked). So you're making a moot point here. Please don't ride on their agreement as justification to revert changes. You risk starting an edit war with the three of us. :)
Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no user called "talk-to-me" active on this page.Sethie (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page. Please don't engage in edit warring. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries - Almost everyone editing this page works by consensus. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This is weird -- Cult free world IS talk-to-me IS Shashwat (i.e., ONE person). And, the only person active on this talk page now is Don, so I'm not sure why there is a reference to non-Wiki editors?
I just think we should stick to reasonable discussions on the talk page and come to consensus and then make edits to the article. Sounds good? Renee (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
p.s. Don - Regarding your edit summary here, I don't think PPG said for you to make article changes without discussion first on the talk page (see this). It's a key feature of Wikipedia to discuss changes, come to consensus, and then make changes. You can always use dispute resolution, like mediation, too. Renee (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My answers to Marathi: For point 1, I agree that this single sentence looks odd in the article, but I do not agree that this fact about age recommendation is not needed. I still feel that age recommendation is an important thing to have but at this stage, it is not fitting well with the article. For point 2, I totally agree. There is no need for that reference to be mentioned as part of that sentence. Oh well, anyways, the sentence has been removed and the page protected. So, it does not matter, at least for the next few days!!! If the consensus is to not mention age recommendation in the article, I am fine with it. The Earth will still keep rotating, whether that sentence is present in the Wiki or not. So I am happy. Embhee (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To all...

The reason 4d-don is (allegedly) the only dissenting ACTIVE voice on this page is because of the tactics used by this group with the support of one "admin". They (some that I contacted) are reading and waiting for less of a "time waster", they claim, such as "mediation" or "numbers" (voting?... (as duty2love mentionned above). Maybe, such as VOTING on the ISSUE! If it's just a case of "the biggest gang" bullies the others into submission, then so be it... (there are four of you and an admin, and only ONE of me, according to you.

Those who allege that Shashwat, CFW and Talk-to-me are ONE, also think that 4d-don is Shashwat, and that is just another divisive POV and not a very "respectful" one at that (as per WIKI). It is just a tactic, to get some "frustration comment" that can be used to have me "blocked" as we have witnessed with your divisive tactics with Shashwat. If anyone has PROOF, put it to the WIKI board and get it over with and stop your "inuendoes"... and attempt seriously at "CONCENSUS"... everyone here is an individual "ID" and is to be dealt with as such with respect as per WIKI (good faith).

So as not to waste our time "arguing" and "blocking" of dissenting voices, and since there is no possible "concensus" with those who chose to interpret the "Guideline" as "dogmatic" rules without COMMON SENSE, thus, without the need or the possibility for concensus, but just to then "BULLY" their way with the help of an "admin", then I am discussing with others (admins) on the other processes available so as to present a FAIR article that is not another PR site for SRCM or and the Practice of Sahaj Marg, without a warning about "AGE LIMIT", as it is now, and as was it was placed by the FOUNDER!... or without "controversies" (which is a falsehood by omissions and not "encyclopedic" but PR)

We will take one issue at a time to a "broader" community and use our time that way...

The Laws of the INTELLECT OF MAN will DECIDE! Or we will consider WIKI another victim of NUMBERS?

The last issue is : Sahaj Marg is only recommended for those above 18 years of age.. You (five) don't want it in. WE DO!

4d-don--don (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

4d-don -- not sure why you deleted part of my previous post here? I have restored it. Also, this shows that CFW is talk-to-me (he just changed his signature).Renee (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Don, I am starting to notice a disapointing pattern of you repeating inaccurate information.
No one here has said "4d-Don is Shashwat."
There is no user called "Talk-to-me." That user is "Cultfreeworld," he just changed his signature. This has been pointed out to you, yet sadly my hunch is you will continue to not believe it.
I have challenged you at least 4 times to find one voice who agrees with you, who has some experience on wikipedia (blocked users don't count!). So far you have been unable to. If you don't like how WP:CON works, I suggest you bring it up here [[2]]. This page is not the place to do it. Sethie (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dissertation Follow-Up?

Hi Folks, The dissertation thread got kind of lost so I'll repeat my question here -- has anyone else had any success in getting this dissertation from the University of South Africa?

  • Yogic transmission in Sahaj Marg of the Shri Ram Chandra mission: A religio-historical study, by Naidoo, Priyadarshini, M.A., University of South Africa (South Africa), 1995; AAT 0666936

I tried through my inter-library loan and they were not able to do it. Thanks, Renee (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Renee - After searching for and failing to find it at a very long list of university libraries (Stanford, Harvard, MIT, U. Connecticut, Boston U., U. San Diego, U. of Amsterdam....), my last hope is to locate it at the University of South Africa. They haven't gotten back to me yet. I'll send them a reminder today. Will keep you guys posted on progress. In the mean time, none of you would happen to live (or know someone who lives) in or around Pretoria, would you? :) Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Don's comments


Your "disapointing pattern" is your emotional POV...keep it to yourself or "erase" your own be FAIR! Since you erase other streams of conversation you deem Un-acceptable (un-biased?)... Erase yours also...or don't then feign "un-provoked" emotional POV by others who don't agree with you.

For someone who thinks that WIKI does not allow material that is part of this group's PR and/or that is printed in their own BOOKS (so WIKI), as "not acceptable" as PER WIKI, then your ability to judge "accurate" is not don't seem to notice your own "inuendos" and "tone", so...? here's a "mirror"!

I will take this issue and others (age limit, Government Reports, etc...) to MEDIATION, to a "BROADER WIKI COMMUNITY" than your (and Renee's) interpretation. I have passed this issue by "MANY" Wikipedians, since it happened and they will come forward at the proper time, so they don't waste their time arguing ad nauseum with such a "non-concensual" group with a "conflict of Interest" as per WIKI. THEY WANT TO VOTE, Comment, and get on with their lives. If I am wrong, I will not get much support and I will CHANGE tactic. Maybe move to DELETE the article?... but I won't leave because of "BULLYING" or "intimidation", or threats of "BLOCKING".

Renee...I did not erase your post... I don't do that...if it was erased, blame the technology or one of you, who does that "willy-nilly" to those who don't agree with you, or simply to hide the facts... so as to reach concensus as per WIKI?...Maybe it was GOD or Babuji? lol  ;-))

You gotta laugh, b'cause it ain't funny!

Keep on the Sunny Side of LIFE!

4d-don--don (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You erased some of Renee's post here [[3]]
For the last week and a half you say you will take these issues for broader consensus. Persian Poet Gal and myself have given you links to do so and you have not.
Please stop making accusations of COI. Instead please take it here: WP:COI.
Please stop using this talk page to make claims of bullying, etc. Persian Poet Gal and myself have given you links to where you can do so and you have not.
Wishing you happiness. Sethie (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Dissertations are ORIGINAL RESEARCH...

According to [WIKI], they are not acceptable and are PRIMARY Source according to University of North Florida here [UNF]... And if this is by a MEMBER OF SRCM, it is even a CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and not CREDIBLE at all...

What is Original Research?

Original research is considered a primary source.

An article is considered original research if ...

   * the author or authors of a study or experiment describe their hypothesis and the purpose of the study.
   * the researchers detail their research methods.
   * the results of the research are reported.
   * the researchers interpret their results and discuss possible implications.

Maybe Sethie can explain WIKI Guidelines on "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" to you....

4d-don--don (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Stop making accusations of "disappointing patterns" or other of your POV's on this "discussion page" as per Wiki "Good faith", and muzzle the others as you attempt to do with "US".....and then you won't see any accusations of anything by me..

I will take it to Mediation when all who are on our team are ready and have agreed with the action to take...

Some have not had a chance to comment yet but are reading this page... Everyone is busy and many have other things to do but it will get resolved when WE decide... Patience donkey! We have nothing but TIME! I have been at this for years...And I will be here for years yet, Babuji Willing!! (that means God willing to some)  ;-))

Have a Good day...

4d-don--don (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't stop making accusations of disappointing patterns, because I never started. Feel free to refer to what I wrote to see what I wrote. Sethie (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Don: What do you mean by saying "all who are on our team are ready"? Are you referring to all us editors of this page or something else? Please clarify. Embhee (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I always thought dissertations were secondary sources because they are analyzing "other" works, but I can see Don's point above that if they are the original generator of new knowledge they might be considered primary sources. I have posted that question on the reliable sources notice board and refer others to this and this, which seem to suggest that dissertations can be considered reliable sources. Renee (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the noticeboard thread mentioned above, there is some confusion as to whether or not this "dissertation" is really a dissertation or a Master's thesis. The consensus from that board seems to be that if it is a Master's thesis it is not a reliable source, but if it is a Dissertation it is. Renee (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

age line

I am surprised that this suggestion has spawned so much discussion, as I thought it was a pretty innocuous suggestion. Please correct me if I'm off but it seems that people are not disputing the accuracy of the line, A minimum age of 18 years is recommended before beginning the practice of Sahaj Marg meditation, rather, they are disputing whether it's a central feature of the practice and hence, whether or not it represents something trivial and/or pertinent to an encyclopedic entry. (For example, would it appear in the Sahaj Marg entry for Encyclopedia Brittanica?) I think Don's correct above where he states the reason for this recommendation was to ensure that people "were of age of reason" before they made a decision about what type of meditation they might want to practice. Also, I think this source for this statement is good. I have the pdf if anyone would like me to email it to them. So, I guess the question is, is it central enough to the topic to include?Renee (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Renee: Here is my suggestion. Let us keep the sentence mentioning the age recommendation in the page. Such a simple thing has created too many disputes. We can include a secondary reference if we have. Just a simple sentence like what you have mentioned above should be fine. If everyone agrees on this, I can go ahead and make the change to the article. Embhee (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Renee - I disagree about putting the line back in. This is an encyclopedia which means that the source should be something that any editor should be able to access. You e-mailing the paper to everyone is not a scalable solution because 6 months from now when a different set of people are editing this page, the same question is going to be raised about valid sources. E-mailing sources around is no way to run an encyclopedia. If it's not accessible to everyone, it's not admissible IMHO.
I do agree that it's factually accurate but "encyclopediacally" uninteresting.... almost irrelevant. You cannot make this statement without inserting original research of the sort Don rants on about about age of reason, etc. We've taken it out, now let's keep it out. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Renee, it is an excellent point you made that no one here disputes that min age recommendation of 18 years, the discussion was about whether it merits being mentioned in the opening of this article or not. My opinion is - it is a relevant fact and should be mentioned somewhere in the article but not in the opening description. This should appease those who thinks that someone is trying to hide information. Duty2love (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
D2L and Renee - Come on - Since when is appeasing someone an adequate measure of what deserves to be on Wikipedia? And if it is, I'm going to be following in Don's footsteps and throwing a lot more tantrums round here with my "The moon landing never happened" conspiracy theory. :)
Jokes aside - Check this out: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think this "You need to be 18 to meditate" thing is totally an inane statement on it's own. Is it true? Sure! Does it work well into the storyline? Nyaaaaah..... Unless you can do one of the following:
1. Add some interesting (and substantiated) material to complement this statement OR
2. Place this statement in the fine print
So unless we either find something more substantial to say about this point or boot it off into the fine print, I still vote this doesn't belong in here.
Just my (not-so-humble) opinion. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Here is a list of suggested sources for this entry. I have come here by way of the posting on the RS Noticeboard and am not aware of your long discussions so please bare with me if any of these sources have already been suggested.PelleSmith (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Pearmain, Rosalind. 2005. "Transformational Experiences in Young People: The Meaning of a Safe Haven." International Journal of Children's Spirituality. 10(3):277-290. (I have the pdf and can email it someone if they want it)
  • Devagupta, R. 2004. "A Terrible Longing in the Heart: An Interview with Shri Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari". Parabola. 29(3):28-32 (Mind that this is an interview).
I want to celebrate Renee's creative choice of posting here [[4]] as an attempt to find solutions to our stalemate. Woo-hoo Renee! Sethie (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent sources PelleSmith, no these sources were not suggested before. Duty2love (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear PelleSmith, THANKS! These look great. The former looks like a scholarly journal? (yippee!) Parabola looks like a great source too. I would love to receive the pdf and will email you so you can send an attachment. Thanks again for coming by!Renee (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well just keep in mind that the second one is a primary source, since it is an interview. Someone with access to an academic library should be able to get it. The first one was available in PDF so I downloaded it. I will be sending it to Renee. It doesn't have a ton of background information, but enough to be of some use I imagine. Also, I would suggest that someone get a hold of the thesis that was mentioned on RS/N. It will undoubtedly have valuable information, and valuable sources, but if it is an MA thesis be careful how you use it. I would not, for instance, use it to source novel or disputed claims. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, this is good to know. I didn't know that interviews were primary sources. And yes, I understand that primary sources and/or an MA thesis can only be used for non-controversial or non-challenged claims.Renee (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


If you mention anything of the Practice, which is really a PR as it is now presented, you must mention who the PR is for so as to appear to be "balanced"... An AGE limit is very IMPORTANT... for those who have CHILDREN and want to protect them from indoctrination by any and all faith-based groups, such as religions.

According to Marathi's criteria, who incidently, constantly uses POV and personal attacks without being "reprimanded" by anyone, BOOKS are not "admissible" as they are not easily "able to access".

Newspaper articles are not all easy to access" either, nor are un-Published reports, or other "not easily" accessible but are still "accessible" and "admissible" according to WIKI, and not to be "hidden" from the PRACTICE section. I agree with not putting it (or the French Government Reports) in the "INTRO". Rather than "appease", the use the un-emotional: "concensus", is suggested.

Pelle Smith: The "interview" in question could be made available to all. So we can see if it is 'admissible" also. I have wanted to use Chari's words in speeches and interviews for a long time.. Thanks...

4d-don--don (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not have the interview, nor do I intend on tracking it down. Someone who edits here will have to do that. I have the other source because it was available to download on PDF through my library and I sent it to one editor because they asked for it. Someone else has asked and I will send it to them as well. Anyone who emails me can have the PDF. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
OK Don - I don't know what your first line means. What would you say is PR in the current article? It's a bare-bones stub right now.
I'm repeating myself here - I am not disputing the minimum age limit - All I and several others are saying is it's not notable on it's own and could go into the footnotes.
On the sources, if there were more trust among editors, the "accessible and admissible" criteria would be adequate. Sadly that is not the case given the personality clashes here, and everything requires verification.
Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed instructions for anon ips to vote per WP:MEAT, WP:CON and very specifically WP:NOTDEMOCRACYSethie (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

AGE LIMIT IS MANDATORY no practice of this method should be extended to minors ( less than 18 years old ) PLEASE VOTE Aksur (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Aksur (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Aksur - Not sure what you mean. Sahaj Marg is not for minors according to several primary sources that Don keeps bringing up. A minimum age limit seems mandatory already.
So what point are you trying to make and what am I voting on here?? Do you have some evidence you'd like to share with the rest of us of any change in this rule?
Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

He is a WP:MEATpuppet of Don's.Sethie (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Don - I think this has been mentioned by several people to you but bears repeating: Wikipedia does not make decisions through voting, but through consensus. "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making."
Also seen [here]. "Wikipedia is not a democracy: Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and will not necessarily be treated as binding."
Otherwise, everyone would be going out and getting friends and family to create brand new user names and then "vote".
PPG has repeatedly suggested dispute resolution for you here -- Go for mediation if you feel so strongly about this issue. Right now, we are at a stalemate on this issue. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Attempt to Discuss Raja Yoga reference + archiving. Don: Pls. don't delete my post again

Since Don deleted my post on this topic, here goes a second time. (Don - Who's doing the muzzling now?)

There was a reference to Raja Yoga in this article and it's gone now. I can't find when and where this reference was deleted. It needs to be posted back in. Anyone have any issues with that? Please vote.

The second issue I wanted to bring to the table has to do with the unwieldy size of this discussion page. Wikipedia recommends we archive topics not being discussed any longer on this page (You'll see the Wikipedia message if you try to edit the entire page).

There was a lot of stuff I see on this page that is not relevant to the article - [Here] for example. I'll go through this page and list it out, so we can all agree to archive it.

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


(do not delete, change or edit)

So as to find the true "concensus", please give your input in this section regarding this entry to the Sahaj Marg Article... A short comment is appreciated. I will count the numbers in two weeks and then move to the next step of either putting in the sentence or going to mediation.

Don said:

Please include in the article, in the section called "Practice", in the last line of the section, in the same font and font size, (and not in the footnotes), the following sentence, which is in many published books, in the PR of the Mission and in interviews with and speeches of the current Guru of one of the 'Factions" of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission, the proponents of Sahaj Marg.

"According to Babuji, the Founder of the system, Sahaj Marg meditation is only recommended for those over 18 yrs of age"

4d-don--don (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Your accusations are reactionary, emotional, POV, un-founded and not WIKI acceptable... conduct yourself according to WIKI...Or I tell "poet gal" on you!! ;-)) There may be more readers interested in this issue who were "bullied" away, and now want a SAY!! If you want to see "meat-puppets", look at the "sinble purpose accounts" and COI among the editors that are now here, trying to keep other true NPOV "editors" away with "bullying", deleting, Non-concensual and non common-sense tactics....? Methinks you doth protest too much!! Hiding your meat-puppets and your "single purpose accounts" and your COI, by pointing at others. That is called the "concensus" on this ISSUE by YOU GUYS, not by US ... But it is not the TRUE CONCENSUS. I will count and decide the course of actiion in two weeks (Formal Mediation maybe...still reading and deciding). The numbers will help me decide...If I am alone, I will not pursue it... If others think like me, I will go to as far as JOSIE... Maybe there is a "bigger" issue here that is not "obvious" to all. If you and duty2love are right, I should find no one who agrees with me, and on WIKI, the biggest gang wins the fight according to DUTY2love!  ;-))

Don--don (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


You are not the one to decide what is to be kept and deleted...Delete your own posts, not other people's... Your POV on what is RELEVANT is not NPOV and not WIKI. Archive from the TOP not the current discussion...Do not pick and chose what YOU WANT deleted or "out of sight"... Your accusation of "muzzling" is un-founded and I did not delete your material...If it got deleted, it was by mistake and you can always find it just like I have to do when you delete mine (not by mistatke) or others that don't agree with you...or you get others to delete other's post for you...

4d-don--don (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to acknowledge that you have said a lot here Don, and I am not going to respond to that sort of talk anymore.
I am in agreement that the way to archive is to go from the top down and archive any discussions that haven't had a reply in two weeks, which I have done. Sethie (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Don: You deleted an important text here by Marathi. This has happened from your edit in the past too. I am not sure if you are deleting these accidentally or on purpose. When you submit your edits, please do a preview before you save, this way you can be sure that you don't edit other people's text.

Regarding your question, I had already mentioned my opinion that it is ok to have the age limit mentioned. But, it is very important to note Marathi's point that voting is not the way to get consensus, at least in the wiki world. Embhee (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Don What are you talking about? I didn't delete anything. I was just reviving the discussion as-is. And I didn't notice till Embhee mentioned this here - You conveniently deleted my post yet again - Second time in 2 days (See the first few lines on the above diff for the first time you deleted my post). Can you please not do that? It doesn't jive well with your "un-wiki behavior" appeals.
2 weeks, huh? No coincidence that's the amount of time that Shashwat needs to get out of wiki jail? :)
As far as I can see, there is no demonstrated consensus supporting your opinion (except for Aksur's first ever post on Wikipedia). You just don't have the secondary sources to back you up. Without them, you could wait till the cows come home, and we'd still be without consensus. My sincere advice to you would be to spend time digging for sources rather than jousting on this talk page - I'm trying to do the same. That would take this article a lot farther and make it a lot more substantive.
And Don - Do your [homework] before levelling allegations about single-purpose accounts against me.
Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

About the deletions...

I think one possible scenario could be that Marathi was caught in a "Edit conflict" with me and I just back-paged and re-edited and Inadvertently deleted his "new post"... I will check that out... the ones from the past, I don't know...I don't intentionally "amend", change, or "selectively delete" other's posts or attempt to "hide" controversial material...I want all the DISCUSSION to remain visible for the new editors, so they may be "up-to speed" from the get go .... Some are not so inclined. Please stop deleting and amending and editing other's (my) posts as per WIKI guidelines...

About the Age LIMIT...

There have been enough references in BOOKS (read any of Babuji's first books) and you will see it in there...Read any of the PR in many "secondary" sources newspapers, interviews, speeches, etc.. and you will find it in there... because there are more of you, you think that you win and that you have a concensus. As per WIKI a PRIMARY can be also a "SECONDARY" source..and these are not "ABSOLUTE" terms...Anyone who has done any writing knows that. A mediator should be more aware of WIKI interpretations than those on this page...

Be patient...It will resolve itself... If I am alone with Shashwat and arksur I will still go for "mediation" on this as WIKI is not about "numbers" as in a "democracy" as per Duty2love's previous statement to that effect...

As far as I can see, you can't see very far...  ;-))

Don--don (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you acknowledging that you are aware that Cult-Free-World is Shashwat. Thank you. I do not appreciate your insulting comment and am not willing to reply to the above ideas, until they can be expressed without attacking individuals. Sethie (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with Don's suggestion of adding the age limit statement under Practice section. Duty2love (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Raja Yoga Reference

OK - No comments on the Raja Yoga mention - Should I take that to mean everyone's OK with putting in the reference again? Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you spell out or link to exactly what you're proposing? Sethie (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking at a one/two liner on Sahaj Marg being a derivative of Raja Yoga. I'm open to your suggestions on how to word this. Something like:
"Sahaj Marg" claims be a derivative of Raja Yoga where it's practice commences at the seventh or "Dhyana" stage of Raja Yoga, as described by Patanjali in the Yoga Sutras".
And before the ranting begins again, I'm fine with wording this with all the necessary NPOV caveats ("claims", "supposedly", etc.). Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, we need a refference.... Sethie (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep - Looking! Would someone please help me finding one? Muchas Gracias! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked through Shashwat's "Propose page" and there was no reference for it. Sethie (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to the current article. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought there was a reference to "Raja Yoga". (If not, there should be one.) Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The word "claim" is a Wiki word-to-avoid. How about "is said" or "according to..." (then give attribution)? I actually think it's best to just say "is" and avoid weasel words. I've posted three references on the issue previously (should be in archive 8) and will dig them out late tonight or early tomorrow if no one has done so yet.Renee (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi folks, Only gone for a few days and lots of action! It seems clear there is no consensus on the age line: Duty, Don, and Embhee are okay with it, Sethie, Marathi, and myself think it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE (also, I think the word "only" should not be in it as it is not in the secondary reference). Here are two suggestions:

  • Give it a break for a month and come back to the issue (maybe by then some good will and trust would have been built up and it won't be such an issue), OR;
  • Take it to mediation.

Marathi would like to discuss the Raja Yoga issue so I suggest we turn our attention to that now. What do you all think? Renee (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Renee you truly are becoming the sensible one! That sounds like a great idea, given that we are deadlocked on the issue. And I would add that Persian Poet Gal is also not in favor of it, and that an RfC would be better before mediation. Sethie (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sethie and ALL

Unless you have Poet Gal's Proxy you can't speak for her... If you have her proxy, please show it. She can speak for herself if she wants to enter this conversation, so all of us can see her true POV.

I would say that Arksur also wants the "STATEMENT of CAUTION" in...

A STATEMENT of CAUTION that is in BOOKS by the FOUNDER, and in this Faction's own PR does not fit it in the INDISCRIMITATE section of WIKI mentionned above...That is not an accurate description of this STATEMENT... A CAUTION on a label is not TRIVIAL... It was not meant to be TRIVIALIZED by Preceptors (priests) or abhyasis (practicants) or WIKI editors, by the FOUNDER and the other more serious protectors of children from those who would target them before the "AGE OF REASON"!

On the Raja Yoga issue, the word "is" is a POV by Renee and other MEMBERS of this Group, and not an accurate word in a Balanced NPOV WIKI article, to describe an "adulteration" of Raja Yoga starting at rung 7 of an "eightfold" System (Raja Yoga) (that relies on COMMON SENSE)... Sahaj Marg's claim i is more a "usurping" of the word Raja Yoga so as to appear "credible" to the more gullible (children). And should be disallowed under the same "indiscrimitate" section of WIKI guidelines mentioned above by Renee. Specially when OBEDIENCE, not "COMMON SENSE" is the most important step in ONE (faith-based SRCM) and the other is an "eightfold system" of "self-empowerment" (Raja Yoga)...(no OBEDIENCE but a lot of "COMMON SENSE"). And Specially when this Faction is targeting Children, has schools, and activities specifically aimed at children at their seminars to which children are specifically "invited". (see their OHIO seminar invitations, on SRCM WEB site)

Don--don (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - In that mass of words, I fail to see what point you're making. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Don, Please do not delete whole sections without discussion first. SRCM is the organizational body of the practice of Sahaj Marg and one cannot appear without the other. SRCM appears in the lead and is referred to under the controversies section. It is noteworthy that the group is affiliated with the UN.
Regarding the Raja Yoga references, here they are:
  1. "Sahaj Marg Meditation, a system of Raja Yoga..."
  2. "the meditation practice called Sahaj Marg (the natural path), a Raj yoga (yoga of the mind) heart-centered meditation."
  3. " the Sahaj Marg system of raja yoga..."
The first two sources are independent third-party sources; the last is published in a mainstream magazine in Australia, but by a member. Also, please note that it would be original research to say anything more than "Sahaj Marg is called Raja Yoga" or "Sahaj Marg is a form of Raja Yoga" based on the secondary sources above (i.e., talk about the stages or Patanjali is based on your own knowledge, i.e., your own original research).
Since anti-Sahaj Marg bloggist Don believes the word "is" is POV, let's just use an exact quotation from one of the sources above, probably from the academic scholarly source, i.e., "Sahaj Marg Meditation, a system of Raja Yoga...". Then we ourselves don't have to worry about members, ex-members, never-members, or bloggists inserting their POVs. (actually, I'd prefer if we could just respect all as editors free from these labels...) Renee (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Don, I am not willing to dialog or respond to any of your posts that contain a lack of WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY and are on the edge of WP:NPA. Every other post of yours contains some sort of criticism about an editor. If you can repost without attacking, labeling, judging people, I will respond. Sethie (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
allo everyone
I am pupil of Babuji. Babuji wants not children in Sahaj marg. He writen it in his books.
Please enter phrase above in article.
Sahaj Marg meditation not for those under 18 years.
jeanne--J.d'arc (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not with the accuracy of the statement, but with whether or not it's a central feature of the practice, especially since it's a "recommendation." What do you think of WP:INDISCRIMINATE?Renee (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable Source?

User:PTR suggested the use of this source. I hope this is acceptable to everyone? Any (credible) reason this cannot be adequate to say "Sahaj Marg is a variety of Raja Yoga" as mentioned in the book? Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this looks like a great source -- very nice of PTR to help. Now we have four sources referring to Sahaj Marg as Raja Yoga. Here they are with their exact quotations:
  1. "Sahaj Marg Meditation, a system of Raja Yoga..."
  2. "the meditation practice called Sahaj Marg (the natural path), a Raj yoga (yoga of the mind) heart-centered meditation."
  3. " the Sahaj Marg system of raja yoga..."
  4. "The mission teaches a system of yoga called Sahaj Marg. This is a variety of traditional Raja yoga (royal yoga), modified in accordance with modern lifestyles."
The first two sources are by independent third-party sources, the third is published in a mainstream magazine in Australia, but by a member, the fourth is an encyclopedic entry in a top quality academic reference book.
Yes, "Sahaj Marg is a variety of Raja yoga" is fine though it sounds a bit akward - how about "type" or "form" of "Raja yoga"? (I can live with "variety" too.) [[User:Reneeholle|R(talk) 22:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Especially #4. Go for it. Sethie (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Which Group is involved with the UN? Is that SRCM (Shahjahanpur), the original registered in India in 1945, or the "Break-away" SRCM (California) group registered in California, in 1997, by Chari, the current President of SRCM (California). If there is no clarity on which SRCM we are talking about, as per the court case, then I would suggest that we don't make statements of notability and attach it to the "break away" group or to the "original" group until the court has decided in clear terms. It seems to me that it is SRCM (California) who, being political and seeking credibility, joined the UN DPI program, with the help of Mr. PUUL in Europe. As it is now, Navneet, Grandson of Babuji, and the President of SRCM (Shahjahanpur), thinks he won the Judgement and is moving on other charges (criminal) against Chari and 6 other members of SRCM (California).

To be fair, and so as not get into taking sides in a "court battle", the article should stay away from the SRCM battle and remain with SAHAJ Marg, which SRCM (California) has patented in the USA, so technically owns it, until the SRCM (Shahjahanpur), and Navneet, it's president, start court action to get it back... I asked Navneet about that and it is apparently coming... so let us be WIKI NEUTRAL and not take side when many court cases are still PENDING and some are yet to come...

Besides, that is not an activity of SAHAJ MARG (the Practice) which is the TOPIC of the article...not SRCM, which is still in court. I asked a while back to not mention SRCM or we would have to get into the MIRE of WHO is SRCM and Which SRCM? The courts are still out on that!! And could be for a while yet.

What a mess eh? Let us remain NEUTRAL as per WIKI.

I will remove that ACTIVITY section, unless I hear some other COMMON SENSE.

Don--don (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RAja Yoga...

So as to not Plagiarize, we must "paraphrase" as per WIKI and attach our phrase to a "credible" source... A member of SRCM (California), the "break-away" group, is not credible to anyone, specially to those from SRCM (Shajahanpur) the original group...And to advertise or do PR in the "footnotes" is also not WIKI acceptable. Just the sources and not PR. (check out the PRACTICE section references).

There is no concensus on the Raja Yoga statements above that is taken right out of SRCM (California) PR ... Seek concensus .... not decisions by TWO!

It seems you don't like the one that says that Sahaj Marg is a Raja Yoga starting at rung #7 of the eightfold Raja Yoga system as is written at this site by this preceptor, who is now in India, writing a book with Chari's, your GURU"s, blessing. [here] ;-))

That's OK... it is not acceptable anyway!

Changes from your previous "position"...

So now you think that Sahaj Marg is a variety of "traditional" raja yoga, modified and starting with rung #7, eh? Show me where "obedience", the most important feature in Sahaj Marg, according to Chari, is in traditional Raja Yoga? Don't you have to adhere or teach a 'majority" of the POINTS before you can make such a CLAIM. It sounds like a book written from the PR of the RELIGIONS in question. And by the way, is SAHAJ MARG a RELIGION as is claimed by the title of that BOOK? Should you also put that in the article? Does that make Sahaj Marg, "NOTABLE" now, as you previously claimed it was not?

Anyone who knows the difference will chuckle at the "claim'. So much for "credibility" and common sense. Oh Well...We'll have to take that one to "MEDIATION" also...later!

I would like to hire you guys later!  ;-))

don--don (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again you have been unable to express yourself without putting others down and not being civil.
For me, such posts are the same as posting nothing. I won't reply to it, and I won't take any of the ideas into account.Sethie (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess there are two topics under discussion here. One is regarding reference to UN (Activities) and the other regarding Raja Yoga.
UN (Activities): I feel we can remove this section as this refers more to the SRCM organization and not Sahaj Marg. Let us simply stick with the Sahaj Marg Practice alone and not get into the organization. Viewing from a wiki user perspective, I only need to know about the practice. Organizational details can be obtained from the respective organizations.
Raja Yoga: I feel all the references given above by Renee here are valid and secondary and thus acceptable. And, all these articles indeed refer to "Raja Yoga" in some way or the other. Whether it is a modified form or an adulteration (as Don puts it) should not be our concern. Interested readers will read more about Raja Yoga and will judge / decide for themselves. I feel we can have the sentence this way, "Sahaj Marg, a form of Raja Yoga, ...". Embhee (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
<soapboxing moved to Don's talk page>
I actually find Don's arguments about deleting the UN line because it's not clear which SRCM it is compelling, so if others agree, please go ahead and delete.
Regarding the Raja Yoga line, how about this for the intro line:
Sahaj Marg (Hindi translation, the easy or natural path) is a heart-based meditation system, based on Raja Yoga but modified for modern lifestyles.
Then, we could use the source #4 above which offers the clarification that the Raja Yoga has been modified. There's no OR here because we're giving the clarification the source gives about Raja Yoga. Feedback? Renee (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

EMBHEE..Duty2love...and other "common sense" seekers

As we have entered the REALM of CENSURE, you can find my replies to you on my [TALK PAGE]


If you think you are WIKI acceptable by deleting comments on CONTENT, we all can start DELETING WHAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH OUR POV if you want...  ;-))


If ONE list (Religions) is OK...The so is the FRENCH COMMISSION REPORT (on "Sectes") ... YOU allowed everyone's POV's, (including personal attacks) that agreed with you on on THAT ONE also!! Even attempts to discredit and slander the COMMISSION MEMBERS...and even the COMMISSION of a Sovereign Country ITSELF.

Don--don (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

soapboxing moved to Don's page

Don -- Wikipedia is not a forum. Do you have anything to contribute to the article, or only sermons about the difference between religion and spirituality? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jaysweet..

I have much to contribute... For example:

If one group wants to claim to be a "raja yoga" and source it to a book about WORLD RElIGIONS and then, it becomes clear that the PRESIDENT and the Group in Question "attacks" other religions and all religions, then the credibility of that work is suspect. One would not put such a group in a BOOK ON WORLD RELIGIONS if one had researched the GROUPS to be added in the BOOK.

So it seems to be a book written from the PR of the RELIGIONS in question as many such books of "LISTS" are.

The Quotes above (now deleted by Sethie) are to show what the MISSION under one FACTION, SRCM (California) is TEACHING at their school and in the speeches of the PRESIDENT of this GROUP...To simply mention it is not believed by a few present. The Proposed Source is then suspect and should be "un-admissible" under the "common sense" criteria of WIKI.

Likewise with the CAUTION from the FOUNDER that "Sahaj Marg Meditaion is not recommended for those under 18yrs of age"

By all rules of "COMMON SENSE", that sentence should be in the article, in the Practice Section, in the same font as the rest, as the last line. It boggles the mind that someone would think that it should be left out and pretend that the article is "fair and balanced" and mostly, accurate.

Likewise with the Activities Section regarding one of the FACTIONS (SRCM(California) being on a UN DIP program. The intro (and the system) refers to the founder of the "original" group registered in 1945 in India and this section refers to the "break-away" faction, registered in California, in 1997. We are confusing the two groups, who are still in court regarding who will control the Mission. The last [Judgement from the Supreme Court of India] seemed to favour the "original group" but it is not over. (see section 5-6) We should stay away from such statement in an article on SAHAJ MARG, so as to not confuse the readers. It could be included in an article on SRCM. I believe we have a concensus on that isuue with the readers here, but...

Thanks for your involvement...

Don--don (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Don -- I would like to center in on this quote from you:
If one group wants to claim to be a "raja yoga" and source it to a book about WORLD REligions and then, it becomes clear that the PRESIDENT and the Group in Question "attacks" other religions and all religions, then the credibility of that work is suspect. One would not put such a group in a BOOK ON WORLD RELIGIONS if one had researched the GROUPS to be added in the BOOK.
I don't follow... Your argument is that religion X criticizes other religions, therefore a book that also talks about other religions is not a reliable source for information on religion X?! If so, then frankly that's crazy talk! ha ha ha... I mean, let me give you an example... Let's say I am writing the Wikipedia article about the Vietnam war. I find a book that compares the strategies of the American military with the Viet Cong, and I source that in the article. "But no," you say, "the American military criticized the Viet Cong for their guerilla tactics. Therefore, how could a book that writes about both the American military and the Viet Cong possibly be a reliable source?" That just doesn't make any sense.
I guess you are saying that since Sahaj Marg is a teaching about spirituality and discourages organized religion, therefore a book about world religions cannot comment on it? That is less crazy, but I still must respectfully disagree. While Sahaj Marg may not consider itself a religion, it is still clearly a set of beliefs that in many ways might be useful to discuss in comparison to other organized religions. I just don't buy your argument.
Do you have a problem with the source beyond the fact that it calls Sahaj Marg a religion?
Regarding the "under 18" thing... Well, what if we sourced it directly, i.e. "The founder of Sahaj Marg has asserted that those under the age of 18 should not practice his method of meditation."? Would that be acceptable? Stating that caution without attribution is pov.
I don't really understand what you are saying about the breakway faction, so I'll have to read the article more closely. I'll ask again about that later. Thanks for being more concise this time. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Please stay away from such statements such as "crazy talk"...That is not WIKI...

moved more soapoxing to Don's page

I agree with you on the "18yrs Caution Statement"...It has been my (and other readers) suggestion. It has been opposed here.

Thanks for you "considerate" response...

Don--don (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read the discussions about the age limit statement. Well, sorry Don, but the consensus is going against you there. I agree the sentence seems a bit out of place, especially in such a short article. I am inclined to leave it. Please abide by consensus.
My reply is indeed "on-topic", and I am sorry if you don't understand. I reiterate, if you have any legitimate qualms with the source, please let me know. However, your roundabout inference to attack the source's credibility is not a legitimate complaint. You have basically done original research to show that Sahaj Marg is not a religion, and then said that because the book lists it as a religion, it is not reliable. No, that only means the book does not agree with your opinion.
I have heard plenty of religions criticize the idea of organized religion, but that doesn't mean it's not a religion. Is it an organization with a set of beliefs and rituals? Well, there ya go. It's a religion.
I read the "Activities" section and I must disagree with your assertion that it should be removed. On the contrary, I think we need more content there. There has apparently been quite a controversy over who "own" Sahaj Marg. I want to hear about it in the article! Far from "confusing" readers, I think that would help readers understand why there is debated over who is the "raja yoga," why there are disagreements over how to practice SM, etc. Let's expand this section!
Lastly, as far as Sethie removing your comments... You posted like ten pages of proselytizing about Sahaj MArg on the article's talk page. Wikipedia is not a forum, and that is not appropriate. If you repost it, I will remove it to, and you could find yourself in violation of the three-revert rule.
Please try to limit the size of your comments, and use less WORDS IN ALL-CAPS, as it is very annoying and hard to read. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Jaysweet, Most of the "controversy" over who "owns" SRCM has played out in numerous court cases filed by a family member of one past guru against the large mainstream group (~300,000 members) and none of it has been covered in mainstream sources. (If it were notable, surely the mainstream press would cover it?) And, a January 2008 court-appointed arbitrator found that (see pages 31-33 for summary of cases):"It is thus observed that the Respondent has miserably failed to make out any case before any of these courts..." (the Respondent is the "Navneet" who Don repeatedly refers to). Apparently, there is still one final case before the courts to decide ownership, but again, if these issues were notable they would be covered in the mainstream press. Right now it just seems to be one disgruntled person repeatedly filing and losing claims as noted in the quotation above.
So, to separate the made-up blog stuff from the true stuff, we've all tried to find quality secondary sources from academics or mainstream press before we add any sentences. Again, most of Don's postings are just cross-postings from his blog based on his opinions and/or his original research. There is absolutely no support from quality secondary sources. So, I just caution you to take what he states as "truth" (or TRUTH as he prefers to state it) with a grain of salt until you see a good quality secondary source. Thanks for the input. Renee (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved Comments

Don has been coming to wikipedia since 2006 [[5]], and posting his opinion about various things here, trying to make this a discussion forum, all the while making little to no actual helpful change to the project. (19 edits to mainspace out of 300 edits!) [[6]]

I am tired of it, and have and will move all such material not directly related to the article to his talk page... for those who wish to read it. My hunch is, most of it is cut and pasted from one of his 12 blogs [[7]]. I for one am not going to see wikipedia be #13! Sethie (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sethie. Hopefully we can keep things civil and on content this way. BTW, for anyone new to this page, it's important to note that Don has repeatedly posted his blog on Wikipedia several times, most recently here (at the end). Renee (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jaysweet...

I agree with your statement:

I read the "Activities" section and I must disagree with your assertion that it should be removed. On the contrary, I think we need more content there. There has apparently been quite a controversy over who "own" Sahaj Marg. I want to hear about it in the article! Far from "confusing" readers, I think that would help readers understand why there is debated over who is the "raja yoga," why there are disagreements over how to practice SM, etc. Let's expand this section!

I also agree with you and it should be in the article as such, A RELIGION...

I have heard plenty of religions criticize the idea of organized religion, but that doesn't mean it's not a religion. Is it an organization with a set of beliefs and rituals? Well, there ya go. It's a religion.

About the Age LIMIT...You say: I am inclined to leave it.

I don't know if you mean "leave it in" or Leave it OUT but I think the concensus is to leave it IN..

4d-don--don (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What I see going on here

I am not educated enough in this subject to comment independently, but I think I have seen enough.

The consensus seems to be very much against Don's proposed changes. While it is always possible that one person is correct in the face of opposition from the majority, Don has not provided any sources that I find sufficient to back his claims. To take each one in detail:

Don has attacked a book on world religions using some rather roundabout logic that I'm not sure I entirely follow. I am still not sure what source is being referenced, but in any case, he is going to have to provide a more coherent reason for why it would not be considered a reliable source, particularly when consensus of the other editors here (who are all more knowledgeable than me) seems to be that it is a reliable source.

Renee has asserted that the controversy over ownership of the SMRC name has not been covered in the mainstream press. While it is impossible to definitely prove a negative assertion such as this, I think it is fair to say that the controversy should not be added to the article unless and until a mainstream news source is located which covers the controversy.

I don't have an opinion about the age limit thing, but the consensus is strongly against inclusion, so Don will just have to abide by that.

I recommend the following actions:

  • The age limit thing stays out, unless consensus were to change in the future.
  • The SMRC ownership controversy stays out, unless a mainstream reliable source can be found.
  • The thing from the world religions book stays in, unless other editors can provide a more coherent objection to its use as a reliable source.
  • Don must refrain from posting sermons to the talk page. Any further long-winded sermonizing about Sahaj Marg or the "true nature of religion" or any of that crap may be removed on sight, and if Don continues to restore it, a report to WP:ANI/3RR is in order.

Is this acceptable? --Jaysweet (talk)

It sounds very reasonable and compliant with wikipedia guidelines to me. On an aside note I would be fine with the age thing in there, IF the article was longer and there was more detail on the technique. Sethie (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Aye! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Jaysweet, thanks for coming in and trying to sort out. One thing I want to mention is, I was never against Don's proposed changes. Actually, I personally supported Don's points about having the age recommendation as well as removing the UN related topic from the article. The only difference of opinions between us was the reference to Raja Yoga where I felt that there was sufficient secondary references pointed out by Renee but Don disagrees. Embhee (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed as well. Thanks for the clear view. Renee (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Renee

You forgot to mention that the secondary sources have to be in "english" according to you...


As per WIKI, I will be taking these issues to FORMAL MEDIATION there are some secondary sources on the ownership controversy (2 newspaper articles with photos, in India), but it is not deemed acceptable as they are not in English. I am still trying to get an "original" and an "official" translation.

As well, the "age limit Cautionary statement" not being in the article will be brought to Formal Mediation.

Thanks for your help...

4d-don--don (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, secondary sources do not need to be in English, although obviously that is preferable. Can I trouble you to tell me what newspaper exactly?
If you feel that strongly about the age limit thing, I encourage you to bring it to mediation. I am confident the result will be the same. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jaysweet

This is what I have with an "un-official" translation and a scanned copy of the Hindi version of both newspapers. Also, I have the scanned copy of the doctors confirmation of the Injuries to the victims, but it is not "translated" and very difficult to translate because of the scanning process. I am trying to get a better copy of the doctor's report.

Caption in Dainik Jagran dated 8th Nov 2006

Caption under photograph, Dainik Jagran 8th november 2006

Administrative officer in consultation with ex-minister "Jansevak" who attack the mission property to capture it.


Dainik Jagran ( ) is the most read newspaper in India.

Hindustan, 3rd November 2006. Ram Chandra Mission captured, after Violence

Woman among 3 others injured

4d-don--don (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the doctor's report is pretty much irrelevant anyways, because it is not a 3rd party source and so does not establish notability. Using the doctor's report to draw conclusions would be original research, so we probably would not use that as a source, unless it were to clarify something about the injuries (not the notability of the event).
So you are saying there was an article in Dainik Jagran... I have to say, it is misleading to say that it is the "most read newspaper in India". It has over 200 sub-editions, so if this article was only printed in one of the sub-editions, that might be the equivalent of the local town newspaper running an article (which would not at all establish notability).
You say it was also in the Hindustan Times... they have an online edition, so perhaps we can find it htere? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


I tried that already...The report again originated from the "Shahjahanpur" branch office and is of "local" interest although there were attempts to involve the Prime Minister and President of India, according to Navneet. I have someone in India trying to get official "hard copies". I tried for access to their archives without any luck. The best I can hope for (I think) is a "Hard copy" that I can scan, and get an "official" translation by a "reputed" translator... Much like one would have to do with a published book or a magazine. There are many on-line firms that offer that service for a fee. We'll see what the "Mediator" thinks of that!

Thanks for the input on the doctor's report...I will get it anyway for my own purpose. It only confirms to me that some injuries took place at some date, that lends credibility to the "newspaper" reports. Wether it is WIKI admissible or not, we will have to wait and see. It certainly confirms that some "injuries", that happened around the same time, were serious enough to warrant a doctor's treatment and report. The rest is conjecture.

I spoke to Navneet, the founder's grandson and current President of SRCM (Shahjahanpur), about this and this is what he said (on a blog): (Note: This seems to be from a seperate incident a few months earlier...I am trying to get court docket confirmation of this allegation also).

soapboxing/blogging moved to Don's talk page

Isn't this fun?  ;-)) Keep on the Sunny Side of LIFE...4d-don--don (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


If you want to converse with me, then you should not encourage "deletion" of the information I send you as per your request. If you want more info, please direct it to my Talk page...or I'll see you at "recess";-))

4d-don--don (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove the content, but I am not going to stop the person who did, because I had already read the content in question and I didn't understand how it was relevant. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


It was a reply from the current President of SRCM (Shahjahanpur) that seems to indcate that there could be more than one incident at the Ashram...I thought it was relevant.

Anyway...address any request for info from me to my talk page, so I can speak or write freely and discuss openly without the "BIG WIKI" eavesdropping.... lol

Bye for now...Do keep smiling for those who can't ;))

It's worse that this in war, they throw bombs and they don't yell: "WATCH OUT"!!

4d-don--don (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, well, what you said some other guy said on some blog is not particularly verifiable, so that's why it is not relevant. Did I mention that Pope Benedict came over to my house to split a six-pack of beer last night, and he said that Catholicism was going to allow gay marriage? Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for the announcement from the Vatican to put that info in Wikipedia, because it is not verifiable, nor am I a reliable source. heh...
I'd prefer to keep the discussion centralized here as a record, particularly if any of this were to go to mediation later on. Don't worry, your comments are still in the edit history, and if something gets removed that shouldn't have been, I'll restore it. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jaysweet for your help here. We've discussed these two Hindi articles before, please see the discussion here. Here is a summary of the issues with these two articles:
  1. A couple of Hindi-speaking editors question the translation (and no one seems able to provide a link to the original Hindi articles).
  2. This source refers to Dainik Jagran as a tabloid newspaper, which brings the reliability of the source into question. Also, when I enter "Indian newspapers" into Google, it does not appear on Indian newspaper lists, e.g., see this for list of "top newspapers" in India, which brings the reliablity of the source into question.
  3. The articles make exceptional claims (read the translations, they read just like tabloids; i.e., they source one person and fail to give give any quotations or perspectives from the other side, like normal newspapers would). Without additional quality sources, WP:V is not met, because "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Under this header it gives a special caution, "This is especially true of claims whose proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them." We have to be very careful about providing exceptional sources about these claims because they are about living persons, so BLP concerns come into play too.
  4. Some other opinions on the articles appear here and here.
  5. If the events really happened (the two translated articles are three years apart) and were notable, wouldn't there be additional mainstream sources?
Anyways, sorry for the data dump but I wanted to give you a summary of previous discussions. Having said all this, I did go in search of a valid secondary source that showed "disputes" over ownership and found a very weak one here. Basically, though Sahaj Marg is only peripherally mentioned, it is mentioned with reference to a dispute in a good secondary source so I took what I could get to keep the line in the article. (And really, even if Don's two translated sources were reliable or verifiable, to keep the article neutral they would just be added as sources to the already existing line anyways as they don't add further information other than to support the allegation that there is a dispute over control and ownership of the organizational body.) So, we're really trying to find good, valid sources to back up points so we don't descend into the blogosphere world of opinions and OR.
Oh, and I'm sorry to strongly disagree with you but the Pope was at MY house last week and he said gay marriage was out of the question but abortion should be legalized as should marriage of priests (and he drinks Jack Daniels, not beer!). Renee (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent example for illustrating what information is Wiki acceptable and what not. I also asked Don questions about the edition of news papers here [8] and here [9], but he didn't reply until recently to you that it was indeed from local edition. You may not know (about the history of this topic on Wikipedia) that we are not going through the same kind of battle twice or thrice, but it is like 4th or 5th time as I have seen in my brief life span at WP. Honestly, my interest and more importantly trust on WP, its process and credibility is probably at its lowest for these reasons. While fully respecting Don's stand and the possible reasons for his stand, I have not been able to effectively get it across (to him) that Wikipedia (WP) is not a platform for blogging. One recent example: among the posts those have been moved out (for soap boxing), this piece in particular about charge sheet and non-bailable warrant and stuff [10] is absolutely false, for first there has been no charge sheet or criminal charges against people mentioned here and secondly Chariji did not cancel his Europe tour, he is in Europe as of now. There could be legal implications on us for publishing such information in WP. I have full respect towards Don's stand and the possible reasons for his stand, but I feel sorry for the fact that he constantly uses such unverifiable source (blog sites) for his information and tries to publish at WP. I really don't know what to do, except just leave it the way it is and focus on more positive things in life. Duty2love (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I applaud your sincerity in helping out in this tenacious Yoga article. As you probably have figured, the discussion is less on Yoga and more on made up non-notable stories of "violence" & "attacks" which IMHO are totally irrelevant to the Yoga discussion. Its obvious that Wikipedia is being used to grind axes because the outside blog world is not enough for it. Perhaps because Wikipedia can possibly give a tint of authenticity to the POV. Blatant allegations are leveled against Wiki editors. I do not see respect given here but yet respect is demanded.
For some this Wiki article is 'war' - I fail to see how people who allege to study Yoga and want to educate to the world about it, have such strong undertones of personal agenda.
I again welcome your sincerity. I can only hope to see some semblance of courteous discussion.
Mayawi (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments from everyone, and particularly to Renee for the excellent, concise summary of the issues surrounding the Dainik Jagran article. I am aware that this argument has been had several times :) It may be useful to have a sub-page off of the Talk page summarizing it point-for-point (Renee's bullet points on the Dainik Jagran article are a good starting point), so you can just point people to that. It would need to be concise though... And I know now that getting Don to distill his side of the argument to a few concise paragraphs is no mean feat!  ;D
A couple comments about sources (and this is as much for Don's benefit than for Renee's): I just want to be perfectly clear that the facts that the DJ article are 1) in Hindi and 2) not freely available online are not reasons to discount them as reliable sources. In theory, I can reference a London Times article from 1852, and the onus is on other editors to find an archive of the London Times so they can verify the source. In theory, that is.
For an extraordinary claim, that theory kind of breaks down (for instance, if I say the 1852 London Times article said that the Queen of England claimed to have been abducted by little green men, people might understandably be skeptical). And this is an extraordinary claim.
And, more importantly even if we assume that the article exists and that the translation is 100% accurate, a single article in a local edition of a newspaper does absolutely nothing to establish notability.
Duty2Love points out that there are potential legal implications in asserting that Chariji has canceled a tour due to outstanding criminal charges. That is potentially libelous and falls under our WP:BLP policy, where extremely reliable sources are required. This is another strike against Don's position.
So, in conclusion: Don, you've heard the concerns here. If you re-add the information in question into the article without addressing those concerns, it will be treated as vandalism and reverted. This could eventually lead to a block if it continues. In addition, please limit the length of your talk page comments and refrain from soapboxing or blogging or generally making forum-style comments about the topic. The talk page is only for discussing the article. We are not censoring you, as you are welcome to post your opinions on a blog or wherever. But Wikipedia is not the place for opinions.
I do not have the authority to do so myself, but I would caution you, Don, that if you continue this disruptive editing it could result in a topic ban, which would forbid you from editing Sahaj Marg and other yoga/meditation-related articles. Be warned. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent idea about creating subpages for groundhog day (i.e., repeat) topics. I'll work on that in the coming weeks. Thanks, Renee (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Added Raja Yoga with references

FYI - Added it in. Let me know what you think. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Four words, four secondary sources, what more could we want? Thanks. Renee (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Marathi and Renee

Your Source #4 of the Raja Yoga inclusion, is not available for checking for all readers...[here]

Could you make it available to all readers for verification?

You gotta laugh b'cause it' s not funny... oh there's the bell...recess...;-))

4d-don--don (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Don -- there is no requirement that sources be easily accessible, only that it be possible to access them. Obviously, something that is accessible with a click of the mouse is preferable, but it is not required.
Since Marathi has provided three other sources that are all accessible at the click of the mouse, I see no reason to make a big deal out of the fourth being something you'd have to go to a research library to access.
Incidentally, I checked the other sources, and the first source, the Gordon Melton book on World Religions, appears to be perfectly valid, and sufficient in and of itself to support the claim about Sahaj Marg being a derivative of Raja Yoga. Your argument against the reliability of this source is original research, synthesis of new ideas, and also contains deep logical flaws.
I understand your frustration regarding the Hindi newspaper sources, and how people are skeptical because they cannot access the originals. But I'll tell you what: For the sake of argument, I will say I believe you 100% about the existence of the articles and the translation. And I still say "hogwash," because it was in the local edition of a tabloid newspaper, and is therefore neither notable nor credible. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Don - I can send you a pdf of the report (I know, I know - Not scalable to all editors) or I can take that reference off. I'm fine, either ways because it makes no difference to the article as such, since all the other three "Raja Yoga" references are still solid. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason to remove the reference. It is highly credible. And given the history of this article, we need every credible refference we can find.... and yes, that would include criticisms, if the references can be found.
Don I don't understand your "recess" comments.... though it appears you find them amusing. How about if you fill the rest of us in? Sethie (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sethie, this is one of our best references in that it is an academic, third-party source. Also, I have the pdf of this article and can email it to whoever wants it. As I've noted here, the whole paragraph that was extracted and appeared in earlier footnote versions was accurate. Also, I think we should add this reference from Australian Yoga Life which focuses exclusively on the topic of Raja Yoga (the reprint of the article appears on the official srcm site, click on the link below).
  • "What is Raj Yoga?" Elizabeth Denley, Australian Yoga Life, Issue 8 - 2004, pp.45-48,
The magazine is a mainstream Australian vetted magazine; the author discloses she is a member of the group; Cult himself used one of Denley's other articles in his version so he must be okay with it; it is a well-researched article on the topic at hand; it is one of many sources so we're not just relying on a "member's" view. Feedback? Renee (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No response for three days? That's an all-time world record for this article. :)
Given WP:SILENCE I've added this source to the first sentence. I think it's a pretty good source. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, the only comment I would have is that citation-overload tends to make an article look ugly and is not desirable. I think WP:MoS has something about that, but I could be wrong. Anyway, sometimes it's necessary when you have a pov-pusher who doesn't want to accept the reliable sources <cough, cough> but if this article stays quiet for a few weeks/months, it might be good to just take the best one or two sources for the Raja Yoga fact and save the rest away for posterity. It just looks sort of ugly when you have too many footnotes all in a row like that :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Renee... as not to show POV-push, chose at least, the one that is not obviously by a MEMBER or a PRECEPTOR (where the person admits it in the article) and is not in a "LIFESTYLE" commercial rag, or Lifestyle section of a newspaper, where any "negative" about YOGA (in this case) is not going to be in the article, because according to us true WIKIpedians who try to adhere to the GUIDELINES, it looks like a "POV push", even though we all know that you would never do that and you are yourself, not a member of this Group! lol...

If we could get any system to adhere by it's own rules, we would have a better world be it Spiritual or WIKI!

4d-don--don (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To quote Jules from Pulp Fiction, "English...!". I have no idea what you meant by what you just wrote - It's 1 sentence spanning across 3 lines on my big-screen monitor. I think I get the gist though - "This source isn't acceptable because I say so" (or something like that.... I think). Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: Oh yes, quit picking on people here and their motivations - It's a waste of time and in lousy taste. Want me to provide a few diffs on why you historically hate Sahaj Marg so much? Stick to the editing, Don! This talks gets us nowhere. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest ignoring Don's posts to the Talk page, unless he makes a good point (in which case that should be addressed), or unless he posts another ten page sermon (in which case that should be reverted). But if he just posts a single paragraph rehashing old points (as he did above) it is probably best to just ignore it. --21:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wise advice Jaysweet.
For general discussion, it's important to note that articles published by "members" of various groups do not mean they are by definition POV. For example, one would be hard-pressed to find an authoritative and thorough article on Catholicism or Lutheranism by a non-Catholic or a non-Lutheran, respectively. And often, these articles are more critical than other articles on the same topics because the authors know and understand the nuances of a given topic and can write critically on it. I think the more important question is, is there a rigorous vetting system where the article is reviewed by neutral, outside editors for tone and information? Renee (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I was ignoring don's comment, but since Renee brought it up, I would like to echo that there is no prohibition of using information published by members of the group in question. While we always need to be wary of conflict of interest, for certain types of information those sources may even be better. In the example in question, all the intro is saying is that Sahaj Marg is based on Raja Yoga. Now, don can have his opinion that they got it all wrong, ha ha ha, but that does not contradict the assertion that it is based on Raja Yoga. All we need to back that up is that they intended it to be based on Raja Yoga, and for that, a published work by a member of the group would actually be a pretty good source.
To address Renee's specific question, is there a rigorous vetting system where sources are reviewed by neutral, outside editors... unfortunately not :( The closest you can get is an RfC, but even then you don't always know who is going to show up or how much time they are going to put in. So, we just plug along and do our best.  :) I actually think a pretty good job has been done with this article, and am not too worried about the sources. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

another academic source

User:PelleSmith was kind enough to provide these two sources here and here. She has emailed me the pdf of the first, which is a scholarly source, and I'd be happy to email it to anyone who requests it.

Here is the description of Sahaj Marg from this source: Pearmain, Rosalind. 2005. "Transformational Experiences in Young People: The Meaning of a Safe Haven." International Journal of Children's Spirituality. 10(3):277-290.

  • Sahaj Marg, meaning ‘simple or natural way’, is a modern form of Raja Yoga, which is distinctly characterised by focusing on the notion of divine light or presence within the heart augmented within direct transmission of a divine current called pranahuti. It is intended to be a spiritual path that is practical in a modern world, taking into account the practicalities of family and working life. (p. 279)
  • The article is mostly a description of meditative retreats offered by the Quakers and Sahaj Marg and how these retreats provided restorative "safe havens" for young adults to learn more about themselves and live more "fully as a human being."

I found a reprint of this second article on the SRCM website and have provided the link to it here. Devagupta, R. 2004. "A Terrible Longing in the Heart: An Interview with Shri Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari." Parabola. 29(3):28-32.

Unfortunately, I don't think the second will be of much use to us, however, because it is a primary source as PelleSmith pointed out here so can only be used for information that no one will challenge (and someone's bound to challenge every word or source here....). Is there anything worth including from the Pearmain article? Renee (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, any clear facts- like techniques, ideas, philosophies, or histories of the movement that are in no way controversial, I think would be fine. Sethie (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Totally agreed. I'm just thinking of how something I thought of as very basic and non-controversial, the Hindi translation of Sahaj Marg, was challenged and called POV by someone and spawned a whole discussion thread. Renee (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Added the Pearmain, Rosalind reference.Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have 5 references to "Raja Yoga"? As a wiki user, I would feel someone is over-emphasizing to the extent of pushing a POV! Also, it doesn't look elegant. Just my opinion, it would be nice to have 2 of the best references from the lot and list them. Embhee (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I was bulking up for the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary citations" wiki rule. But you've got a valid point - What references would you like to see retained? I think #3 can come off. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd hate to delete good references because it's been such a difficult process to find and vet them. However, I think that two can be moved. I suggest moving #3 to the end of the first sentence because it specifically refers to "heart-based meditation." Also, I think #5 can be moved to support the pranahuiti clause, in the last sentence in the introduction. Renee (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK - Moved #3 to reference heart-based meditation
Reference #5 is now referencing pranahuti (and I'm trusting here that you've done your homework - I haven't read this paper myself). Can you please e-mail it to the same address where you mailed the other paper on attention deficit disorder? Thanks! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No, please don't take my word for it. I've pasted in the exact quotation in the first post in this thread for all to review. There it clearly refers to pranahuiti. (And also, I have just emailed you the article -- thanks for your email.)
Somehow the references got mixed up and some got lost. I went in and fixed and added the Pearmain quotations from above for evidence.Renee (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - Got the article. You do seem like a suspicious character, so this was necessary. (KIDDING!).  :-)
Great article, and yes, the pranahuti reference is appropriate. Good stuff!Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi team

Couple proposals:

1. I've been reading other articles on WP and their leads are much shorter. If no objections exist I'll leave the first two sentences in the lead on Sahaj Marg. The rest of the passage will move to "History." There's a natural break and it works well, I think.

2. I liked Sethie's practice of archiving threads that had not been discussed in two weeks and will proceed with doing this (assuming no one complains).


Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. 1 makes sense, hence we should do it; #2 is also a good idea to keep things clean. Duty2love (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both proposals. Renee (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I remember getting rid of the History section by moving the content into the Intro [[11]]. However, now I can see that the Intro has evolved into a more meaningful piece with more text in it. I agree with your proposal to create the History section again and re-organize as proposed above. Embhee (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New Article

FYI. Is this newspaper article admissible as a reference for the daily practice (Meditation, cleaning, group meditations and 1x1 sittings with preceptors)? Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Marathi, Posting whole articles violates copyright laws, so I have removed it (per WP:COPYRIGHT and this). For those who wish to review the article Marathi mentions above, please view this dif.
Regarding the source, it looks good. According to the List of newspapers in Scotland, it is called a "quality" paper here. Also, it's written from a neutral third party (a journalist). Having said that, I'm just not sure if it adds any new information to the article (it repeats the basics that appear in other better researched, more in-depth articles, e.g., Denley's pieces). Maybe we can start a subpage that just holds additional quality citations if needed? Renee (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we can do an "External Links" section for this type of article. But I agree with you that this piece adds nothing new. So I'm hesitant to add it at all. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal - Ten Maxims


What do you think of paraphrasing the 10 maxims to this article?

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In the link you have, it is referred to as "Commandments", while another group refers to it as the "10 maxims". This conflict may sound trivial but given the sensitive issues faced while editing this page, I feel that we should be careful in publishing conflicting material. I would like to hear other editors' viewpoints but given a choice, I would rather not publish this material. Embhee (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Given the stub like state this article is at, I don't think we should Ten Maxims at this point, may be later. Duty2love (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
If you can provide quality secondary sources then I think it would be fine, but the source you provided above was a primary source. Appreciate your looking though! Renee (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
OK then - Let's keep this out for now. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment from J.d'arc

This article looks like a advertising already. No more advertising please! Where is the balance that we found in other articles on WIKI?

jeanne--J.d'arc (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, who else do I know that likes to make vague references to "WIKI" with all caps....? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
double hmmmmm...check out the contribs...
Jeanne, This article is far better than most on meditation groups in that it has several quality secondary sources. For example, see this and this. The key is proper sources. If you have reliable and verifiable secondary sources of things you would like to include, please provide those. Thanks, Renee (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Jeanne - What part looks unbalanced and/or un-wiki to you? Please be specific and suggest improvements (as Renee said, with reliable secondary sources of course).Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I 2nd that- where is the advertising.... and =) how convenient- another person who speaks French! Sethie (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

History repeats itself?

I see that Cult Free World is back making the same unilateral edits that got him repeatedly blocked.

Cult, if there is anything new you would like to discuss, please let's discuss it here. I know it can be frustrating working within the structure of Wikipedia but if you're willing to discuss issues, I'm sure we can reach consensus.

I didn't see anything new in your edits of the last couple of days but I could be wrong. Is there something you'd like to discuss? Renee (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I went through all the several back-to-back edits made by User:Cult free world and these changes are the same that was done before by him. There was nothing new and all these topics of court-cases, etc. we had gone through them and discussed and decided to keep them out of the page for lack of proper sources. I therefore went ahead and removed the edits done by User:Cult free world. If he wants to make changes, we need to discuss it and come to a consensus and then make the change. Embhee (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Culty - if this content wasn't admissible according to multiple editors and admins 2-3 months ago, why do you assume it's OK now? As explained to you a couple million times by users and admins alike, kindly discuss on this page before making any edits. BTW - Were'nt you under a topic ban? Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yaa i see the same, cult members unable to accept facts in a wikipedia article, what objection do cult members have with information added in the page ?. --talk-to-me! (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult free world: As you full well know, we have discussed the very edits you made ad nauseum and there was either consensus against them or we had not come to agreement yet and the next step would be mediation. Please follow process and discuss changes here first. Since it's been awhile, here are some threads to jog your memory.
Here is the latest discussion where we decided the French government report was a primary source and not reliable (strongly discounted in other reports). Here and here the consensus of the group was that court cases were primary sources and that a secondary source could not be found to support the cases. As you know, there has been no consensus on the age issue and this was an outside reviewer's take on the situation which gained consensus. Before that the last recommendation on the issue was mediation here. (to prod your memory, remember these discussions here and here too?). If you would like to restart that discussion then kindly start here with your explanation of how it is not WP:Indiscriminate (this is where the discussion left off).
Here the Denley source was accepted by consensus as being reliable.
What would you like to discuss first? Embhee (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does the french report has a page on wikipedia if it cannot be used in an article ? and do u want me to show you pages on wikipedia, where court cases are listed ? or is it that cult of Sahaj marg does not follow any rule of wikipeida because cult members don't feel like following it ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Cult, You are making several changes that were discussed over and over again by the group. Please see Embhee's note above where he specifically lists the discussions. If you would like to make changes let's take one at a time. Why don't we start with something easy -- the Denley article.
It was presented here. What are your objections to the source? Renee (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
CFW, please list third party neutral sources for changes you'd like to make. If there is nothing new, then please research and find such sources. Please note that you could again get blocked for disruptive editing - 14:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)~ Mayawi (talk)

footnote references are one-sided, and even advertorial

First let me introduce some relevant info about myself. (You can read more on my user page of course)

I was a sincere practicant of Sahaj Marg for 12 yrs. I also was an official in the organization (SRCM) for 4 yrs. Apart from that I hold a PhD in mathematics, and was a scientific editor for 2 yrs. I believe I know what is considered the norm for references in an unbiased article.

So please do not dismiss what I say with too much ease.

This article on Sahaj Marg fails to acknowledge the FACT that Sahaj Marg has been subject of investigation by the French Government, and has been put on a list of potentially dangerous sects. A reference to the appropriate report is the VERY LEAST that this article should contain.

Furthermore, the number of references is large, and they all point to sources which are unequivocally positive towards Sahaj Marg. Even the text of the prayer is quoted in full in a reference (!).

The article in its current form therefore reeks of an advertorial. There are quite a number of critical blogs on the web on Sahaj Marg now, there is also a critical analysis on Sahaj Marg on (a Swiss evangelical site aiming to help people avoid sects).

The concerns about Sahaj Marg may not always be well-formulated, but I think this article should not neglect the FACT that there ARE serious concerns about Sahaj Marg.

My advice is therefore to adopt a more neutral stance. Do not misuse the footnotes/references section for a long list of positive references. Cut down the references, and also put in two or three critical references (one to the French Government's report, one or two to some critical websites).

Friendly greetings Frank W (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Frank,
Welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some Wiki policies that might help you understand the current article: WP:RS (Reliable sources), WP:NPOV (Neutral point of view), WP:V (Verifiability).
Many people have worked on this article to get it into its neutral state (including many people who have responded to noticeboard requests to give a third opinion). May I point out that there is a "controversies" section already and that the article merely lists bare-bone facts about Sahaj Marg. The "critical" websites you speak of are blogs where people can make up anything they want and post it, without any basis in fact. This is why links to blogs are banned, and why blogs cannot be used as sources.
Regarding the French Report, it does not meet Wiki verifiability or reliability standards and has been discussed repeatedly. (Please see this, for example). If you can find a third-party neutral source, like a mainstream newspaper or news magazine that refers to Sahaj Marg and contains the criticisms you want to post, then please (by all means!) post it here so we can discuss it. I personally have searched far and wide for any and all reliable articles on the group and have brought them to the attention of this talk page (and many others have helped too).
I notice you run a blog and that you and User:4d-don are in very frequent discussions on Sahaj Marg. Please note that blogs are the perfect place to give your personal analysis, opinions, use quotations to make whatever case you want about X topic, etc., but that on Wikipedia we're really trying to present neutral facts about topics.
Again, if you find some good sources please bring them here! Also, if there are specific lines that you believe do not sound neutral, please list them here so we can discuss. Thanks, Renee (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Renee for your kind welcoming message on my talk page, I really appreciate it. From your reaction above, it is obvious that there is more history to this article than I can oversee in a short time. I have no wish at all to rake up old disputes. If this is the most neutral phrasing that has been achieved so far, then fine. But my point remains valid enough in the sense that there are no references to sources critical of Sahaj Marg, and a long list of positive references. I wonder how the Australian Yoga Life magazine can be cited as an authoritative source, when clearly it welcomes any `positive' article on yoga. The article in this magazine by Elizabeth Denley to which the wiki-article refers, is therefore to me self-published.
However, I agree with you that it is better to come up with new sources...these things take time. If I understand you correctly, then if I gave an interview in a newspaper about my experience with Sahaj Marg, you would reference this newspaper article here?
Friendly greetings, Frank W (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading a little of the guidelines etc. that you mention, wow...worlds within worlds, but it really is a tough job to get something like Wikipedia functioning reasonably well. Especially on controversial issues, especially if they are contemporary. So I understand that the source-issue is important.
It is not my ambition to get this article precisely `neutral' (which would be according to my own bias anyway). But I think the (existence at least of the) concerns about Sahaj Marg should be mentioned somewhere (somehow, when the right sources are available) in order to achieve Wiki's NPOV. Still, on world scale, there are more important things to fret about. So I suppose my visits and contributions here will wait until I have some new *reliable, verifiable, secondary* source to give ;-). All in due time. Frank W (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frank, It's so nice to have civil discussion from different viewpoints on this page! I've been told by third-party reviewers of the article that interviews are considered "primary" sources, please see this. A primary source can be referenced in an article if it contains basic, non-disputed facts, but if it contains controversial information then it needs a secondary source (like a newspaper reporting on it) to make it verifiable and noteworthy (otherwise it is known as original research). If it contains controversial information, it needs multiple secondary sources or runs the risk of being a "fringe" theory, according to Wikipedia. Here the policy is given more clearly! The idea is that "Exceptional claims require high quality sources."
Regarding the Denley article, it's my understanding that the journal publishes neutral, well-researched articles (neither positive nor negative, e.g., see this). The key question for Wiki is, is the article written in a neutral manner? For examples, see this exchange. Is there some statement in the Sahaj Marg article to which she is sourced that reads non-neutral or wrong to you?
What we've tried to do is find multiple secondary sources that say the same thing before entering them in the article, for example, see the second post here regarding the discussion about whether or not Sahaj Marg could be called a "Raja yoga."
I can appreciate your concern about the length of sources (and we actually have more that say the same things as already in the article). The problem in this article is that each time a source is given, it appears in the references again as brand new. There is a way to make it be sort of an "ibid" response. It's about time I learned how to do that so I'll work on that. Hopefully that will address some of your concerns about the long list of references. Also, if anything reads non-neutral, please post. I don't want a positive or negative article, just a neutral balanced one (you can check out my other posts on other articles and see that this is true). Best, Renee (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Renee and Frank, I have also been struggling with the fact about long and repeated references. I wanted to raise that as a discussion but just didn't get around to doing it. There must be some way in wiki editing techniques to avoid this. Not only this, it would be really nice to restrict the number of lines being displayed for every reference. There is no need for such long explanations of these references, users can anyways click on the references to read them. I can also do some research in this area and figure out how to do the same. Any other editor who is interested in this can also help out. Thanks. Embhee (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation format

Hi Folks, Here is the work that needs to be done to convert the references into a more professional format. I'm willing to try but wanted to make sure everyone was on board because newcomers will have a hard time (imho) adding references. Of course, they can just add them and then someone who's familiar with this Wiki reference style can re-format them properly.

The advantage of this method is that the reference is only cited once, instead of appearing everytime it's used to support a statement. This will take me a while to figure out so if someone else is not as intimidated as I by this format -- please jump in!!! Renee (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, after some research, I'm not sure if it's worth it to change the format, as it will actually add more to the article (a "notes" section would replace the current references with as many lines as the current references, AND, there would be a reference list on top of the notes list). Please see this article as an example. Renee (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Renee, I looked at your example article and I would personally stick with what we already have! Since Frank brought up this point, I would suggest we wait to hear from him as to his opinions on the same. For the time-being, we can keep the article as is. Embhee (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Vis-a-vis Renee's example I agree (did notice a reference to a blog in the example article though! ;-)). Improvement can perhaps be achieved by Embhee's earlier suggestion of cutting down the explanation lines with each reference.Frank W (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Renee, in my brevity I forgot to mention that I appreciate your quick response-by-acting to my concern!Frank W (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Folks, Per your suggestions I've deleted all of the long supporting quotations from each reference. As a record, if we want to refer to them ever again, please click here. I have to admit it does make the article look much nicer. Frank, thanks for the nice note and I guess I'm obligated now to go remove the blog from the other article though I'm not inclined to get involved in many more articles now! The issue with blogs is that they are by definition biased, full of original research and opinions. They can make interesting reading, that's for sure, but not something I'd want to build a scholarly paper on! Duty2love, I noticed you had added in an SRCM reference and I deleted that too because it's a self-published source and there are multple factions that practice Sahaj Marg so I don't think it's appropriate to list that source. If you object please let's talk about it here. Frank, if there's a line in the article that reads non-neutral, please let us know so we can fix it. Thanks again, Renee (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Renee: No, I don't have any issues with that, this looks better. Now if someone can make the refs not repeat then it will come down from 15 to 10. Duty2love (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Some new source?

I said that I would try to find some reliable secondary sources which show that Sahaj Marg is being viewed with real concern, at least in some European countries like France and Switzerland. I understand that the French government's reports do not count as secondary. Here I have come across an article in the Swiss daily newspaper Le Matin , published by respectable Edipresse.

(The rest below is on the assumption that this is a new source, and you have not already discounted it somewhere. If you did already discard it, then sorry, scratch my remark.)

You might notice that the French government's reports do play a role in the discussion in the article. Therefore, both the existence of these reports and their listing of SRCM as a possibly harmful sect are simple facts (that can be corroborated easily) which are truly relevant to the article on Sahaj Marg (in my POV of course). I would leave in the middle whether what the reports say is justified, because that is (as the article in Le Matin shows) disputed. But to leave out the existence of these reports, which play a verifiable part in French and Swiss society's views of Sahaj Marg, to me seems an omission.

I don't think any mention needs to be elaborate (better not, even). Just a line or two, saying: `In Switzerland and France, serious concerns have been raised with regard to Sahaj Marg as a possibly harmful sect.' And then for example the article above as a reference.

What do you think? (Don't worry, I'm not going to push this, I'm appealing to neutral POV that's all. More sources will turn up, because what I say is simply true: there are serious concerns in these European countries, and newspapers do write about them from time to time, even though SRCM is comparatively small.) Feel free to disagree and leave the article as it is.

Oh, I forgot, sorry, the newspaper article is in French...but there should be some trustworthy translator for you to consult. Frank W (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frank, thanks for your kind email. The issue I have with the French report is that it was soundly discredited by all sorts of national and international groups, so it calls into question reliability and verifiability issues. If you could find a couple of English academic journals and/or mainstream English-language newspapers that report on it, then I think notability could be established. (Because, if it were truly a notable issue I'd think it would have been reported on in mainstream sources.) I have searched myself for a mainstream English language newspaper article that linked the French report to Sahaj Marg and will continue to do so (I haven't found any yet). If we can find some good sources then I think it would be okay to put in something neutral like, "Several new religious movements, including Sahaj Marg, were labeled sects by the French and Swiss." Again, my concern is one of reliability, verifiability and notability. Best, Renee Renee (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Renee, I tend to disagree a little, but as I said I'm fine with leaving the article as it is. For the record: my point is not to insert any claim as to the validity of the reports themselves, but just to mention their existence and the role they play in French and Swiss societal discussions. Like I said, their existence and use in discussions are reliable and verifiable facts. You will as of yet not find a mainstream English-language source on a small spiritual movement in France or Switzerland, even if it is controversial. That is why I think one should not discard a mainstream Swiss source like the article I mentioned above, even though it is in French. Have it translated, and you will see that the article is very balanced and contains a wealth of secondary information. I think your above sentence would be fine, with a reference to this article added. Your concerns with reliability, verifiability would be adressed. About notability: Le Matin is a fairly large Swiss newspaper, I've come across a lot less notable sources...even in the references of this article ;-). I will let you ponder, and I repeat I'm fine with leaving the article as it is. Kind regards! Frank W (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My few cents - I dug this discussion from the archives of this page just to refresh our memories of the various discussions we have had in the past regarding including French and other languages' reports in this English Wiki. Frank has a valid point that controversies exists in the countries of France and Switzerland. It would then make sense to add all this article into the French Wiki but I feel the English Wiki should have reliable secondary sources from reliable and verifiable English articles. Embhee (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Second this - earlier there was a similar discussion of adding something based on a hindi newspaper source in which we could not get an consensus. Concerns raised were - tabloid nature of the newspaper, non-english notable source which was not picked up by any other english newspaper and finally most important, the wiki page is about Sahaj Marg (Yoga) practice whereas the newspaper contained allegations about the organization. This may not be the right wiki page both in terms of language and content to put the proposed addition. Mayawi (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Frank, We have discussed this at length in past many times but since you were not there, it is perfectly fine to go over it again, hopefully keeping it terse. Here are some of the reasons why I think this report does not fit for this article - 1) WP:V, Non English Source, referring to a content the meaning of which we don't know very well is not a good Wiki practice; and as Mayawi mentioned above we have rejected many articles published in Hindi dailies on similar grounds. 2) WP:N is also questionable as Renee mentioned above. For it to be considered notable for Wikipedia in English, either it should have been published in English by a mainstream publication or at least referred to, both of which we don't see. So these are the two facts that I remember why we didn't include this.
Now here is my POV, which I am not saying should be a criteria for inclusion or exclusion: Sahaj Marg is a simple meditation practice and it has a Guru, a very common and acceptable practice in the east but many cultures/government automatically label such groups. It is pejorative and biased. Moreover I know many people in both France and Switzerland who have been practicing Sahaj Marg for a long long time and are perfectly happy, hence it raises all the more questions about notability of this report in my head. Duty2love (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Duty2love, with all respect we are not talking about the inclusion of the French government reports, but about a mainstream Swiss newspaper article. So it would help to keep the discussion focused thereon, and not on the validity of the French reports. The Swiss newspaper article to my knowledge is a new source and has not yet been discussed, so it is not going over old grounds. About the guideline WP:V, Non English Source that you refer to, it states quite clearly (the italics are not mine):
"Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly."
So clearly and logically, the guideline states that English-language sources are only preferential when they are available and of equal quality. One cannot expect French and Swiss newspapers to translate all their articles for the benefit of Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that French & Swiss newspapers don't count as a reliable verifiable source for English Wikipedia. The guideline WP:V, Non English Source that you refer to goes on to indicate how one should act, should English-language sources be unavailable. So why not simply follow this guideline?
About the other guideline WP:N that you and Renee mention, I think you are misreading this guideline. It is strictly a guideline about whether a topic (in this case Sahaj Marg) deserves a separate article! It says so explicitly here WP:NNC, and I quote:
"The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not regulate the content of articles, except for lists of people[1]. Instead, various content policies govern article content."
About the other things you write (knowing many abhyasis etc): they seem irrelevant to this discussion. Should our personal knowledge of Sahaj Marg influence our decision on what is Wikipedian or not? I could equally oppose what you write with what I have seen in my 12 years of practice of Sahaj Marg...but what is the relevance here? It would be a personal exchange, not very illuminating on the subject of reliable verifiable sources. So keeping things terse would be helped by leaving out our personal experiences. (We could exchange by email, that would work better, you're welcome to do so!).
All in all, I'm a little surprised that guidelines are being quoted as a reason for not including this source, when the guidelines clearly (very clearly even) state something else. Could I please ask all of you to respect NPOV, which to me means that if there are (reliable verifiable secondary) negative sources on a subject, they get a mention too? It might not concur with what you personally think of the subject...but that goes for many of the positive references also in my case.
However, with this I'm really signing off from this discussion for now, since my time and energy is limited and I think I have done what I could to contribute to NPOV in this article. And, I repeat once again, I'm fine with leaving the article as it is. Just surprised at reasons given, that's all. Kind regards Frank W (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I see your point about notability. I think the more correct policy that refers to the Swiss source is WP:V - verifiability. That is, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and the fact that no English language source says what a single Swiss newspaper article said 7 years ago in 2001 does not meet the standard of having multiple, reliable, sources. Again, if there were a few English-language sources to accompany this Swiss source, then it might be justifiable to include it. But to include a single foreign-language source from 2001 with no other verifiable English language sources signifies to me that it is a non-notable issue. (Again, if it were notable enough to include in the article, it would appear in mainstream English-language presses.) I guess the correct policy to review in this respect is the one on relevance of content. Renee (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Frank - I see where you're coming from, but I have some concerns - This may sound weird but bear with me for a second. Firstly, I tried to translate this article through Yahoo Babelfish and Google and got a whole lot of gibberish, and I finally just gave up making sense of it. So I really can't tell about the gist of this story, much less decipher the nuances like whether this was a news article, an editorial, or some dude writing a letter to the newspaper. And if this is an editorial or a letter, it's just some guys POV and not necessarily fact, right?
Secondly this piece is Swiss (French?)! Certain sections of French society have concerns as you stated, about Sahaj Marg. OK - I agree so far. But then consider this: The same newspaper has quoted, at varying times, sections of French society having concerns about Islam, Judaism and, well, pretty much anything and anybody that isn't mainstream French and Catholic (based on my limited translation capabilities via Google). I can find you stories in notable regional newspapers quoting opinions in those regions that would, in most other parts of the world be considered rubbish: Texan newspapers criticize Mexican immigrants as the reason for law and order issues in the state. In Texas, they'd be considered wholly reasonable stories. In Mexico and South America, they'd be trashed. Israeli newspapers may have a certain opinion on the wall seperating them from the Palestinians, but I guarantee you that their Palestinian counterparts (and the Islamic world as a whole) will treat you badly if you state the same POV between them. Indian newspaper editorials will wax eloquent about the Pakistan being the source of all of Kashmir's ills. You'd get a punch in the face for stating that opinion in Pakistan (and possibly a bullet hole in the head in Azad Kashmir). Yes, a section of French and Swiss society take issue with Sahaj Marg, but do the larger human society agree with that opinion? Why is it, that in it's 50+ years of existence in so many countries around the world that we only have a couple of critical editorials on Sahaj Marg popping up in France and Switzerland?
My point in all of this is to say that when you want to quote a newspaper, it always helps to use one that everyone can agree has a neutral posture in the Swiss/French issue at hand. Such a newspaper would best be found outside the war zone in question - In this case, probably outside Switzerland and France. And if you can't even find such an article, maybe you're chasing a red herring or backing a fringe opinion?
I think Wikipedia should stay out of this whole regional controversy. Just my opinion. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
PS: I really liked your Antelope sculpture (and that's saying a lot coz I usually don't get art at all, my wife says).

Shazbut, you guys seduce me into reacting again ;-). Thanks for taking it seriously anyway. I feel we are talking about different things. For me, I'm only talking about the inclusion of Renee's sentence: `Several new religious movements, including Sahaj Marg, have been labeled sects by the French and Swiss'. This statement of fact is supported by the (very balanced I assure you) Swiss newspaper article. FYI, the article simply describes both the concerns that some people have, and the rebuttal of those concerns by others. The article in that respect really is very neutral, just ask someone you know with a good knowledge of French to translate it for you, don't rely on Google or Babelfish.
So there is no exceptional claim, in my eyes. Renee, about relevance of content, once again I quote from the guideline relevance you mention yourself:
"The bulk of Wikipedia's content consists of:
* Basic description - which explains what the subject is, what it does (or did), and what it is notable for. This type of information should be put in the article lead, or in the first lines of the section to which it is most relevant.
* Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed. Groups of disparate facts lack such context, and should be avoided."
I have emphasized in bold "public perception", because that is the relevance here. There really are different verifiable, reliable sources showing that the public perception of Sahaj Marg in France and Switzerland is controversial. In 1996 a Swiss federal judge was questioned by another Swiss newspaper (24 heures) as to his relation with Sahaj Marg, and how he could maintain his integrity as a federal judge while the theory of Sahaj Marg advocates complete obedience to the Master. The judge then formally cut off his ties with Sahaj Marg. The 24 heures article is however not online, but the article I mentioned refers to it.
In view of how small a movement Sahaj Marg really is in France and Switzerland (a few thousand followers in France, a few hundred in Switzerland), the fact that large newspapers even devote any attention to it is remarkable, and I feel that the demand for many -even English-language- sources is unjustified. As wikipedians, we should be glad with these reliable verifiable secondary sources which detail some of the public's perception of Sahaj Marg.
My suggestion is the following: we leave the article as it is. In time, I will look for other sources. I'm confident that with some other sources added and when you let things settle a bit in your mind, you will eventually come to agree that there is some merit in adding Renee's sentence. Thanks for the interested and interesting replies. kind regards, Frank W (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- let's leave the article as is until we get some English language sources, then we can take up the discussion again regarding the other issues raised here. Embhee (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Renee (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
p.s. that Marathi...always the seductress....Renee (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 :) Is that what "Shazbut" means? Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

to IP

Dear IP, I notice you deleted the controversies section. What are your specific objections to the section? Renee (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Another new source

Dear all, I have found another new source. This time it is an article in the world-class newspaper (this is the English wikipedia qualification!) Neue Zurcher Zeitung. Yes, it is a Swiss newspaper, in German. Now, with all respect, I think I won't accept you bringing up again the guidelines already mentioned above. I have already pointed out that they do not apply. The German can easily be translated, I will do so for you - in time. Together with the already good-quality newspaper article in Le Matin, I think there is plenty wiki-material to add Renee's sentence and these two sources to the wiki-article on Sahaj Marg.

The titel of the 30-10-1996 article is:

Ein Bundesrichter als Sektenführer?/Roland Schneider verlässt die Shri Ram Chandra Mission/fel. Lausanne, 29. Oktober

Translation: "A Federal judge as sect leader? / Roland Schneider leaves the Shri Ram Chandra Mission/fel. Lausanne, 29th October"

The article can be found in the Neue Zurcher Zeitung Archive, but it will cost me 6 euros. I don't mind, but I would appreciate your agreeing beforehand that this source is reliable verifiable etc. and therefore admissible. It (like the Le Matin article) simply reflects what I stated earlier: there are serious concerns about Sahaj Marg in Switzerland and France.

kind regards, Frank W (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Frank, I really respect your efforts but it seems that you are trying to find things that represent your point-of-view instead of trying to present a neutral encyclopedia article. An article in German from 1996? How could this be acceptable? We have exactly the same translation issues as above where a reasonable English-speaker cannot verify it. Further, the focus of both of these articles is on the judge with peripheral mentions of Shri Ram Chandra Mission from newspaper articles in 1996 and 2001. Don't you think if this were a notable issue that it would have been reported on in at least one mainstream English-language paper? That is the standard that the community on this page has agreed to. My suggestion above was that for exceptional claims, if you could find at least one (preferably 2-3) mainstream English language sources then maybe others would agree that the statement could be in with foreign language sources to back up the English language sources. But, an old German source from 1996? This does not meet quality encyclopedia standards. Further, the French government itself has distanced itself from the report and said their list should not be referenced, so I honestly don't see how one can justify using old articles to include an invalidated list that the authors themselves have distanced themselves from. And, I'm sure that those who were motivated could go on-line and find several positive articles in France or Switzerland in a foreign language and I think the community would feel the same way (I'll let others speak for themselves).
Again, the purpose of the article is to simply describe the practice of Sahaj Marg without value judgments. If some parts of the article do not sound neutral to you, then by all means please list those sections so we can discuss. Renee (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I saved the 6 euros! I give up. I know bias when I see it, from a long long experience. Have you taken a look at the other references? An selfwritten article by a preceptor! in the feature section of Sri Lankan Daily News... Two self-published articles by an abhyasi in the Australian Yoga Life magazine (which is completely unreferenced in wikipedia, and states itself: `It is hoped the magazine will give readers a deeper understanding of yoga. Stories and articles are sourced from practising yogis throughout Australia. ' [italics are mine]). Another Sri Lankan newspaper (Sunday times), with another selfwritten article (no journalist's name, no neutrality, just a blind repeating of the Sahaj Marg theory).
On the other hand, I offer an article in what is called in wikipedia a newspaper of record for Switzerland, a world-class newspaper, and only to support the FACT that there are serious concerns in Switzerland and France (about Sahaj Marg being a possibly harmful sect). When I began here, you yourself asked me for verifiable, reliable etc. sources supporting this. (go ahead, look it up here above). Now I bring you these sources, and suddenly , because they are not in English, they are not good enough. But the very policies which you have brought up state very clearly how to act in this situation. Old articles? I don't understand. What is old? Perhaps you can point me to a guideline that says that newsarticles should be from this century...but I believe it is simply your POV. I have brought you a very good, neutral 2001 article from Le Matin. I have even added to its reliability and verifiability by this last source from Neue Zurcher Zeitung.
Wikipedia neutrality policy states specifically that both (or more) sides of an issue must be given attention. My issue with the neutrality of this article is exactly in the long list of positive references (with very questionable sources) and the complete lack of negative references (for which I have brought you excellent sources).
So, I really give up now on this article. But, I am content to let this discussion speak for itself. The reader may conclude for her/himself how openminded Sahaj Marg is...
And to be complete: I don't take these things personal in any way, I remain convinced of everyone's good intentions! kind regards, Frank W (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frank, In this Sahaj Marg article, we are trying to focus only on the practice and not about anyone entering or leaving the organization. You are trying to bring the focus using these two dated articles which refer to a single instance of discrimination against someone belonging to an organization. Such weak and criticized information like this does not belong in an encyclopedia. This is my humble opinion. I feel we should stick to mentioning just about the practice which we are doing right now. Embhee (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you're pissed off, but I really don't get it either! A judge decides to quit Sahaj Marg because he thinks his job is on the line. So what???? That's a personal decision by one dude forced to choose between his job and his faith (which I franky don't understand why anyone has to do in a "civilized" country, but that's besides the point). How, pray tell, is any of it in any way relevant to making this a richer Wikipedia article? For instance, I don't see the conversion of Cassius Clay to Mohammed Ali on either the article on Islam or Christianity. And I bet he's a lot more famous and notable than your judge dude.
It's funny that you're levelling charges of bias, when you keep trying to force-fit articles that reflect your own personal bias against Sahaj Marg, into this article. You're obviously hard-pressed to find a whole lot of admissible material that reflects your opinion. Think about it - Maybe that makes your POV a fringe one instead of a mainstream opinion and therefore that much harder to justify inserting here? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all, not an exercise in diplomacy and feel-good inclusion.
Personally, I don't care one way or another - You don't like references this article currently has, feel free to find ones that you are ok with to replace them. The bottom line is, given the amount of warfare this page has seen, it's been editor consensus for a while to keep it a skeleton article with bare-bones basic facts. Any more additions / subtractions / edits or opinion pieces have always resulted in protracted discussions. These eventually get inevitably ugly and are totally not worth it - Sorry you had to find that out for yourself. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I had to put in my 50 cts, that's really all Marathi. I'm not in the least pissed off, in fact I'm quite amused (no offense meant). I'm sure if you put us all in one room, we would enjoy each other's company quite well, so I don't see why things should become ugly. I won't however run over the same grounds, all has been said on this issue. When the editors have cleaned off their previous `warfare' experiences -goodness, glad I missed that- perhaps a more open approach to criticism becomes possible. Kind regards, and signing off semi-permanently now Frank W (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Your call, but please realize I'm not interested in using "positive" or "negative" references. I just want cold hard undeniable facts in this article, and a place to point to as proof. I can see how you'd think the sources used here are "positive". Stay and help us find neutral sources. I don't know about the others but you won't get any resistance for me. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Shucks ;-) I was trying to do the same thing, from my perspective (cold hard fact: controversy in Sw and Fr; proof: the newsartcls)...that's what I find amusing. We always see things from our own perspective, and communication can be ... scratchy. To give credit where credit is due: I like the bare-bones approach of the article. And like you I just love cold hard facts even if they can be hard to establish...;-) best to all, Frank W (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi folks, Regarding sources, we have used a variety of secondary sources (encyclopedia, academic article, newspaper articles, magazine articles) for barebone "facts" that all agree on. Challenged "facts" require more stringent sourcing. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source". So, if someone challenges a statement in the article we should remove it, review it, and find proper sourcing for it.
Regarding authors of sources, being a member of a group does not mean that his or her manuscript is by definition biased. Often members of groups are the most vociferous critics of those groups. Also, members have the in-depth understanding to write knowledgeably about that group. I would bet money that the majority of sources used for the Roman Catholic Church, Lutheranism, or any other in-depth writings about spiritual traditions come from books/magazines/articles written by members of those groups.
I suggest that we follow this process -- if someone challenges a statement (written by anyone) then we should remove it, find multiple mainstream good quality sources, and discuss phrasing. Hopefully this will lead to good-willed and good-natured discussions. (Hope springs eternal.) Renee (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)