Jump to content

Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9


Here is a catalog of the removal of critical links and text from the article over the past year, usually with no edit summary and sometimes with misleading edit summaries.

  • [1]
  • [2] (Removed irrelevant links (please see discussion page for reasons)
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5] (Removed Uni of Virginia link, because, as you say, it in no way refers to Sahaja Yoga as a cult or sect.)
  • [6] removed links to Rick Ross institute website (see talk page)
  • [7] removed links to Rick Ross institute website (see talk page)
  • [8]
  • [9] (removed irrelevant and misleading link)
  • [10]
  • [11]
  • [12]
  • [13]
  • [14]
  • [15]
  • [16]
  • [17]
  • [18]
  • [19]
  • [20]
  • [21]
  • [22]
  • [23] rm unsourced example
  • [24]
  • [25]
  • [26]
  • [27] revert
  • [28] revert
  • [29] revert to reinstate medical text + refs
  • [30]
  • [31] deleted old webpage
  • [32] rvt - I think he meant outdated - see talk
  • [33] rmv link to unverfified personal research - author has not been established as an expert.
  • [34] (WP: Words to avoid, change POV sentencing remove uneeded reference (what does it reference?))
  • [35] (Potentially libellous comments deleted)
  • [36] Cleanup + remove sentence with faulty link to Audiostream that doesn't work
  • [37] rmv source by author of unknown credentials (see talk)
  • [38] (revert - see talk)
  • [39] (Integrated content from SYI)
  • [40] deletion of unproven defamatory statements
  • [41] restore external link structure.
  • [42] rmv unsourced and potentially libellous comments
  • [43] rmv invalid sources, see talk.
  • [44] rmv link per WP:EL "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research"

The reasons given for removing the "Religious Movements" article, in summaries and on this page include:

  • deleted old webpage
  • rvt - I think he meant outdated - see talk
  • rmv link to unverfified personal research - author has not been established as an expert.
  • rmv invalid sources, see talk.
  • ...outdated (2000), and is not a reliable source, since it states as fact hearsay from other websites. There is no information on the author of the document, we do not know if Tamara L. Clark is in fact a specialist on the subject or just a first year student
  • It doesn't matter how well researched the RM page seems, if the author isn't a specialist on the subject, then it cannot be admited as a valid source...
  • Actually the link is still out according to WP:Reliable sources... Consider this: if Sahaja Yoga is an NRM, started 40 or so years ago, 7 years is a long time - a lot has changed, and as Sahajhist mentioned above, this isn't the place to discuss the changes, rather compile information on the subject...
  • Well unless you can prove that the article was written by an expert, according to Wiki policy the link stays off.
  • How can you be sure it did in fact pass through review? It could be nothing more than a collection of freshmen assignments, noted individualy. Or anything. You're just assuming that it went through a review process.
  • It was never intended to be an authoritative summary.
  • This is NOT in any way an 'official assessment' as Paul foord asserts - what a ridiculous notion! What we are assessing here is an undergraduate student project from the year 2000. One of many produced on that course at that time. Thats all.
  • What has been pointed out are the conclusions the author draws based (mainly) on reasearch done on website sources, and what is contested are her credentials to do so, and more importantly the validity of including a link to her study which is questionable.
  • That there are inaccuracies doesn't matter, since the author hasn't been established as a specialist in the area. Going through them one by one would be an absurd waste of time, but you are welcome to cross reference them if you feel like it.
  • They are unverified by the very fact that we know nothing of the author's qualifications.
  • Yes, it was removed again, sice we still haven't established the credentials of the Author. The other links do not draw conclusions (we have already been through this) about the subject and do not claim authority on the subject. They are informational links.
  • I removed unaacked content/content backed by invalid sources, including the link discussed in detail above, as well as links to websites that 1) Didn't back the claim and 2)Are biased sources.
  • Biased external links are allowed. You can't use those links to back up claims made by Dr. so and so.

I believe that some editors here have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, that they are exhibiting Wikipedia:ownership, that they are not following the principles described in Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest, and that they are not editing in good faith. Virtually every critical remark or website about this topic has been repeatedly removed. It is incumbent on the regular editors of this article to insure that it is NPOV, which requires including balanced criticisms. By systematically removing all they have made it impossible to to have an NPOV article. -Will Beback 03:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So far you have been unable to verify your sources, or provide any relevant argument on why these sources should be kept. Most of the edits above either explain why they were removed, or direct the reader to the talk page where discussions are/were being held on whether or not they should be included. If you feel the need to include critical sources, please follow Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and WP:EL. Your own obstinate disregard for Wiki policy seems more apparent, because you haven't even been able to justify why the sources should be maintained per aforementioned policy(ies), and have persistently hammered your own views on the matter (ie that the links should be included) even when it is apparent that you are alone in this view, have been unable to justify yourself per wiki policy (other than attacking editors per Wikipedia:ownership), and seem unable to contribute the the article in a collaborative manner. Sfacets 03:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken that I am alone in supporting this link. If you read over this very talk page you'll see there are more editors supporting this link than opposing it. Will you participate in mediation to resolve this issue? -Will Beback 05:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


These are weblinks, either sources or external links, that have been deleted, most repeatedly, from this article.

None of these are usable in any way? -Will Beback 07:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you specify which ones you would consider using as sources (and to back which statements) as well as which ones you would use solely as external links?

Sfacets 07:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

They've pretty much all been deleted from both positions, indicating that you, Sahajhist, or others find them unacceptable. Again, are none of these usable as either sources or external links? -Will Beback 17:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


ok:

The only links from those above that seem reliable, would be the BBC radio program, the article from the Independant, and freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga, but then again, it depends how you would use them, as External Links, or as sources? The last link for example is not admissible as a source for eg.

I think we have already been over why the http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sahaja_yoga.html article isn't a relable source.

Have I missed any? Sfacets 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Independent article and the freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga (AKA /www.sahaja-yoga.org) site are legitimate sources why have they been removed repeatedly? Could Sahajhist please comment? He's been an active deletionist as well. We need to come up with a stable set of links that can be used so that these constant deletions don't keep recurring.
I'm glad we're working towards consensus. -Will Beback 00:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sfacets 05:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


How about these? The first was added and then deleted by you:
Is user:Sahajhist active? I'm hoping we can find a consensus here and he was doing some of the deleting. -Will Beback 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ask the possums. They'll know. JoeldeM 05:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Dunno. No idea. WikiPossum 08:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Will Beback's suggestions seem to be all circa 2000. Is there nothing more recent? WillNotBeBack 05:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
"Nuts" and "Kooks" are just the beginning, as I mentioned. Check out the photo gallery for an example of what I mean.

Evening Standard - London July 18, 2001 - As I mentioned, this was being used inappropriately as a source(read up). According to WP:EL and WP:Reliable Sources, links should not be posted to websites containing original unverified research. http://members.tripod.com/toutsursahajayoga/origins.htm is exactly that.

http://www.lifepositive.com/spirit/new-age-catalysts/nirmala-devi/nirmala.asp This doesn't realy add to any content posted as yet, I was planning to use it as a source when I add more content (which I plan on doing soon)
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/devot/sahaja.html - Unverified original research, author unknown
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/images/SahajaYoga_tcm68-21070.pdf - who was this written by?

Sfacets 06:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, we don't require our sources to be verified, nor do we require known authors if the material is published by an established organization. The "INFORM" pamphlet (the PDF) is published by Eileen Barker's group. Barker is an expert on the field of new religious movements. So you will accept the Lifepositive site as a source? What is the problem with the Evening Standard? How do we know it's a disreputable newspaper? -Will Beback 09:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Professor Barker is certainly an academic expert in the field of new religious movements, but her use of INFORM as an anti-NRM service has been controversial. That INFORM pdf you quoted seems to be undated. Sahajhist 09:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It's dated March 4 2005. Do you agree with the discussion that Sfacets and I have had up to this point? Let's get out all of our objections now and get a consensus on which links are acceptable. -Will Beback 10:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I cant seem to find that date you mention in the pdf. Can you guide me to it please? Sahajhist 10:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not in the text. When I load the file into Acrobat reader I check the "document properties" under the "file". Are the other sources acceptable, as agreed to by Sfacets? -Will Beback 11:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The date shown under document properties doesn't mean anything, it is a time stamp made by a computer, and could be anything such as the date of the creation of the pdf file (but not the writing of the document) Sfacets 12:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The latest date mentioned in the text is 1999, which postulates a date of 2000 or 2001 which was when the bulk of the INFORM materials were written. Sahajhist 12:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Even if somehow the piece was written five years before its embedded date of creation, so what? That's fairly recent. If there's a particular date-related error in it we can note it if it arises. -Will Beback 12:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


I would also like to add that according to Wikipedia:Verifiability,

Sources of dubious reliability In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight.

in which sites like http://freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/ fail. So sources do need to be verified. Sfacets

How can all of our links and sources be verified? -Will Beback 12:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This issue doesn't need mediation, it needs enforcement of Wikipedia's rules on Conflict of Interest. Sfacets and Sahajhist are clearly related to the group, and shouldn't even be editing this article at all. Perhaps an RfC, on either them or the article, would help clarify this. --NovaSTL 02:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
In which section of the WP:COI would you place us? Campaigning? (are we "trying to get the word out, Sahajhist?) If editing an article because we are knowledgeable in the area is an offense, then many apologies. Links are not being removed arbitrarily. Discussion on inserting links which adhere to Wikipedia policy are underway. Have a look at my edits, clearly promoting Sahaja Yoga isn't the reason I am here. Please assume good faith. There is conflict of interest indeed, if you, who categorises the organisation as a cult continues editing. Sfacets 03:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, and will endeavor to use a more neutral term in the future. For your part, I would appreciate if you would stop arbitrarily reverting every change I make. I am trying to rewrite some sections, and this makes things difficult. Please stop? --NovaSTL 03:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
For my part, I must ask you to talk about any proposed changes. Editors have worked hard at creating the article as it currently stands, and making large edits to content and structure without discussion isnt very nice. I am reverting your latest edits until we have gone over them here. I am not arbitrarily reverting every edit you make, however let's collaborate on creating a NPOV article. Thanks. Sfacets 03:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I too am working hard at improving the article, and have just as much a right to edit it as you do. Please stop doing unilateral reverts, or you will be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. --NovaSTL 03:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Chill, Of course you have the right. Now what you do with that right is what characterises you as an editor. Are you an editor who makes POV edits and defends them? Or are you an editor who can admit when this happens and seek concensus with other editors? Sfacets 03:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
My goal with this article is to remove all unreferenced information, and ensure that what's in there is neutral and carefully sourced. Considering the amount of sources that are available, and assuming that we can keep from having pro-yoga people delete anything that's even remotely critical, I think we're going to end up with a strong and balanced article which presents both pro- and anti- viewpoints in a fair way. In fact, I think that this article is going to be so good, that we may even want to nominate it for "Featured Article" status (see WP:FA). Think about it, wouldn't you like to see "Sahaja Yoga" on the front page of Wikipedia? But I can guarantee you that providing a sugarcoated article with all negative information removed, will not help the article get to that status. Having a robust and multi-viewpoint article though, will. --NovaSTL 04:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the connection between Will Beback and NovaSTL. Same person? Sahajhist 06:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering the same about you and Sfacets. --NovaSTL 07:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope, we're just conjoined twins. Sfacets
from different generations Sahajhist 11:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I ask again: is there any connection between Will Beback and NovaSTL? Sahajhist 12:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are sources that we've agreed up on still being deleted? -Will Beback 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Valid sources

Please read Wikipedia:Valid_Sources, as discussed above, some do not comply. Please add to the discussion instead of adding unproductive content. Sfacets 05:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed ad nauseum, and the consensus is that the report is a valid and credible source. If your memory needs refreshing, see "The Religious Movements Homepage Project" section above. --NovaSTL 06:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
YOUR memory needs refreshing. Some of us spent valuable time debating this the first time round. Sahajhist 06:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also I couldn't find the discussion you were refring to, could you provide a link? Thanks Sfacets 07:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You are being deliberately disruptive. Stop it. --NovaSTL 08:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Who? Why? What are you talking about? Sfacets 08:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You continue to remove valid sources, such as the link to the Religious Movements Homepage Project at the University of Virginia website, claiming it's "unreliable", while adding multiple dubious ones (like repeatedly citing the organization's own website as a source). [45]. You have an obvious agenda to promote the Sahaja Yoga organization, putting as much promotional information about it onto Wikipedia as you can manage, while systematically deleting anything that is negative or critical. You have now been blocked twice for this type of disruptive activity. If you continue like this, you will eventually be totally banned from Wikipedia. Please change your ways, and work constructively with other editors to create an article about Sahaja Yoga which presents a balanced view about it, both positive and negative. This will make for a stronger article. --NovaSTL 02:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The [[Wikipedia:Verifiability}burden of evidence]] is yours. (The link you gave above doesn't show me "repeatedly citing the organizations' own website btw). It's not about promotion. Which material is promotional? You are hypocritical in telling me to work in tandem with other authors, since you won't even join in the discussion on why the source in question is/isn't reliable and reach concensus. Your continued vandalism and POV (such as your continued bias shown through labeling the organisation a cult) speaks volumes about your own agenda. You keep referring to the first time I was blocked (when was that, 1.5 years ago?) as usual talking about things you don't really know anything about (such as calling Sahaja Yoga a Hindu organisation).

I have asked you time and time again to join the conversation. Maybe instead of all this aggressiveness you could help reach a NPOV article, as you claim your goal above is.

I have been on Wikipedia for almost 3 years now, and my edits show that I am not just here to push my POV, and that in fact I aim at creating dialogue between editors. All your edit history says is that you have targeted Sahaja Yoga related articles, and without joining into the discussion have arbitrarily asserted your POV.

Disruptive is when you tear apart an article which has taken the better part of a year to create in the matter of hours.

Sfacets 02:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As has been said multiple times, by multiple editors, including me [46], the Religious Movements Homepage Project is a valid source. You need to stop removing it from the article. --NovaSTL 02:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Chillout Time

You guys go on and on and on. Try this instead: [47] WikiPossum 14:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Respect for other editors

Edits made without consulting other editors, and without participating in discussion are disrespectful of the time and effort editors have put into this article, and are generaly unconstructive, since without concensus reached (and how can concensus be reached without discussion?)edits are reverted to versions which had already either reached NPOV status, or were currently under discussion.

NovaSTL may complain about the "hour's work wasted" when I reverted to an earlier version, but that is nothing when compared to the combined efforts of all editors involved in editing this article being torn apart by one individual in a few edits. An example of this is the organisational stutus in different countries paragraph under the 'Sahaja Yoga International' heading, which took me days to find, verify and compile. This was removed without even mention in the edit summary. To me this shows total disregard for efforts supplied by other editors.

Sfacets 13:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And this, combined with abuse of Administrator status, is what will eventuallly bring down the whole Wikipedia edifice. See, for example, the following discussion:

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054949.html Sahajhist 22:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Religious Movements source

This is a dispute about the inclusion or exclusion of the 'New Religious Movements' article[48].

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

The dispute revolves around whether or not to add http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sahaja_yoga.html as a source. The discussion (please refer to the above discussion(s) have proven unable to resolve the dispute, and newer editors have now chosen to step in an attempt to take matters into their own hands, circumventing discussion, despite multiple invitations to do so. Sfacets 02:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    • The article in question appears to be written by an author of unknown notability or academic standing. This could be false authority on the subject, or it could not be, but the reason the source is being debated is because this is unclear. Sfacets 03:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an outsider. I'm willing to provide an outside opinion, but I'm having trouble understanding one thing. What do the proponents want to use this source to support? Is it being used to support a particular statement in the article, or do they just want to add it to the list of resources at the end of the article? HeBhagawan 04:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi HeBhagavan, appreciate the input. The source in question is being usd to justify the "Ex-members of the group, as well as academics, cite negative elements to the group such as a preoccupation with money, mind control tactics, and an "us vs. them" mentality which attempts to silence dissent." sentence in the introduction section. Sfacets 09:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There are actually many things in the source which we would like to use, but we're starting with whether or not it's a valid source to confirm that the "Sahaja Yoga" movement is controversial or not, since the source has an "Issues and Controversies" section. However, Sfacets (who I believe to be a member of the group), has been doing everything possible to discredit the source, to prevent and delete any information from this source (or any other source which is critical of the group) from being placed in the Wikipedia article. He has removed these kinds of sources dozens of times (see section above), has enlisted sockpuppets in an AfD for another Sahaja-related article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaja Yoga International), has accused another editor of vandalism when trying to re-add valid sources[49], and as a new tactic in a different article, is claiming that the inclusion of negative sourced information is a "copyvio" (see International Sahaja Public School). So far Sfacets has been blocked twice for disruption, but the edit warring continues. I'm actually glad of the RfC, as it will bring more opinions in to this article. The way the article should develop, is to fairly represent multiple viewpoints about the group, not just the positive ones. --NovaSTL 18:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of sockpuppetry. Also, if you would refer to your talk page, there is no accusations of vandalism levied against you, just a heads up. It's nice to see you (finally) join the discussion, maybe now you will stop and consider other factors instead of your own POV. Why do you continue to try and discredit me? Why won't you just focus on the article and sources? Comment on content, not on the contributor. So back to the source issue. I totally agree that there should be a balanced view expressed through a range of sources. However, these sources need to be valid, and adhere to Wikipedia:Valid sources. I have been debating the inclusion of the NRM page source with other editors (see above), and so far have been unable to ascertain whether or not the source/author is valid. I admit that I am part of the organization. That is why I am contributing, and, for the moment, concentrating on this article. That doesn't mean i don't want the article to be as encyclopedic as possible, especially NPOV. You only have to look at my contributions to see that this is important to me.

Sfacets 22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Everybody, Well this is actually a pretty close call. The University of Virginia as an institution certainly is a credible source. However, the website itself states the following as its criteria for inclusion:

This site makes the process of locating materials a lot easier. This site does not seek to build links to everything about new religions on the Internet, nor does it seek to provide comprehensive linkage to any specific group. Rather, it seeks to identify and make links to sites that can enhance learning. Without exception, it will include the official home page of the groups presented here. When a group's own home page is not comprehensive, unofficial pages, usually created by members of the group are presented. Comprehensiveness and unique features have been used as criteria for inclusion of unofficial home pages when many exist for a single group. (Members of the Hare Krishna movement, for example, have created over one hundred unofficial home pages). We also seek pages that can be described as informative and/or analytical. As of this writing, the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (Formerly the Ontario Centre on Religious Tolerance) is among the most thoughtful and comprehensive sites on the WWW. OCRT, as the title suggests, also has a mission of promoting understanding and tolerance while reducing misinformation and religious hatred. These are goals to which we also subscribe You will find frequent links to OCRT from this site.

Moreover, the website says

Understanding the dynamics of cult and sect formation necessarily involves an examination of the Web sites of those who are, for theological or other reasons, opposed to specific new religious groups. Such sites don't exist for every group, but for some groups it is difficult to find information that has not been generated by anti-cultists. We present anti-cult sites without comment, other than to identify their character, leaving it to readers to assess the merits of the material.

There is yet another type of literature that can be characterized as counter-cult. The authors of these pages are not motivated by animus but, rather, their own theological convictions. The best of these sites aspire to accuracy and their products can be informative.

Finally, a word here regarding the accuracy of the text and the currency of information generated on this site (in contrast to materials to which we have built links). I would not consider myself to be an expert on more than a few of the groups that are presented here. I have no doubt made numerous factual errors. And everyone who has attempted to maintain a Web site with links knows that URLs are constantly changing, quickly making one's meticulous labor appear slovenly.

Thus, the website, though run by a scholarly institution, does not require that an article be unbiased or scholarly itself in order to qualify for inclusion. An article be simply something written by a member of the group/cult/religion. It can also be something written by an opponent of the group/cult/religion.

Here is my opinion, and it draws a fine distinction, so try to understand it:

The articles on this website cannot be cited to prove the truth of what they assert. However, the articles on this website CAN be cited to prove the existence of such articles themselves.

What does this mean? It means that the article can be cited to prove that "some have characterized Sahaja Yoga as a cult, alleging that its members are subjected to mind-control, etc."

However, you can't cite the article for a proposition like this one: "Sahaja Yoga is a cult and subjects its members to mind control."

Nor can you cite it to support a sentence like this: "Academics and former members allege that Sahaja yoga is a cult and subjects its members to mind control." The reason this second sentence is not permissible is that there is nothing on the website that I have found to verify the author of the articles. Therefore you don't know whether the people who wrote them are really ex-members, acadamics, or martians. They could be anybody. And the simple fact that their articles include citations does not necessarily make them credible unless their sources are independently verifiable (thus the citations to various emails are not verifiable). If you find their sources to be verifiable and reliable, I would advise citing directly to those sources rather than to the dubious article itself.

It seems that the people who write articles for this website are often partisans--either personally in favor of or against the organizations in question. So you can't take what they have to say as definitive. At most, you can use it to prove that some people say what they are saying--as evidenced by the fact that they are saying it in the article. I hope this is helpful and not too confusing. HeBhagawan 23:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the University of Virginia website the following [50] I corresponded both with Jeffrey Hadden and with Douglas Cowan about blatant factual errors on the website but they were not correct due to lack of time. Note that some peer reviewed religious studies magazine allow articles by students to be published who did participant participation or are (ex-)members. The reason for this is of course, to save the academic a lot of work: they do not have the time to be involved for months or years in a single religious group. Andries 20:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the website, I agree with HeBhagawan - their articles can not be considered as scholarly, as a lot of the articles are written by undergraduates, basically at the level that we would think on Wikipedia as primary research. It is not possible to assess the notability and authority of the authors, so we can only use the work as suggested by HeBhagawan and as a valuable source of references/bibliography.

In particular the following is found in the mission statement section of the website [51]:

Finally, a word here regarding the accuracy of the text and the currency of information generated on this site (in contrast to materials to which we have built links). I would not consider myself to be an expert on more than a few of the groups that are presented here. I have no doubt made numerous factual errors. And everyone who has attempted to maintain a Web site with links knows that URLs are constantly changing, quickly making one's meticulous labor appear slovenly.

Early on in the development of this site my undergraduate students volunteered to assist with the creation of pages for specific groups. The comprehensiveness of this site owes much to their enthusiastic work. It is a product of their labor and is their site as much as it is mine. For each group covered here, they have developed brief profiles, links and a select bibliography of printed materials. Their work, like my own, will inevitably contain errors, significant URLs and publications will be missed, and new Web sites and publications will appear subsequently.

I sincerely seek counsel on how this site might be improved, as well as corrections where the information is wrong and additions when something that should be a part of this page has been missed. I welcome information about any and all groups.

Just a couple of caveats for those who might elect to communicate for other reasons. First, I am aware that some people hold passionately negative convictions about one or many religious groups. I respect their right to believe as they choose, but I have no interest in engaging in dialogue or debate with them. Second, I am not a theologian. If the information presented about the beliefs of a particular group is incorrect, I want to get it right. But I am not qualified to discern finer points of belief that are the subject of debate within most faith traditions.

This makes it clear that the main author themselves thinks that the information is not necessarily reliable, and the final caveat that the author is no a theologian is also illuminating.

Use the information but dont quote from it as fact - if you need the facts search for them in the references. CheersLethaniol 14:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Even the best of scholars of cults and new religious movements make factuals mistakes. For example, I found a factual mistake in the Dutch translation/adaptation of Eileen Barker's book "Introduction to NRMs". Same for David V. Barrett's book. Andries 18:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Examining RMHP reliable source policies

By request for comment I have examined some of the reliable source issues raised here, particularly starting from the two quotes provided by HeBhagawan from the Religious Movements Homepage Project (RMHP). (It would be nice if HeBhagawan would return and edit in links to those quotes.)
• About HeBhagawan's conclusions, maybe s/he is assuming requirements that are greater than WP:RS actually requires. In particular, perhaps HeBhagawan misunderstands that some WP:RS validation is provided for referencing things like primary source personal testimony websites, when they are collected by a reliable source. The reliable source states facts about the primary source that can be relied on, such as the form 'X said Y about Z'. Quoting of personal web sites is not directly permitted in Wikipedia articles, but it is indirectly permitted when a reliable source has quoted or paraphrased them within a report. This seems to be hard for a lot of newer editors to understand, but the presumption is that a personal web site quote that has been filtered through a reliable source, becomes more reliable because more people have spent more time and effort in examining statements for reliability.
• The first quote (beginning "This site makes the process of locating materials a lot easier"), declares RMHP's intention toward reliability, in the bolded phrase "also has a mission of promoting understanding and tolerance while reducing misinformation and religious hatred" Attempting to reduce misinformation is a reliable source characteristic.
• The second quote (beginning "Understanding the dynamics of cult and sect formation",) states a policy of labeling oppositional references, in the bolded phrase "We present anti-cult sites without comment, other than to identify their character , leaving it to readers to assess the merits of the material." Reporting and labeling balanced POV's is a reliable source characteristic.
• The writer is apparently the late Professor Jeffery K. Hadden, who continues in the second quote, "I would not consider myself to be an expert on more than a few of the groups that are presented here. I have no doubt made numerous factual errors." This is a statement that doesn't encourage a feeling of reliability on the points of expertise and accuracy. However, Prof. Hadden is being modest, and he is certainly more expert than reporters and editors at the reliable source NYT.
• On the issue of expertise, WP:RS requires expertise in the field. "With David Bromley (Professor of Sociology at Virginia Commonwealth University) he [Hadden] edited a two-volume work entitled Handbook of Cults and Sects in America." [52] This is a well-known reference textbook that unquestionably confirms Hadden's expertise in the field of cults and sects, which is a reliable source characteristic for the whole website.
• On the issue of accuracy, WP:RS requires a fact-checking process, but does not require that process to be identical to that used by reliable mass media. The following quote describes RMHP's fact-checking process:

Without my students, this page would never have been possible. It is their page every bit as much as it is mine. As the shepherd of their labor, my possession of detailed knowledge of some groups falls short of what it should be. The result is that not every bit of information on the page is completely accurate. My students will attest to the fact that I push them hard of "get it right" but sometimes their resources, and/or interest, are lacking. When this happens, the responsibility is mine, both to discover and correct errors.

I was a little apprehensive when I first invited readers to communicate with me if they found errors in our work. I imagined all manner of ill-tempered souls seeking to draw me into nit-picking theological disputes, or apostates bent on criticizing our work because it did not contain the anti-cult line on a particular group. With some notable exceptions, this has not happened. Most critical communication seems genuinely motivated with helping us present factual information. And most who communicate express appreciation for our efforts to provide objective information. For this response, I have been enormously grateful. Each time I enter a correction, I am mindful that yet another person has become a collaborator in the enterprise.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/welcome/history.htm

RMHP does (or did) have a fact-checking policy, which is a reliable source characteristic. Furthermore, most or all bone fide universities have factual accuracy requirements required by the ethics of professorship. Seriously failing these requirements is a firing offense, even for tenured professors. (Anyone who doubts this should review the University of Colorado case, where Prof. Ward Churchill was found to have falsely reported a genocide not supported by his references, and is in process of being fired.[53])
• The particular web article at issue is RMHP's "Sahaja Yoga" written by Hadden's student Tamara L. Clark in the fall of 2000. According to the above quote, Ms. Clark was, by policy, supervised and her work followed up by Hadden, with subsequent feedback by the public in matters of accuracy. Prof. Hadden died in 2003, so that article had up to three years of vetting by Hadden and the public.
• I have unanswered questions about materials added after 2003. Beyond 2003, the website and the project seem to have only a little information, and the caretaker Douglas Cowan may have moved on, but I just don't know. Until these questions are answered, I would avoid WP:RS citing any articles dated after 2003 (or Hadden's exact date of death).
• I don't see a clear case for claiming that Religious Movements Homepage Project 2003-prior articles are not reliable sources in general. However, Prof. Hadden has constructively agreed that each student research is open to challenge on the basis of evidence of incorrect facts, which does not include mere opinion, preference, advocacy, dislike, or theological dispute. Hadden demurred from correspondence based on the latter. If there is a factual case against RMHP's "Sahaja Yoga" in particular, I don't know what it is. I expect the RMHP opponents to either prove incorrect statements, or permit the page to be quoted in a fair context of proportionally balanced POVs.[54] Milo 11:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again: an undergraduate essay written in 2000 from web sources available at that time, and apparently updated in 2001, but by how much no one knows. Nothing since. It was a reasonable survey at the time. Its now increasingly out of date, as the movement under discussion continues to evolve. Sahajhist 09:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
A large part of all professional academic work is done by supervised students, including Nobel laureate work. After Prof. Hadden vetted and updated the document with public input, it's professionally academic for facts, though perhaps not in writing style. A sixth grader could have written it, and that still wouldn't matter after vetting the facts. • Wikipedia isn't intended as news. In encyclopedia writing, one publishes the most recent reliable source information, even if it's thousands of years old. Milo 12:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, the work is not vetted for facts: "...without my students, this page would never have been possible. It is their page every bit as much as it is mine. As the shepherd of their labor, my possession of detailed knowledge of some groups falls short of what it should be. The result is that not every bit of information on the page is completely accurate." Vetting by the public is not a criterion for inclusion, only Peer review (ie experts in the field) is. Also, as HeBhagawan and Andries pointed out, input from biased sources is accepted (who are also not experts in the field). WP:RS recommends caution when dealing with false authority, and points out that one way of identifying such a source is "Websites that have numerous footnotes." which is definitely the case here.
It shouldn't be up to RMHP opponents to disprove theorie froma source which is an unreliable one. Sfacets 07:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


• "the work is not vetted for facts"

I think I recall posted agreement that RMHP's "Sahaja Yoga" was updated in 2001. Thus vetting did have a known eyeballs-on technical opportunity to occur. Prof. Hadden being obligated by the ethics of professorship, and lacking evidence to the contrary, we are to presume that he did vet the work.

• "only Peer review (ie experts in the field) is [a criterion for inclusion]."

Scientific journal peer review is the best end of an ok -> better -> best continuum for qualifying reliable sources. Quote:

"WP:RS #Evaluating reliability Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next."

Peer review is not the only criterion for inclusion as a reliable source. If that were true, a frequently used Wikipedia source, The New York Times, would not be a reliable source, since it is not a peer reviewed journal:

"WP:NOR #Reliable sources "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses."

"WP:RS #Evaluating reliability
"... sources which, while not tangible, can be providers of reliable information in some cases, for example websites associated with reliable publishers."

The Religious Movements Homepage Project is a website associated with a reliable publisher, the University of Virginia.

• "Vetting by the public is not a criterion for inclusion,"

By which I think you mean that public vetting isn't prescribed or mentioned at all in Wikiguides related to reliable sources. Since (1) reliable source fact-checking is promoted as important, and (2) public vetting is a valid method of fact-checking (Wikipedia uses it), and (3) public vetting isn't excluded, then (4) public vetting is allowed per WP:BOLD.

In any case, public vetting is not the only RMHP fact check method. Prof. Hadden's expertise would cause him to check any fact that seemed libelous, didn't fit the context, or that was inconsistent with his decades of research. Also, he would closely check the work of any student that he knew from previous classwork to be error-prone.

• "input from biased sources is accepted (who are also not experts in the field)"

This is a normal part of reporting (NYT does this), and is irrelevant to the status of a reliable source. That's the whole point of man-in-the-street interviews by major media. The only critical requirement for reporting biased sources is proper labeling, and RMHP does that.

• "WP:RS recommends caution when dealing with false authority, and points out that one way of identifying such a source is "Websites that have numerous footnotes.""

I agree that it should be clarified, but apparently you misunderstood WP:RS #Beware false authority. You may have inferred it, but WP:RS doesn't imply that numerous footnotes identify false authority.

WP:RS #Beware false authority "Websites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable."

Sources with numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable, they may be entirely reliable, or they may be something in between. A clearer way of making this statement is, 'numerous footnotes increase confidence but are insufficient to establish authority'. (Inversely, lack of footnotes does suspicion lack of authority, but likewise doesn't prove it.)

• "It shouldn't be up to RMHP opponents to disprove theories from a source which is an unreliable one."

I agree with that statement, but so far you haven't been able to demonstrate that RMHP is too unreliable to cite for Sahaja Yoga.

You keep quoting Prof. Hadden's disclaimer that "not every bit of information on the page is completely accurate," Ok, that's also true of the NYT, and journalism in general. What matters is whether the errors are significant enough on a case-by-case basis, to substantially affect judgment of reliability by editors. To decide that, editors will need to see a list of errors. (Never mind the stale web links, which would also be found in any year 2001 source.) In this case, the proponent editors of Sahaja Yoga are supposedly the content experts, yet have presented no substantive list of content errors at RMHP's "Sahaja Yoga". Without one, I see no practical reason to further consider Prof. Hadden's disclaimer in evaluating RMHP as a reliable source.

WP:RS #Evaluating reliability "Sources where there are multiple steps to publication, such as fact checking and editorial oversight, are more reliable, other things being equal, than those without these procedures."

RMHP is certainly not as reliable as a peer reviewed journal, but that's an excessively high standard for a minor belief system, especially considering that belief systems are inherently unscientific. Also, belief systems typically resist peer reviewed scientific studies that tend to unmask belief-based illusions (like TM's "flying" claim).

RMHP and NYT are hard to compare for reliability. They both have fact-checking procedures, but they are quite different in time frame. RMHP has only a one-editor oversight, so maybe it's not as reliable as NYT in that way. But Prof. Hadden has more expertise, and his students have more subject-area training than NYT does.

The best RMHP comparison seems to be to a reliable source standard reference book, since Prof. Hadden did write one (two volume "Handbook of Cults and Sects in America", JAI Press). RMHP was Prof. Hadden's university website, and by examining the chain of academic authority, the website clearly benefited from his book-authoring expertise. RMHP may or may not be as reliable as his expert book, but it meets or exceeds all the threshold requirements for a reliable source that I can find in the Wikiguides.

RMHP may not be perfect in theory, and it may not have a future without Prof. Hadden, but I conclude that in Wikipedia practice, it's good enough to 2003 at least, to hold its existing reliable source consensus. Milo 16:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate info?

This link was removed:

With this summary:

  • deletion of webpage with inaccurate info

May I ask what info is inaccurate? -Will Beback 22:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Both HQ addresses given are old and superceded. 'Disciple of Rajneesh/Osho' is incorrect. Sahajhist 03:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless we use it as a source for the HQ's address, that is an inconsequential error. Do you have a source for the 'Disciple of Rajneesh/Osho' being erroneous? I think I've seen that same claim elsewhere. Where is it disputed? -Will Beback 04:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The source is flawed in that it doesn't state the name of author/date. Also, the burden of finding a valid source for Osho/Rajneesh lies with the editor who has made the edit in question.

Sfacets 04:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is another instance of getting a stream of changing reasons for deleting sources. I note that many of the sources and external links don't name an author, or provide a date. If that is going to be the standard we should enforce it fairly. -Will Beback 07:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey as long as the reasons are valid... Which sources are you referring to? Sfacets 17:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
"Shri Who Must Be Obeyed", July 13, 2001, The Independent [55]. Removed here [56], and again here [57]. -Will Beback 22:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment sought from The Religious Movements Homepage Project

I have emailed Douglas E. Cowan of The Religious Movements Homepage Project at The University of Virginia alerting him to the discussion here about the The Religious Movements Homepage Project as a source and asking for comment. Paul foord 12:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he will tell us all to buy his books or the books of his friends. Andries 12:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope you wrote to the correct address. Assoc Prof Cowan moved to Canada in 2005, as noted in my archived comment of October 6. Sahajhist 04:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Douglas E. Cowan replied, he does not wish to enter the discussion here. Paul foord 01:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

which is understandable as the discussion here relates to an undergraduate essay from the year 2000 supervised by his late predecessor. Sahajhist 21:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Or the nature of the interaction evidenced throughout the discussion seen here. Paul foord 23:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced?

One of the reasons for this article being accused of being 'unbalanced' is because three other, previously separate, articles have been merged into it. Sahajhist 00:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also according to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited)minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in someancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; andregardless of whether you can prove it or not".

I think this applies here. Sfacets 01:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This viewpoint is not held by an extremely small minority as shown by large list of removed links critical of Sahaja Yoga. As stated previously, I feel a section discussing the criticisms of Sahaja Yoga is necessary to reach a neutral point of view. --Thomaskmfdm 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There may be links to websites critical of SY, but the number of actual critics are fairly low. Sfacets 13:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Even links to neutral parties that make critical comements get deleted. -Will Beback · † · 18:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback's overall analysis, and supporting comments by others. Too many critic sources have been removed to have an NPOV article, indeed to the point that the text is currently a puff piece, save for one sentence referring to ex-member cult claims. Assuming good faith claimed by the proponent editors, the current article imbalance probably resulted from editing motivated by a strong unconscious bias — a bias characteristic of true believers in any secular or religious cause.
I've read the reasons stated for removal of sources. Some resulted from misunderstandings or misapplication of Wikiguides.
The most marked misunderstanding is the notion that editors must somehow verify the facts and sources as written by reliable sources, rather than simply verifying that the reliable sources are correctly quoted and paraphrased. The burden of proof of claimed wrong facts is on the challengers to find better (or at least competing) reliable sources.
A misapplication I think I saw in one post, was that "no original research" somehow applies to non-Wikipedia sources. If that was true, no reporter could do interviews, and no reliable source could quote personal web sites.
• I think the place to begin restoration of critical sources is with RMHP's "Sahaja Yoga". I've read it. In § "Request for Comment Religious Movements source", I've detailed its reliability characteristics, and it does meet WP:RS requirements. In accord with the Religious Movements Homepage Project mission, their article is overall balanced in a way that I think promotes tolerance of Sahaja Yoga's detailed beliefs. Its criticism section may somewhat underplay details of the ex-members' POV, but at least it does summarize the apostate complaints, and Wikipedia should do the same.
There's no need to dwell on the criticisms, but for NPOV the significant ones must be exposed. In the to-be-created WP article criticism section, (typically "Criticisms of Sahaja Yoga"), each class of criticism should be briefly summarized and connected to a reference link that supplies more details for those interested.
The criticism section needs additional sources to supply some details that RMHP omits in favor of an external link. This would include a newspaper style summary of the SY police incident at Albert Hall. That is valid police journalism that WP has a general consensus to report, and an example of why global citizens demand that their governments engage in NRM/cult-watching. If SY has their own account of the incident, that too should be summarized as their competing POV.
If the proponent editors and other editors can consense on no other reliable source for criticisms of beliefs and practices (guru claims to be God omniscient, requests valuable gifts in parallel with promoted free services, etc.), then RMHP should become the default reliable source. The proponent editors will probably object, but I think RMHP is the best NPOV consensus deal that they are likely to get.
If they refuse to accept RMHP by default, or any other equivalent criticism sources, then it appears to me that this article is an intractable-POV candidate for AfD. But to avoid that unsatisfying POV solution... NPOV consensus, and good faith efforts with recognition of unconscious bias, should be given a chance to work. Milo 04:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Per these comments I've applied the {POV} tag until we can achieve a more neutral article that includes all viewpoints. -Will Beback · † · 09:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Why? Surely the unbalanced tag already addresses these concerns? Sfacets 10:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
According to Sahajhist, the unbalanced tag addresses the fact of the merged articles. However I didn't add that tag so I can't speak to it. The {POV} tag addresses the lack of substantive critical viewpoints. -Will Beback · † · 10:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually Smeelgova added the tag [58] with the edit summary "no critical section or critical information whatsoever present in article" so obviously already addresses the issue.

Sfacets 11:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a POV tag is more appropriate. The problem isn't balance, in my opinion, it's a lack of neutral point of view. Please don't remove the tag again until we've added a reasonable criticism section. You can remove the Balance tag if you and Smeelgova think that his concerns have been addressed. -Will Beback · † · 04:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
And how are the two issues not identical? A neutral article is balanced, a non-neutral one isn't. All the extra tag does is mess up the article. It's one or the other. Sfacets 05:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I won't object to removing the {balance} tag, though Smeelgova might. -Will Beback · † · 06:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a note asking him if he minds if we consolidate the tags. -Will Beback · † · 07:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a reliable site?

What justification is being used to consider this a relaible site: http://www.webspawner.com/users/letdvdau2/index.html ? It has no named author, no date, no sources, and is clearly self-published. -Will Beback · † · 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Life Eternal Trust (LET) is the legal entity used by Sahaja Yoga in many countries, including Australia. Presumably 'letdvdau' is the DVD distribution service of Sahaja Yoga in Australia. I agree the statement of authorship could be clearer. Sahajhist 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
How do we know this? Can you provide sources for your assertions? It looks to me like an amateur web page. In any case, since the standard here is to only have links to crendentialled authors with recent, dated webpages this source does not suffice. If we'd relax the standard to meet those of the rest of Wikiepdia then maybe we could let it in. -Will Beback · † · 06:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The page has authorship and date - see the copyright notice at the bottom of the page: Copyright © 2006 Life Eternal Trust Australia. Sahajhist 06:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Is the date in question challenged? Why is a source needed here? Sfacets 06:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Good, we have a date, now we need to know the author's name and credentials. As for needing a source, everything should be properly sourced. Since some editors here demand very high standards for sourcing we should be consistent. For all we know this site may have been written by an undergraduate. ;) -Will Beback · † · 07:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, the validity of the date isn't in question, unlike other claims which would require a source. Whatever, keeping the date in the article unsourced for the moment doesn't adversely affect the article. Sfacets 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Since it isn't a reliable source perhaps we should remove the material until we can find one. We have no way of knowing when the event occured. -Will Beback · † · 07:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a clear waste of everyone's time and Will Beback should be at the very least warned as to his conduct. btw, I have ordered a copy of the DVD. Sahajhist 08:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If we'd all take a more constructive approach to this article, one which didn't involve removing every critical source, then we'd waste much less time. -Will Beback · † · 09:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


Cancer - misleading attributions

Is it too much to ask that Will Beback actually reads and understands an article he's citing before making changes to the text of this Wikipedia entry? You have misunderstood the final para of the quoted article. Sahajhist 23:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what is meant. The text seems fairly clear. -Will Beback · † · 00:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The text in question, I believe is this:
  • Increase in beta-endorphins: An interesting psychopharmacological study by Mishra et al. (1993; link to Mishra) from the McMaster's University in Canada, showed a 70% increase in plasma beta-endorphins in male subjects after SY meditation. The endogeneous opiates, b-endorphins, are known to have a role in body homeostasis. They strengthen the immune system, and are involved in the maintenance of a healthy psychological functioning. They can even combat cancer cells, which could explain so-called 'miraculous cures' in cancer patients after the practice of Yoga meditation.
So apparently there are "miraculous cures". Are you saying that there are no cures? -Will Beback · † · 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No, he is saying that nowhere in the text is it claimed that there are "miraculous cures". I am reverting. Sfacets 01:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Then who is claiming that there are miraculous cure?
Also, why did you delete the other text, which quotes a couple of websites that mention other cures? -Will Beback · † · 04:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the 2006-11-27T01:32:48 edit:
• "which could lead to "So-called miraculous cures" The source text says "could explain" (past) not 'lead to' (future) — the latter is not a paraphrase and is literally misleading. (Btw, "So-called" should be lower case.)
• "Sahaja Yoga meditation could result in a 70% rise in beta-endorphins after meditations" Though acceptable as a source about themselves (SY) within reason, LET is not a reliable source, so we can't take their word for the science part, and need to verify and reference these facts at the primary source. Unfortunately they have cited the reference so vaguely that it's untraceable to the "70%" key fact. Mishra [RK] et al. (1993) "Effect of meditation on plasma beta-endorphins in humans" is not on the web. An abstract of his talk at the University of Arizona is available, with a known date but unknown year (might be derived from date/day-of-week) (#P8), and it lacks a publication reference. The other key facts are mentioned, but a "70%" figure increase is not mentioned (#257). AFAIK, UofA is a reliable source for referencing this Sahaja yoga experiment with the outcome of a significant but unspecified rise of plasma beta-endorphins. This research is not listed at Mishra's web site [59]. Unfortunately, the "70%" will have to be deleted until someone can provide a verifiable published citation.
• Most importantly, all the current references to curing cancer are violations of WP:RS #Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, as further informed in WP:RS by the credibility footnote to WP:OR #Notes].
• "Sahaja Yoga advertises that it has cured many patients of "high blood pressure, asthma, epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, etc." This reference to cancer either has to be deleted, or at least two reliable sources have to be additionally cited that understandably explain the credible evidence supporting this exceptional claim. I see where the proponents were going with this, and there does seem to be a rational basis for the endorphin connection to cancer cells in vitro, but it appears to be OR (type A + B = C) to editorially make an in-vivo cure connection to yoga without reliable sources.
• "They further state that 'cancer can only be cured through Sahaja Yoga'" This statement is a bogosity, and is potentially life-threatening to sick and gullible cancer patients. It's either got to be deleted or, if higher WP authority approves, maybe carry a suffixed and tagged disclaimer that it's an irrational religious belief. Alternatively, it could be restated and moved to the criticism section — based on the common knowledge of many people who know someone that has been cured of cancer (5 yr+ remission) by conventional medicine.
Milo 09:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

While we can't evaluate the claims, we can verify that they've been made. -Will Beback · † · 19:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Not for Original Research or Exceptional Claims. The rules against OR appearing in articles would have no meaning if you could verify that an OR crank said them.

Astrocrank creates the Green Cheese Moon page. Editors write, 'Astrocrank provably wrote in 2006 that the moon is made of green cheese.' Oops, Astrocrank's OR is in the article!

Same reasoning applies to Exceptional Claims.
The first four illnesses they mentioned do have rational alternative treatments, so even though SY can't prove their cures, it's reasonable to just verify such cures claims were made. Milo 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
We report the unusual beliefs of many groups. See Time Cube. We can't prove whether they are wrong or right- all we can do is summarize reliable sources. Nor can we prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but we report that claim. It isn't exceptional for new religious groups to make claims of cures. -Will Beback · † · 02:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The editorial tradition (no Wilkiguide that I can find) for reporting unusual formal beliefs is not available to Sahaja Yoga. According to Sahajayoga.org Q&A Sahaja Yoga is not religious belief. Constructively, neither are their cures non-religious belief.
On the contrary, Sahajayoga.org makes scientific claims for its treatments (Benefits of Meditation) "Scientific research done with illnesses such as asthma, epilepsy and high blood pressure has proven that Sahaja Yoga is effective in improving physical and psychological well-being". The current article markedly promotes SY's scientific method: "Some of these claims have been scientifically confirmed", followed by a substantial number of scientific research cites.
Therefore, since WP editors' belief-reporting tradition is irrelevant:
• The claim of curing cancer is covered by WP:Exceptional ("claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community"). Without two reliable sources, it gets deleted.
• The claim that "'cancer can only be cured through Sahaja Yoga'", it is contextually a crank scientific claim to be deleted. (Unlike Time Cube there is no notable crank science controversy to override WP:Exceptional.)
Unlike their doubtful but uncertain claim that they can cure cancer, their claim that no other cures for cancer exist is patently false. U.S. President Grover Cleveland was cured of cancer by conventional surgery in 1893. His excised malignant tumor is on public display. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." (Wales, 2006 [60]) Milo 15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for doing all of that research. However I disagree with the assertion that SY is not a religion. Even the "Q&A" you cited says it is.
  • If religion means belief, no. If religion means connection with Reality, the Self or the Divine, whatever your language, then yes.
Devotees recite mantras twice a day to a "goddess", requesting her divine intercession, while staring at her candle-lit photo.[61] These webpages are title, "Sahaja Yoga, my religion": [62], [63]
Adherents say:
  • Another good thing of the Sahaj yoga is that it unites all the religions of the world. As all the charkas are governed by various Hindu, Christine, and Muslim primordial powers. Followers of Sahaj yoga always pray to all these primordial powers of all the religions.[64]
  • Sahaja Yoga is the religion of all religions.[65]
Outsiders also categorize it as a religion. A scholarly book on the topic, Sahaja Yoga by Judith Cooney, says on the back cover:
  • In this examination of Sahaja Yoga, a religious movement led by...[66]
Many others refer to it as a "cult", in the religious sense of the word. So SY should be regarded as a religiona and their claims should be treated the same as the claims and beliefs of other religions. Using a neutral point of view and summarizing reliable sources, we should describe their beliefs and practices. -Will Beback · † · 17:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"However I disagree with the assertion that SY is not a religion" There's nothing to disagree with, because I didn't make that assertion. I wrote "Sahaja Yoga is not religious belief," because that's a paraphrase of what they said in the FAQ. Their religious claim exists in the next sentence, but they say it's not religious belief.
• Without mentioning religion, you said "We report the unusual beliefs of many groups" (meaning slack off on the WP:Exceptional guide for mystical religious claims). Ok, the issue according to you is "beliefs", which in this context formally means mystical holdings that are not known to be facts.
• There are approximately two kinds of mystical beliefs, religious (God/ess) and non-religious (superstition). I showed (1) they claim no religious beliefs (for example, no Christian-Science-like prayer cures), and (2) that their cures are also not non-religious beliefs (because they claim scientific method cures). Therefore, using your reasoning, they are not eligible to have their unusual beliefs reported in regard to cures, because they claim no beliefs in regard to cures.
• Here, Sahaja Yoga is making science cure claims, which by definition is outside any religious domain that they claim in the FAQ. Therefore, they do not get any slack from the burden of complying with WP:Exceptional when they make a science crank claim, or getting deletion of their non-notable and patently false statement about scientific medicine.
• As for other religions, faithful RCC Jesuit scientists have to and do meet the same no-beliefs standards for making science claims. Milo 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

These arguments are growing convoluted. I think you're putting too much credence on one FAQ. While they may claim in one location that they have no religious beliefs, there are many other locaitons in which religious beliefs are expressed, as I've shown. And, while they may cliam in some locations that their cures have been studied scientifically, they offer no scientific explanation for them, and there are many sites in which the cures (or prevention) are attributed to manipulaiton of the chakras, a non-scientific explanation. Lastly, the founder of SY has been described as a former "faith healer". It would not be extraordinary for a faith healer to claim cures. On the contrary, it'd be an unusual faith healer who does not. Finally, we as Wikipedia are not claiming that SY can cure cancer, we're simply reporting the claim by members of SY that it can cure or prevent cancer. That's a major difference. We don't require extraordinary evidence for the claim of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's what Christians believe, so we report that belief. -Will Beback · † · 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"claim in one location that they have no religious beliefs, there are many other locations in which religious beliefs are expressed," I agree that Sahaja Yoga is filled with contradictions. Since I was discussing the enforcement of Wikiguides, I took SY's word at plain meaning. If by "expressed" you mean things that merely look to you like religious beliefs, that would be an interpretation, with which it is more difficult to obtain consensus or apply guides fairly.
At this plateau, I propose to do three things:
  • Restore SY's Vishwa Nirmala Dharma/Sahaja Yoga RMHP reference at List of groups referred to as cults.
  • Delete the patently false statement in Sahaja Yoga about there being no cure for cancer except through SY. If it reappears, Jimbo Wales may want to have a look at it, since he has expressed concern about situations in which Wikipedia articles might cause medical harm by discouraging people from visiting doctors.
  • Recess from this debate. If anyone cares, let them take up the issues of applying the Wiki science guides to a group that may or may not have any religious beliefs, and that may or may not even be a religion. Reliable source St. Petersburg Times says, "According to its teaching, Sahaja Yoga is not a religion but rather a philosophy."
Milo 02:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should restore the RMHP. That website says:
  • Because she is such an all-powerful woman, strict followers of Sahaja Yoga believe all the other Gods and Saints of the large world religions are contained within her.
  • Another aspect of controversy for Sahaja Yoga is the means by which they gain new members. Opposers claim that Sahaja Yogis expose people to the practices in a gradual way and withold information during this exposure. Those against Sahaja Yoga believe this to be dishonest. One instance of this dishonesty is when Simon M. attempted to hand out pamphlets presenting views contrary to Sahaja Yoga beliefs. The result ended up in police intervention. The main complaint against the group is that they are not honest in admitting that they are a religion. Because of their practices and what some people believe to be lofty ideas, people opposed to the practice would like to see Shri Mataji admit that she is the head of a religious group. Shri Mataji still holds the belief that Sahaja Yoga is only a "spiritual experience that is spontaneous and effortless" and that "it does not interfere with the individual's religion, whatsoever."
That's a dispute we should cover. NPOV means showing all viewpoints. SY apparently contains many viewpoints, many of which are that it is a religion.
There's nothing patently false about reporting that they claim to cure cancer. They do. That is a verifiable fact. If you like we could add a line saying that there is no evidence to support their claims. If we are going to call this group a sceince instead of a new religious movement then they are likely to be categorized as a "pseudoscience" do to their hyperbolic claims, in which case the cancer cure claims are again relevant.
As for the St. Petersburg Times article, it wouldn't pass muster with the editors here - the writer is unnamed and it's out of date. Even if we did include it the article simply reports what some in SY assert, without making a judgment of its own. We could use it to confirm that SY claims it is not a religion.
It'd be too bad if you stopped participating in this article. Your viewpoint and research are both very helpful. -Will Beback · † · 05:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"There's nothing patently false about reporting that they claim to cure cancer. " Not that one, the other cancer statement.
• I'll leave this: "Sahaja Yoga advertises that it has cured many patients of "high blood pressure, asthma, epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, etc."
• I'll delete this: "They further state that 'cancer can only be cured through Sahaja Yoga'". Then I'll watch for them to revert it now or restore it later, and file the link for use in AfD, if it comes to that. Your list of deletes would be the star exhibit though.
• "we could add a line saying that there is no evidence to support their claims" Sure, that would (temporarily?) help at the margins, but I won't be satisfied unless there's a permanent section (standardly titled) Criticisms of Sahaja Yoga like 'everybody else' has. • My experience here with SY editing is what Camden Benares called "consciousness shrinking". In the past few week both SSB and SY launched attacks on reliable sources used at LOGRTAC. I think SSB lost their raucus debate to an arbitrator before I got there, so I just did closing pitcher for a shut out with a chuckle line. The SY debate was quieter, but not worthwhile except for blowing back the RMHP challenge at LOGRTAC. SY just do what they please, no matter what is said, or how the Wikiguides read. If they win an AfD, they could become Ascended Masters who thumb their noses at everyone, like certain nationalist groups I've heard rumors about. But then AfD is a double or nothing bet against the toughest Shiva crowd at Wikipedia... Milo 10:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

With a summary like that I can't refuse. I accept the suggestions you make for the article. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 10:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dharma

Why is "Dharma" linked in "See also"? If there's a connection is would be better to explain it here in the section on "beliefs". -Will Beback · † · 00:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dharma is linked in the see also section because it pertains to the practice of Sahaja Yoga. Dharma is not a denominational practice, or even a practice, rather a way of life. (Read the Dharma article). Sfacets 01:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

How does it pertain? There's no way of telling now. Also, there's no need to add add links to the "See also" section that already exist in the article, such as meditation or yoga. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout: Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links. The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article. -Will Beback · † · 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yoga cannot be found independently in the article. Sfacets 12:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Could we instead say, in the "Beliefs" section, something like "SY is a Dharmic religion" or "SY belongs to the traditional Dharma belief system"? That'd be much clearer than just a bare link in the "See also" section. -Will Beback · † · 11:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really, Dharma isn't a belief system per se, more of a spiritual concept. I think the quote by David Frawley sums the idea of Dharma up pretty well:

A universal tradition has room for all faiths and all religious and spiritual practices regardless of the time or country of their origin. Yet it places religious and spiritual teachings in their appropriate place relative to the ultimate goal of Self-realization, to which secondary practices are subordinated. Sanatan Dharma also recognizes that the greater portion of human religious aspirations has always been unknown, undefined and outside of any institutionalized belief

Sfacets 12:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but what does SY say about Dharma? Is Dharma mentioned in any of the religious texts of SY? If not, why include it here? Gravity is universal, but we don't include a link to it. -Will Beback · † · 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dharma is a fundamental part of Sahaja Yoga and is mentioned many times by its founder. So yes, it is mentioned in texts. Sfacets 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is fundamental and mentioned in the texts then it should be included in the "beliefs" section or eslewhere, not tacked on at the end with no explanation. If you'll tell me where it's mentioned I'll see if I can research it myself. At present this article does a poor job of actually describing the beliefs and practices of SY. -Will Beback · † · 06:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What is "fundamentaly flawed" about saying that "Dharma is a fundamental part of Sahaja Yoga"? Were you incorrect to write that? Are there no sources available? -Will Beback · † · 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this? "SY incorporates the Dharmic principles common to many eastern religions." Is that inaccurate? I couldn't find anything on the web that specially mentions Dharma, so if someone can find a source that'd help too. -Will Beback · † · 11:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote from source requested to verify interpretation of source

Could Will Beback provide the full quote from the references he gave (Sudhir Kakar)? Thanks.Sfacets 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please answer my previous question about the relationship of Dharma to SY? -Will Beback · † · 04:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind answering the request for quotes? At the moment there is on;y your interpretation of the source. Sfacets 07:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind answering the question I posted last week on Talk:Nirmala Srivastava? -Will Beback · † · 08:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the sentences + sources awaiting your reply. Sfacets 08:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
What policy allows you to remove NPOV, sourced material for this reason? -Will Beback · † · 08:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
We don't have a full quote, so it's only your word that it's NPOV, and your interpretation of the source. You haven't been very good at sticking with what sources have said prior to this. Sfacets 08:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh? For example? -Will Beback · † · 08:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
For example your "miraculous cures" [67]. Please answer the request for quotes. Sfacets 08:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I got that pretty close. Anyway, I hope you'll be as forthcoming when I ask you a question as you've required of me.
  • My first encounter with Matji and her cult was unplanned. ... She will, [the ad] went on to say, hold discources for her devotees every evening from seven to nine and grant mass self-realization-an instant awakening of the Kundalini-to all newcomers. ... Mataji's cult, though a steady performer, lagged far behind the established enterprises of the first rank. [p.191]
There are other citations from the book as well. Now will you please restore the material? -Will Beback · † · 09:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there still a problem with this material? Why hasn't the editor who removed it repeatedly restored it? I've provided the quote as demanded. -Will Beback · † · 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Patience, I (the editor in question) am a bit busy in real life. I should be able to restore the content tonight/tommorow morning, feel free to do it yourself if you feel the need to do it sooner.

I should also be able to answer more of your questions then, Thanks. Sfacets 02:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be patient. (I'd seen you editing elsewhere so I thought you might have forgotten about this article.) -Will Beback · † · 02:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is getting long and takes awhile to load. Can someone competent please transfer the first half to an archive page? Thanks. Sahajhist 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't archive yet. The page isn't too long. Some of these discussions are still unresolved. -Will Beback · † · 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we could archive the earlier discussions? My internet connection is currently being shaped so it takes a long time to load. Sfacets 02:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Have we decided there's a consensus that the "Religious Movements" is reliable? You asked for input and most if it seems to favor it. -Will Beback · † · 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again. The editors doing the bulk of the editing (ie you, me and Sfacets) have yet to agree. Sahajhist 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That's why the RfC was held, to bring in new voices. Those new voices seemed to think that it is a reliable source. -Will Beback · † · 04:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually the majority of views expressed here seem to be to discard it. Sfacets 06:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • HeBhagawan: ...you can't take what they have to say as definitive. At most, you can use it to prove that some people say what they are saying--as evidenced by the fact that they are saying it in the article.
  • Lethaniol: Use the information but dont quote from it as fact - if you need the facts search for them in the references.
  • NovaSTL: Valid and credible source.
  • Milo: RMHP may not be perfect in theory, and it may not have a future without Prof. Hadden, but I conclude that in Wikipedia practice, it's good enough to 2003 at least, to hold its existing reliable source consensus.
So we have two editors who argued we can use it as a source with attribution and two who said we can use it as a regular source. Andres made some comments but he never gave a clear opinion. None of the respondents said that it shouldn't be used at all. -Will Beback · † · 11:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms section

This section needs to reflect the changing nature of this movement. The influence of Shri Mataji on individual members is clearly different now in the 2000s than in earlier decades, and especially post 2003. This has not yet been reflected in published critiques. And this is the major reason why I have argued against use of the 2000-1 student essay from the Univ of Virginia website. Sahajhist 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We can change it by saying it refers to the situation at the time of writing. Everything changes, but future changes don't affect the past. If we could get more information on the changes that you refer to then we can add those in the appropriate location. -Will Beback · † · 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur. I have some agreement with Sahajhist' suggestion... up to a point. Criticism by several eras should include the current one. • Beyond that, it sounds to me like a suggestion for recrudescing the likes of Christian Science (CS) revisionist church history. It's one thing to describe the current situation, and quite another to try to wipe out or cover up the past. Among ex-devotees claiming harm, as with ISKON, the emotionally traumatic issues of the past remain valid for their lifetimes. For them, only continuous displays of the past can bring them a measure of their claim for justice. ISKON acknowledged its past and so began the decades-long process of emerging from their cult status, as referred to by global citizens. Milo 07:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed... up to a point. There are as many, probably more, testimonials of a positive nature, eg. [68][69][70] [71] as there are of a negative nature - which is not to discount or ignore past events. Sahajhist 08:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, though those particular websites would not count as reliable sources. Undoubtedly there are many reliable websites, at least within or aligned to the movement, which are positive. We already include several. Positive criticisms don't negate negative criticisms, but they can balance them. -Will Beback · † · 08:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
What's a positive criticism? Is that a compliment or promotion statement? If so, it doesn't belong within a section titled Criticisms. Milo 10:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. In literary and artistic fields "criticism" refers to all reviews, positive or negative. Rebutals to negative criticism could be in the "Criticism" section or elsewhere, but they need to be as well-sourced as the negative criticisms. -Will Beback · † · 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Bias POV thrives on ambiguous language. In this context, I would not use the ambiguous phrase "positive criticism". Nor would I use "negative criticism", precisely because it invites misconsideration of its ambiguous inverse. It already appears that significant risk of rhetorical confusion with other meanings could cause section "Criticisms" to be installed with yet more promotions and praise — rather than the reliably-sourced claims of faults and shortcomings that are generally understood to belong here. NPOV is enhanced by disambiguation and plain meanings. Accordingly, the "Criticisms" section should be renamed like "Complaints and doubts about Sahaja Yoga". Only downsides should be listed internally to that section. If balance in the sense of rebuttals is needed, then another following section should contain them, named like "Response to complaints and doubts". Milo 14:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Requested quote to check interpretation

Barrett, David V. The New Believers 2001 p. 297-298

“Sahaja Yoga, like many other new religious movements, is involved in charitable social work, including a hospital and a cancer research centre – both using Sahaja Yoga methods for healing – a classical musical school, and a shelter for the poor in Delhi.
Sahaja Yoga makes a big point of its teaching being free:
Amazingly, without any financial support from any person, Shri Mataji neither chagers for Her lectures nor for Her ability to give Self Realization, nor does one have to become a member of this organization. She insists that you cannot pay for enlightenment and to-date she continues to denounce the false self-proclaimed ‘gurus’ who are more interested in the seekers’ purse than their spiritual ascent.
But in fact this is one of the major criticisms of the movement, that the often middle-class members are encouraged to make regular donations to pay for Shri Mataji’s trips around the world, and to buy her expensive properties, such as Shudy Camps Park House near Cambridge, England, in 1986 and an Italian castle in 1991. There also seems to be strong emphasis on Shri Mataji herself, her background (growing up in Gandhi’s ashram), her accomplishments (honorary doctorates, and other awards and honours made to her), and on how she is welcomed by high-ranking dignitaries in cities around the world (cf. Herbert W. Armstrong’s ‘world’s most expensive autograph hunt’, page 488) – rather than on her message. Devoted member refer to her as the Divine Mother, and she has called herself Adi Shakh, Primal Mother of All; many take her advice on child-rearing, and some ask her to choose their marriage partners. This amount of influence over her followers’ lives has caused concern in several countries. Some former have said that they were expelled from the movement because they resisted Shri Maraji’s influence over their lives. Apparently, neither her husband nor her two daughters are followers of Sahaja Yoga.”

Andries 18:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Factual comments on above quote:
1. the Shudy Camps property was sold c.1990. The 'Italian castle' (at Cabella Ligure) has been transferred to a foundation administered by the World Council, as has Shri Mataji's house in New Jersey, USA. [72]
2. Shri Mataji's husband, Sir C.P.Srivastava has repeatedly indicated in recent years that he fully supports Sahaja Yoga, eg. [73]
The 'expensive properties' accusation is a myth propagated by disgruntled former members. Sahajhist 01:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

We've already mentioned in the article that properties are being transferred. The Cabella house does not look cheap. If anyone has exact figures for the values we can insert them but we'd come dangerously close to OR if we did. We can include the Srivastava speech as a rebuttal to the assertion that he is not a follower if we ever get around to including that criticism. -Will Beback · † · 02:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

health of the liver a diet: Misinterpretation?

User:Sahajist removed the followin sentence with the edit summary "malicious misinterpretation"

"For the health of the liver a diet high in white cane sugar and white rice is recommended. < ref > http://www.meditate4free.co.uk/Liver%20Diet.pdf Sahaja Yoga: Liver Diet < /ref >"

Why is this is a misinterpretation? And why is this alleged misinterpretation malicious? I thought the interpretation is accurate.

Andries 08:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there perhaps a better description of the Liver Diet? -Will Beback · † · 09:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sahajist, are you sure? Look up the definition. "Malicious" is a serious charge to make against another editor without clear and persuasive evidence. One can be a severe critic, an intractable opponent, or just wrong, without ever being malicious. Milo 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the source, and could find no mention of high sugar content being an essential part of the treatment, perhaps what Sahajhist meant was that the source was being mis-quoted. Sfacets 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I found it. Andries 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? Would you mind sharing the quote with the rest of us? Sfacets 04:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Liver Diet is a serious proposal, containing a number of parameters wider than just white sugar and white rice, and has been shown to work. And before anyone asks, no I dont know of a scientific study. If Andries cares to write a balanced and appropriate summary of this diet then I'll be happy to withdraw my initial comment. Sahajhist 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've written a more comprehensive version of the diet. It should be balanced and appropriate. -Will Beback · † ·

Ive had a thorough read through the diet sheets and can find no mention that a high sugar content is beneficial, what is suggested is that cane sugar is the 'food of the liver' but it does not state that it is the only thing that you should eat and in fact mentions many other items. The subtitle of the section reffering to sugar is 'cooling for the liver, and recommended for intake' not you must take vast quantitites of cane sugar and rice. As suggested in the preamble to the actual diet, the concept of a diet to detox the liver is an old one and in past years very similar versions to the diet that Shri Mataji suggested in the mid 1970s are now in common use in the US, UK and Australia see the book The Liver Cleansing Diet: Love Your Liver and Live Longer by Sandra Cabot. Shri Mataji has suggested that cane sugar is beneficial for the liver and in recent years there have been several completely independant research studies carried out that partially back up this suggestion. For example in May of 2006 a paper was published in Phytotherapy Research (M.Motob et al Volume 20 issue 5 pages 359-363) with the conclusion that sugar cane extract has an immunostimulating effect on chickens and reduces liver damage in experimental mice. --Willia 12:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See the current version in the article. I think it addresses your issues. -Will Beback · † · 19:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You will see that i have added in that chocolate etc are considered to be heating to the liver if taken in excess rather than simply stating that they are harmful. --Willia 13:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nirmal Bhakti image

I have re-added the image of the portrait of the band of which I am the copyright holder. Sfacets 11:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

When and where was it taken? -Will Beback · † · 21:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Also please explain how you produced the "Subtle system" graphic - which program did you use? When did you make it? How did your version of it come to be so widely disseminated? These claims of creating many major SY photos and graphics are no longer credible. If you want to call it as a fair use logo then that would be legitimate. If you want to claim you created it personally you'll have to prove it. -Will Beback · † · 07:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


No, you will have to prove that I didn't create the image. Stop being disruptive. Sfacets 09:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked you previously about this and a number of other images which had unrealistic assertions. You replied that you were too busy to respond. Can you now tell me when and where you made this image, using what software? If you really made it that should be an easy question to answer. -Will Beback · † · 09:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how it matters, but I used Illustrator, Photoshop and Image Ready. Are you satisfied now? Sfacets 11:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I also asked when you produced this often-duplicatd image. -Will Beback · † · 11:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the insistance by Will Beback for Sfacets to account for the creation of the graphics seem to be verging on the personal attack. Why does Will Beback insist on knowing the time of creation? Does it really make a difference to their validity? --Willia 18:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does make a difference to the validity of the license. That image is posted on a copyrighted website. Wikipedia editors can't just pick photos off of websites and claim to be the creators. There've been previous problems with this user using incorrect licenses, hence the questions. This information should be easy to provide if the editor was the creator of these images. -Will Beback · † · 19:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Previous problems? Sfacets 11:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As discussed on your talk page. -Will Beback · † · 19:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sahaja_Yoga/Archive_3&oldid=603934768"