User talk:Cult free world/Proposed page

Archive-1

Done

I think i am done !! I request input from Don and Duty2love to point out or add, if there is anything missing from what i could find about Sahaj Marg. Kindly do not change any content or modify it, feel free to add more references. I am figuring out how to apply for RfC, once i do that. I will file for review of wikipedia policies via RfC.--talk-to-me! (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Stay Sane

While looking at few more user-pages, i found this one really interesting, and is relevent here.--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC Input

Kindly suggest improvements and refer to appropriate wikipedia policy, in case i have missed it. Kindly point out variations if any for WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:CITE --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Duty2Love

(Note: This review is for this page. The source numbers changed on April 16th when CFW added additional primary sources, see below under his section for review of those new sources in the current version of the article.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duty2love (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

CFW: Thanks for inviting me to give my opinion on your proposed page. First, I would like to request that everyone refrain from personal attacks, accusations of COI, belittling or dismissing others' concerns, and that User:Cult free world take all comments seriously and with good faith. It's good that you have invited User:4d-don for comments, but I suggest you should take more editors' statements and use them to improve the article, and also, all editors should act with respect and good faith toward Cult free ..... quoting an admin's recent comment "I strongly suggest that any further discussion is politely and comprehensively responded to, for the improvement of the article. I would hope that Sethie and Marathi mulgaa will also be part of that discussion.""

Cult Free World, even though I have launched a sock report on you for suspicious behavior, I am not going to bring the same topic up here for this is not the right place for it. I have taken a great deal of time to carefully go through the article in good faith line by line. I intended no criticism of you in this article and am focusing on accuracy, neutrality, quality of sources, and other guidelines you offered above within which we are to review this article. I hope you take them as a sincere gesture to help you in your quest to publish this article.

My detailed comments are thus:

1. The first source is of good quality. It is on a small group of practicants in Denmark.
2. The second source is of good quality but is misquoted. It says that one must be 18 years of age to start the practice. It is original research to then extrapolate that the practice is unsuitable for children.
3. The third source is improperly named, it should be the "French Parliamentary Commission on Sectes" and it lists not Sahaj Marg, but Shri Ram Chandra Mission as a secte, not a cult. Thus, as written, is inaccurate. User:Reneeholle pointed out here that this report does not meet reliability standards because the United Nations and the United States ran separate investigations into the report and found that any non-mainstream group was lumped into the report. User:4d-don corroborates all of these points above here, about sources 3 and 4. Having the statement in the lead violates WP:UNDUE and having sources 3 and 4 in the article violate WP:R. While as a reference it is fine, but I don't see the need to put this on the opening paragraph when this is the only reference available, it almost looks like you are trying to promote this fact, indicating WP:SOAP.
4. Source #5, while a good source, does not support the claim given. The claim given is, In 1972, the group begun to moved out of India, and moved to Europe, United States of America and Egypt. But all this source says is that the group calls their guru "master" and that there is a small group of practicants in Denmark. It is original research to extrapolate that source to this claim.
5. Source #6 is a self-promotional, self-published website and does not meet the standards of WP:R or WP:V.
6. Source #7 is a one pager that says Arguments heard. Orders reserved and is used in support of the claim, ''was not recognized unanimously by some members of the movement, which caused a split... As a court document it is a primary source and it is original research to link that page with the claim. A secondary source is needed before that claim can be made.
7. Source #8 is another court document, which makes it a primary source. This claim seems to be non-controversial but a secondary source is needed to establish notability to warrant inclusion in the article.
8. Sources #9 and 10 could not be verified as actual links are not there, also it is not clear which organization these reports are about as there are multiple organizations claiming the name Shri Ram Chandra Mission and Sahaj Marg, which is what about some court cases are going on. This does not meet WP:V.
9. Sources #11 and 12 are French anti-secte blogs and do not meet WP:NPOV, WP:R or WP:V.
10. Most of the sources in the practice section do not meet WP:R or WP:V. Sources #13 and 17 are from self-published promotional websites. Sources # 14, 15, and 17 are written by members of the group and references 15 and 17 are from promotional newspapers or websites. Sources #16, 18, 19, and 21 are from official Sahaj Marg websites (either university or home site based). Sources #14 and 20 may meet minimal WP:R or WP:V standards. The former is written by a member of the group but is in a well-known mainstream Yoga magazine. The latter is in a small daily newspaper in Vermont. In the previously deleted pages, # 14 was ruled unreliable because it was written by a member of the group, but as I read it, it reads accurately and neutrally, so I think it should stay. #20 seems well-written and should stay. The problem with this section is that it is inaccurate. The first six things are accurate and part of the practice. The last three things are offered and may be beneficial but are not required and not a part of the formal practice. There are more instances where claims do not match the source. For instance, source #20 describes a gathering that occurred three weeks in late April and early May yet is listed under "Leader's birthday celebration (22nd July-25th July). Also, this article does not give any indication that the gathering is part of the practice, just that it is a gathering, so to include it as a source justifying the claim that the leader's birthday celebrations are part of the practice is incorrect.
11. The "Central Beliefs" section on transmission is described accurately, but is based on primary sources. Sources # 22 and 23 are from official SRCM websites (one university, one home based). Source #24 is from a self-published site. You can probably use source #14 to provide this same information.
12. Under the method section, only the first four items count as the method. The "marriages" and "divorces" section are not part of the practice. For references, #25-32 are all primary sources. #29 is written by the guru himself. The "morning meditation" section is accurate but probably a copyright violation as is the "cleaning" section. Again, there are several instances where the claims are not supported by the sources. A severely broken quotation (with several ellipses) is given regarding the evening prayer, yet source #27 doesn't discuss the evening prayer. This quotation is an example of selectively chosen clauses to support a POV. Elsewhere, a claim is given, leader is considered God, yet source #30 says that the goal of meditation is to become God/Master of one's self. There is a great deal of OR going on in these sections as these examples show. The "marriages" and "divorces" sections are original research based on either selective quotations from the group's literature (sources #33 and 34) or from French-language anti-secte blogs (sources #35 and 36). In terms of the latter, I dare say that many divorcees blame cricket, in-laws, and the neighborhood pub as being the causes of their divorces and show up on various blogs as saying so. These statements are untrue and do not meet WP:NPOV, WP:R or WP:V.
13. The section titled "Use of channeling and mediumship" is entirely inaccurate and untrue. Sources #37-40 are all from the organization's website and do not support the claims made in this section. I find User:Reneeholle's review of the section here accurate. There is a book called The Brighter World that was presented by the guru as being something different in Sahaj Marg, a channeled book by a single lady. Source #39 confirms that the guru saw the book as something different and not the norm in Sahaj Marg. Separately there are occasional references to "the brighter world" or "the other side" in the literature, meaning that one dies, one goes to "the other side" or "the brighter world." The first sentence in this section, that the brighter world is where departed soul of previous leader's of the same group currently live, is a gross misrepresentation of tangential references to the other side. Source #37 given to support his claim shows only a tangential reference to a person moving on to the "brighter world." This section does not meet WP:NPOV, WP:R or WP:V
14. The "Achievements" section contains some original research and POV statements. For example, "alleged" founder is a judgment statement. The last statement about donation and charity is not supported by source #43. The source describes a fundraising effort for the school, but does not say "The school is run mainly on donation and charity given to the group. The first two lines (without the word "alleged") are fairly accurate, though the SRCM is registered as a non-governmental humanitarian organization too. All sources in this section are primary sources and do not meet WP:V or WP:R.
15. The "Controversies and criticism" section violated WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:R. This section calls into question in my mind whether or not the author is truly interested in writing a NPOV article, or, is he more interested in presenting a certain POV of the group. The sources used in this section have either been ruled libelous and defamatory by a court of law, or, they come from French language blogs. For the first paragraph, as has been described in depth elsewhere, the newspaper article used as the source was ruled libelous and defamatory by the very court case cited as the reference here, sources 44 and 45, which are the same. In that same court case, there is no secondary corroboration of the defamation. The judge even noted that attorneys for the newspaper "...have given much emphasis that it was on the basis of the statement made by Smt. Pragya Prabhati Mishra," p.4, #5, without any corroboration. These issues are discussed in depth here and frankly I am surprised that the author continues to include these allegations and statements knowing they would never meet Wikipedia standards of reliability or verifiability. For the second paragraph, these allegations are all based on French language blogs with a stated purpose to promote an anti-secte POV. Source #49 given to support the claim that there is "child abduction" is based on one man's statement and looks to be a custody dispute with his ex-wife, with no basis in truth. If reliable and verifiable secondary sources can be found to support statements, more proper things to include in this section are the ownership dispute of the Shahjahanpur ashram, the dispute over who owns the rights to the name Shri Ram Chandra Mission, and the domain site dispute. Currently, there are no secondary sources on these issues because they are really non-notable minor cases to the rest of the world.
16. The court case section is entirely inappropriate as it is a list of primary sources with no secondary sources for interpretation. As has been noted by other editors here and here, court cases by themselves do not meet WP:V or WP:R. A secondary source is needed for interpretation. The labels of the cases themselves represent original research. For instance, how does one glean "ownership dispute" from the first case listed (it's a one-page writ that says, "Arguments heard. Orders reserved") or how does one glean "domain dispute for srcmshajahanpur.org.in" from the one-page document listed? These listings violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.
17. The "See also" section reflects a POV. The group does not meet the definition of a cult, appears on no common English cult lists, it does not appear on the U.S. government's cult list nor does it appear on the Rick Ross cult list. The category of "cult" should be deleted and the categories of "spirituality" and "meditation" should be added.
18. The "external links" is inaccurate. The first link is correct. The second link is dead. A link on www.sahajmarg.org, Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation, should be added. Why is there the phrase "disputed domain" after the second link? It is my understanding that the domain is not under dispute and that SRCM Chennai won the right to the name. This link and phrase should be deleted to avoid original research.
19. Lastly, to my knowledge it completely fails WP:CON. When this article was proposed in your user space, pretty much no one showed any interest in it for the simple reason that this topic was removed from WP in sept 2007 after a long review process, mainly because certain conflicting information could not be verified as court cases were still pending and WP is not the place for any legal interpretations. Situation has not changed since then, but User CFW has gone against many to add the information it wanted to add, under the pretext that its his/her user space. Here are some of the suggestions/opinions from other users who have been to this page: 4d-don: [1], myself: [2], Sethie: [3], Reneeholle: [4]. We will know this only when other editors put their view here, hence I invite the editors who were involved in discussion of this page to give their inputs.

Based on this review, I find little that meets the policies outlined in the RFC. I believe that sources #14 and 20 might be used to explain the practice and some beliefs. Beyond that, this article is one person's essay of their view of Sahaj Marg based on primary sources. I encourage Cult Free World to continue searching for high quality secondary sources, like academic or scholarly articles or books, if he chooses to continue to develop this article. I wish him the best in his life. Duty2love (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

TLDR make it short, and to the point, I still suggest that rather than going all way round the world, of filing for deletion, MfD, and then SSP, take the shorter path, discuss, nothing will come out of those things, but will demonstrate the effect of transmission--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by 4d-don

As my suggestions and comments are not taken seriously by all sides, and since the case that is pending in Supreme Court of India is still not resolved....

I will re-state that I will stay out of this debate on specifics of this and any other articles for the same reasons I left in September.

Some of the statements by all, the admins included, to justify their position are not WIKI according to me, but I will not get into the specifics, I will just give one example on the DELETE side...since there are many that are seen by all who have eyes, on all sides. EX.: To attribute to the UN or the US a position from a "committee report" (see above), as Renee does with her statements is not accurate. It is like saying: "WIKI says", because Sethie or Dutu2love said.

The UN, France and US are not "homogeneous" bodies... and can't be used to support claims FOR or AGAINST this article. These are "committees" and like all groups, including religions, or cabals, they are infiltrated by people with hidden agendas. This includes the US, France and the UN committees and departments of governements...and yes...WIKI too..ie the INDIA PROJECT). If there is a committee that "lists", there will come another "committee" to de-list. In an encyclopedia, we can only "report" the facts. SRCM was listed and then some other "committee" put re-strictions and clarifications on the use of the info that could be used to "marginalize" and "demonize" using the so-called "black list". Most religions, once merged with "nationalism", develop "black lists" of their own. It is interesting to see the reaction to being "listed" as opposed to listing other members of society at large.

I like the approach of the Belgian Government. The Belgian Government simply lists the Books of the "harmful" sects on their site. http://www.ciaosn.be/

Anyway, I am getting involved again, and I did not want to... If you continue with this article, my suggestion, I repeat, is to at least start with the "disambiguation" of the two SRCM articles so that the members of both groups don't get into the long debates that were going on before the "disambiguation" ....Sahaj Marg is a Method...such as PRAYER, or CONFESSION, COMMUNION...It is not a group.

And then, be happy with a STUB with only the FACTS for now, I think there is enough material for a limited CONCENSUS, until the court case is settled...and then, I will participate in a "CONCENSUS" article that is WIKI...

Just my Humble Opinion...

Keep smiling...this too shall pass...and soon, we will realize we are all ONE!

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

4d-don...

Marathi_Mulgaa

My RFC comments:

When you take out all the stuff that is inadmissible based on wiki rules that Duty2Love states above, there isn't much of an article left. Many sections of this proposed article are factually bogus. Exceptions are headlined, to make them appear to be the rule. Many of the described "practices" are described wrong. The author's POV is all over it, including chunks of the author's original research.

Two examples are the statements with the Hindi sources and the controversies sections (references #9 and #10). There are many ways to translate words from Hindi to English, based on the context and these articles appear to be mistranslated to promote a POV. For example, the word for take "possession" can also be literally translated as "capture," depending on how it was used. In this case, the less accurate word is probably chosen, because it is line with the authors chosen tone for the article. Also, if this were truly a notable event it would have been covered in other papers (including English language papers) and it is not.

Second, in the controversies section the newspaper article used as a source was found libelous and defamatory! In addition, the author cites the names of couple of Indian newspaper with just a date for the news article - No links are provided though, which obviously makes it impossible for other editors to verify them. The Dainik Jagran is in Hindi and the Hindustan Times have no news archives online. So obviously, these are not reliable or verifiable sources. The other points in this section (and elsewhere in the article) are original research of the author based on blogs. No reliable or verifiable secondary sources make these claims, only blogs and the blogs aren't even in English.

As Sethie pointed out earlier, this is an English language wiki, so please stick to English sources that other editors can access and actually verify. You'd be able to get to a consensus a lot faster going that route.

There are many other points in the article that are either inaccurate or twisted adequately enough to confirm to a POV. Source #30, for example , is used to come to the conclusion "In Sahaj Marg, leader is considered God". Nowhere is that explicitly stated in the article cited. If you are translating the reference to "GOD/MASTER" in the first line in this article, keep in mind that this is open to interpretation, since the Master mentioned here could just as easily mean a lot of different things to different people - My wife, my boss, my kids, my dog. Coming to the conclusion that Master here refers to "leader" is original research on the authors part.

Duty2love does an excellent job spelling this all the issues out in detail. I endorse all his comments. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

mayawi

I have read this article which seems to be similar to the one which was deleted sometime back. I do not find any new material listed in this article. It is my understanding that if the article were to pass a deletion review that notability would have to be established and I just don't see it here.

There are two secondary sources in this article (no. 1 and 2) and none focuses on Sahaj Marg. The group is mentioned purely in passing to bolster a point or to give an example.

How is this article different from the earlier deleted articles? It appears to be exactly the same. Mayawi (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cult Free World

I received an email from some-one (as requested), who has pointed out some in-accuracies in what is stated in the article, I hereby open the history section, to be edited and elaborated more, even though i have read all the accusations on tell-me-truth India, site, and than the newspaper cutting available online on various sites, which i feel are enough, but are not consolidated, lets have this article. --talk-to-me! (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you are still OPEN to suggestions. I don't know where the site tell-me-truth India is, could please give the link? If its a blog site then it doesn't meet WP:V or WP:R. Please see my original post above, between points 5 - 9 [5] for comments about History section. Source #7 & 8 are court documents, I find it extremely strange that these are being used to source the History. While these documents appears to be real, these cases simply could be allegations, their content require interpretation, and you yourself agree that WP is not the place for interpreting court orders [6], #7 doesn't even look relevant to History. Does source #14 or 20 talk about the history of Sahaj Marg? If yes, and if other editors agree that those sources meet WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:R, then we can write the history section with these sources. Duty2love (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added few more secondary sources for the dispute, in history section, addressing the concerns of current members.--talk-to-me! (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"CFW, These are all primary documents and most, as you have noted, were dismissed or just filings. None of these belong in an article. They add no information and are just padding. They are not secondary sources. Secondary sources come from scholarly journals or vetted publications with a fact-checking service. Have you reviewed point 5-9 on my post above (remember to view the old version of the page as given in the link above). Duty2love (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)"

History section

Is there any reference in this section, which is not as per wikipedia policy ? point out please.--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You must be really tired or something when you posted this comment .. giving you the benefit of doubt ;). Dear Br., I explicitly pointed out problems with the History section, not once but twice. Also Marathi_Mulaga has pointed out some references. How about answering those concerns first? I am not going to repost those again here, please go over point 5 - 9 on my first post above (remember to view the older version of your page, link provided). Regarding the new references you added to History section here are my 2 cents:

Don't you feel you have made is too complex ? kindly post your messages while keeping in mind the dynamic nature of wikipedia articles.

1. Source #8 & 9 (links starting with www.wipo.int and www.finnegan.com) are both primary sources. Also, this is a legal documents, requiring interpretation.

this is the primary source (indicating dispute), other two are secondary sources for the same topic, both the links have explained the order of primary source.

1. Source provided for tax evasion tax notification [7] looks irrelevant to the History section. Additionally looking at the document itself, it is not clear what it is stating.

Why is listing of the group in upper house of parliament, for notification concerning tax evasion irrelevant in history of the group ?

1. Source #14 [8] is a simple patent filing. You are still trying to conduct original research by saying there was controversy and then you produce simple patent filings? This is a primary source and has no place in a Wiki article.

Try this, have a look at few more wikipedia articles, start with Sahaja Yoga, may help you understand wikipedia better, If there is a patent registered, and you are explaining the group, which source do you feel should be used other than link to the official patent record ?

Let me know if this is still not clear. Duty2love (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider reading this--talk-to-me! (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is Br you have used above ?? what does it stand for ? Is this a new name you have given me ?--talk-to-me! (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear CFW,
I have reviewed your page three times. I admire your patience and determination to get this page published, however in order to do that a lot more work will be needed. Also you show some unreasonable zeal to publish this article with most of the content not meeting WP standards. I say unreasonable because despite many of us telling you that an article on this topic could not be published last time (Sept 2007 and before) because of lack of good secondary sources, you have chosen to ignore our words. Still with a lot of patience I have tried to work with you on this. The reason for not being able to find many secondary sources is that this organization does not believes in paid advertisement and does not have books or articles published outside itself, and for this reason I agree with Innerself below that this group/topic is not notable.

Legal documents are primary documents; where as secondary sources are from mainstream press and other scholoary sources with fact-checking and vetting practices. You have potentially 4 secondary sources in the entire document (in the April 16th version, sources #1, 2, 19, 25). It is questionable if #19 or 25 are secondary sources as 4d-don argued they were primary sources in the previously deleted content. The first two sources only peripherally mention the group so notability is a problem.

Most of what you have written is wrong because of your heavy reliance on primary sources. For example, you added a new source yesterday and claimed it was "tax evasion." I have carefully examined the document and no where does it say tax evasion. It does list the new taxes and exemptions various businesses face and the list of whom this information was sent to (i.e., tax notifications, not evasion). Aside from that, the group listed is not the SRCM-Chennai but the SRCM-Shahjahanpur (Uttar Pradesh). The two groups have no relation and you are mixing them up.

Many people have offered you feedback here and from your responses you do not want to take it. That is your choice, but the article is full of errors, full of original research, and based on your interpretation of primary sources. This seems to be going no where. Duty2love (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of referring to old version, come up with something so that you can comment on the latest page, You have used the term secondary/primary sources infinite times in your posts, now i request you to kindly go back and see what they are, in addition to this, also kindly broaden your horizon and see how articles are cited elsewhere on wikipedia, do not remained glued to this article only, atleast give it a try to understand how things work on wikipedia. Please read few more article.

About whatever happened in sept. of 2007,[9] how am i suppose to know about that ? All i have is this version, and i have tried to make sure, as nothing of this sort should come up again, and i feel i have done that. If you are worried about what-ever happened in sept of 2007, kindly inform us as who is forcing you to get involved with this article again and again ? You hardly have any other significant contribution!! Come out of prejudice and understand the dynamics of wikipedia.--talk-to-me! (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents: Embhee

If my memory is right[10], I remember seeing a similar "struggle" to publish about this group Sahaj Marg. There were two or three people for it, and two or three people against it. The Admin folks decided to delete it. I suggest the Admin people do the same with this proposal and delete it also.

We live in the 21st century. Please allow people to have opinions about men and matters but there is no need to enforce your opinion on others. Wiki has become a powerful media, please do not make it a blog. If you want to say "good" or "bad" about Sahaj Marg, Wiki is NOT the place for you. What one may think is a "fact" could in-fact be an "opinion" from another's point of view. Let people figure out for themselves.

"All we are saying, is give peace a chance" -- John Lennon

Embhee (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Will respond to your point soon. Take it light, there is nothing personal here.--talk-to-me! (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Ready for Publishing

This article is not ready for publishing. There are too many issues raised by various editors and as such, the article is very controversial and will only confuse the wiki users. I noticed that CultFreeWorld's article got published AS-IS, and it was then changed by Duty2Love. I feel that CultFreeWorld's original article as it is in the user space is very confusing and controversial, and it should not be allowed to be published AS-IS. Just to give a few examples,

1. Why talk about some foundation here [11]and patent in the history section? It doesnt make any sense.

2. The SMSF patent article [12]refers to 4 people in the patent. Why refer to only two in the History section and where is the proof the Krishna is the president's son? Why even mention it?

3. I researched into Sahaj Marg by searching websites, talking to a few people who started and left, looking at their websites [13] [14], and nowhere is the president of this mission referred to as the "Leader" as is mentioned everywhere in this article. I only notice that he is referred to as a Master or Guru, though he feels he is a Guide.

4. Why talk about Marriage and Divorces under the title of "Practice". That doesnt make any sense. Is CultFreeWorld trying to say that Marriage and Divorce are "part and parcel" of this system of practice. LOL. I feel that these two sub-sections should not exist at all.

These are only a few of the many issues in this article. I can only say, PLEASE, do one of the following two things.

1. Those who are for it and those against it come together and agree on some common middle-ground and choose just enough text for this article that will only help convey relevant information to the wiki users.

2. An easy way out: Simply remove the article as was done before [15]

Embhee (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Innerself

It appears that Duty2Love has carefully prepared a very factual and neutral assessment of this article. Without trying to take sides, I would endorse his method of research, which helps us separate fact from fiction. Sources are identified as being verifiable or not (and why. I would like to add that there are two additional problems with the article.

First, the group is not-notable, as someone pointed out in the MFD. It gets no hits when searched for in Google news. This is probably why there are no secondary sources that focus on it. The first two sources devote no more than a couple of lines to the group; it is mentioned as an aside as in, another example is this group. The group receives nothing more than a cursory mention.

Second, the article mixes up the practice of Sahaj Marg with the organization of Shri Ram Chandra Mission. 4d-Don makes this same point above. Sahaj Marg is practiced by a few different groups with slightly different beliefs, so it is incorrect to only link Sahaj Marg with Shri Ram Chandra Mission-Chennai. For example, the Institute for Shri Ram Chandra Consciousness (source of reference #30), believes that Babuji is their guru.

Cult Free World, I urge you to please consider Duty2love's points. He obviously devoted a great deal of time to reviewing the article to try and help you. I know it can seems overwhelming to take all of the above in at once, but perhaps you can just start with the first point, then the second, and slowly move through them to make changes in the article. You could start a discussion section below and start with the first paragraph. When consensus has been reached on that, you can move to the second, etc. These are ideas for moving forward in good faith. Please just don't dismiss all of his hard work. It looks like he was thoughtful and responsive to your request. --Innerself (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel

I'm concerned that sources 3 and 4 do not mention the article subject by name. The terms used, if I recall, are Shaji Sahaji Yoga in the #3 and Shri Ram Chandra in #4. If these refer to the same group, this should be made clear in the introduction. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sheffield Steel,
Thank you for reviewing this! I just searched both documents and neither mention "Sahaj Marg", I could not find "Shaji" in either. They mention "Shri Ram Chandra Mission France," but never "Sahaj Marg. IMHO these sources are being misused in two ways. 1) the proper term is "sect" not "cult", thanks to User:4d-don for pointing this out here; 2) "Sahaj Marg" is the practice and this practice is done by a few different groups, again many users agree on this.

This article has many misquotations and incorrect citings that I have tried to point out repeatedly at as much length as I could. If anyone is interested I can prepare a list of claims not supported by the sources given. Also, because the author seems to be not very clear about the difference between secondary & primary source, I did some research on the noticeboards and found this list. Scroll down to the bottom where it gives examples of primary sources by discipline and it clearly states that court documents are "primary" sources. This means it can be cited but only when there is an available secondary source for interpretation, which is not the case for this article, as I have said many, many times. An admin backed up that position here. None of the statements linked to court cases in this article have secondary sources, resulting in a lot of original research in the article with no secondary sources. Frankly for me, this article even fails the WP:NBOR as you like to say.
Duty2love (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note my lamentable spelling mistake in the post above, now corrected. The best information I can point you to, on the subject of Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary sources, is here: WP:PSTS. Apologies if you've seen that before. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I will review the WP:PSTS article and I hope CFW does too. Also, "Sahaja Yoga" is a completely different practice with completely different founder / Guru, unrelated to Sahaj Marg, though their names sound similar. I know very little about Sahaja Yoga. Duty2love (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed --talk-to-me! (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Brother, This does not fix the problem as you suggest (substituting the word "group" for Sahaj Marg).

Sheffield Steel pointed out that the subject of the article, Sahaj Marg, does not appear in the document. Why is the sentence still on this page?

Duty2love provided a list that defined primary sources for Wikipedia. These are primary sources under the category of "government":

• Government government report, interview, letter, news report, personal account, press release, public opinion survey, speech, treaty or international agreement.

As you can see above, "government report" is a primary source. A secondary source is needed to keep the sentence in the document.

The label of the report is incorrect. 4d-don pointed out that the French report refers to groups as "sects," not "cults," and that most non-mainstream religions appeared on this list. Renee pointed out the report was discredited by United Nations and United States commissions. The mislabeling of the report is original research. Not giving "both" sides of the report is unbalanced and promotes a POV. I am repeating what Duty2love told you this in his #3 point above and what Don has said a few times.

With a secondary source, the sentence in the lead still violates WP:UNDUE as the group is not a cult, does not appear on any English "cult" lists, and as you point out is a United Nations non-governmental organization. At most, it would warrant a footnote in the Controversies section.

I hope you take these comments on content in the spirit of helping you to develop a NPOV and accurate article. I wonder why you have refused to take any of the feedback and make substantive changes? Innerself (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if we all take some time to understand what a primary source is. Please see the complete list from the list Duty2love found above:

• Government reports and court orders are primary sources and need secondary sources.

primary sources by different academic disciplines.

Anthropology field notes, photographs, first published material of researchers

Art architectural model or drawing, building or structure, letter, motion picture, organizational records, painting, personal account, photograph, print, sculpture, sketch book

Biology field notes, research reports of field researchers, published experimental results or published research by those who conducted the experiment or research

Chemistry experimental notes, published experimental results or research reports by those who conducted the experiment or research, theoretical thesis

Economics company statistics, consumer survey, data series

Engineering map, geological survey, patent, schematic drawing, technical report

Government government report, interview, letter, news report, personal account, press release, public opinion survey, speech, treaty or international agreement

History artifact, diary, government report, interview, letter, map, news report, oral history, organizational records, photograph, speech, work of art

Law code, statute, court opinion, legislative report

Literature contemporary review, interview, letter, manuscript, personal account, published work

Music contemporary review, letter, personal account, score, sound recording

Philosophy seminal works by leading philosophers, e.g. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Bacon, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Peirce, Wittgenstein, Sartre, Derrida, etc.

Physics experimental notes, published experimental results or research reports by those who conducted the experiment or research, theoretical thesis

Psychology case study, clinical case report, experimental replication, follow-up study, longitudinal study, treatment outcome study

Sociology cultural artifact, interview, oral history, organizational records, statistical data, survey Lafayette College Libraries & Academic Information Resources

Innerself (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

your name

Your input ((Kindly copy this syntax below for next user))

Addressing the BLP concern

There has been various notices at BLP notice board, about criticism section of this article, [16], [17], [18], however the only response which all these notices got is this one [19]. Apart from what is stated in the BLP response, I would also like to put forth the actual court judgment, which explicitly states that the article published in the newspaper is not defamatory !!. I am really surprised as why Renee did not pointed out the actual order, but tried to mislead people, at various locations [20].

Here is the order:-

Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgment of first information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensures in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practice able nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations leveled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face of it do not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law. To exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code, the complaint in its entirety will have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the High Court at that stage has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint.

The truth or falsity of the allegations would not be gone into by the Court at this earliest stage. Whether or not the allegations in the complaint were true is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led at the trial. So the question is: Can it be said that the allegations in the complaint do not make out any case against the accused nor do they disclose the ingredients of an offence alleged against the accused or the allegations arepatently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach to such a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. [21] Page 5

Note:- Accused is the newspaper.

Even i was also surprised to read the order, given the level of allegations made by Renee about BLP violations.!!

We will move to DRV soon.--talk-to-me! (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the quotation CFW gives above is actually the judge quoting from another case. Specifically, immediately before the italicized quotation CFW gives above it says:

in the case of Medchi Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269 may be extracted: Exercise of jurisdiction... (continues with the quotation CFW gives above from this Medchi court case)

What CFW has posted is not the judge's order or ruling.

The judge ordered that the case could not be quashed and that the parties were aggrieved persons and so they have every right to bring the complaints. (See the bolded ruling that appears at the beginning of the document. Also see summary ruling described on the MFD discussion page.) The judge also found that in his opinion, The news item extracted above and also the allegations made in the complaints are prima facie libelous and defamatory. Then, he noted his powers were limited to rule further and sent it back to the lower court for further review.

I do think that after reviewing the case and talking to attorneys who are friends of mine for clarification that I was incorrect in saying "two" courts had ruled the statement libelous and defamatory. It appears that the lower court case is still active and that it was first kicked to the higher court because of jurisdictional issues (i.e., can a person sue when his group is defamed, or, does the person alone have to be defamed). In the high court the judge ruled that yes, an individual can be "aggrieved" on behalf of his group, that the newspaper article was prima facie libelous and defamatory so it could not be quashed, and that his high court powers are limited in scope so the lower court needed to make the final ruling. I am searching for the final lower court case on this issue and have yet to find it. I wonder if the newspaper settled out of court?

Having said all of this, these points that CFW and myself make are really both moot, as court cases are primary sources so should not appear in a Wikipedia article without a secondary source for interpretation. (p.s. this discussion is relevant here.) Renee (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Renee, reference to Medchi Chemicals & Pharma (P) is also taken while delivering the judgment for the same case!!, please read (and also post), the immediately preceding line, as was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Medchi Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269 may be extracted:, (Apex court is supreme court) Kindly do not mis-lead editors here, once even i was also about to get convinced, but my experience with you, the moment i touched this topic, forced me to re-search the judgment, and finally i noticed that para. BTW, what are you talking to attorneys for ? Kindly keep in mind that making legal threat is a ban-able offence. --talk-to-me! (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Shashwat - Regardless of whether or not this violates BLP, your source and the newspaper article do not meet either WP:V or WP:RS. The court opinion is a primary source. The newspaper article is under suit as being false and libelous and the judge said "on the face of it" it was false and libelous. There are no secondary sources to support the "interviewee's" story and even the newspaper distanced themselves from her and offered no corroborating evidence (and come on - This is a lawsuit and they would have!).

...And if you don't believe me or like my opinion, User:Xymmax noted the same thing here - An outside, neutral opinion on this issue.

On your comment about "ban-able offenses", Renee says she's speaking to friends for an informed opinion. She is by no means a "legal threat". Look - Everyone here is trying to engage in a reasonable discussion - I have some pretty strong opinions on you and your behavior on wiki too but I'm making an effort to temper my words to help facilitate a civil reasonable discussion. So please reciprocate by keeping your melodrama at a minimum. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

First, you need to come out of Shashwat's ghost, for any rational discussion to take place.--talk-to-me! (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

4d-don

Hi all...

Nice to see that you are still at it and still "getting along"..lol No blood on the floor yet...

I did a little editing but stopped at "HISTORY"...the Current Master...all that section is about the SRCM and not SAHAJ MARG...Should stay on TOPIC: SAHAJ MARG, the technique, not the MISSION, SRCM...

I would like to know which sections are "acceptable" and can be kept... Have you reached concensus anywhere in this proposed article yet?

You gotta laugh because it's not funny!!

4d-don...--don (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Other then the two newspaper reports, (which i have used in the history section), and the court dockets (linked), the other group does not have an existance (as far as wikipedia policies are concerned), hence giving it a place in the lead may not be appropiate. Would request you to reformat the lead section you worked on.--talk-to-me! (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear 4d-don,
Good to see you back! Isn't it amazing that there is no blood on floor yet? I don't think it is because all have changed suddenly, perhaps become cautious to play by WP rules. Regarding consensus, I don't think we have reached any. Gotta love CFW's tenacity though even after pointing out so many problems, he seems to selectively ignore them sometimes saying TLDR. Only if this steam is used in the right direction, can anything be unachievable .... ok that was a pun CFW. While I am no one to tell you what is right for you, this article doesn't seem to be doing good to anyone. Many people spending a lot of time, getting exhausted and at the end of the day their ego probably gets happier while soul cries, what good is it doing to me (if they have to ability to listen to it). How different are we really from each other? My take is, its not what we are, but where we are, that brings the contention. One is standing North and looking at a tree south of him and saying the tree is in south, while other is in the south and saying that tree is in North. Can you say if anyone is wrong? To me this and last sept's struggle was precisely like that. I don't know how many people realize that WP is not out there to present the TRUTH, and my hunch would be, because it does not know really what is the Truth. What it stands for is to present vetted and verifiable information. And this article has very little of that, I have posted enough details about that, I can do more later, just not in a mood of that. Actually a more important question than verifiability is Notability. Having know Sahaj Marg for so long, things like lack of publications by reputed third party on this subject, do you REALLY thing this topic meets the WP:N standard? Duty2love (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is a list of things (freshly compiled) that raise questions about this article. I have put a detailed list like this before CFW but to little avail. You are reasonable man and I trust your honesty and forthrightness, hence listing these here for your perusal: There are 4 main areas where things don't seem right to me: notability, lack of secondary sources, and claims made that aren't supported by sources, and errors due to original research.

1. Notability: There are only two real secondary sources (sources #1 and 2). Both only mention Sahaj Marg at the surface level, as examples or asides (not the main focus). There are two other potential secondary sources (source #18 and 24). These are sources you objected to in previously deleted content. Source #18 you called a primary source because it is by a member of Sahaj Marg (though in a vetted mainstream publication). Sources like #24 you objected to because you believed they were not in mainstream newspapers.

• What do you think of sources #18 and 24 now?
• Also once again, Do you really think Sahaj Marg meets the notability standard for Wikipedia?

2. Lack of Secondary Sources: With the exception of sources #1,2, and potentially 18, 24, all of the other sources are from self-published websites, anti-secte blogs, court opinions, government reports, SRCM sites, and SRCM college sites. (I could add other government reports to counter the French report and I could add other legal cases, but these are primary sources according to Wikipedia, see my note above.)

• Do you find any sources other than #1 and 2 meeting WP:V & WP:RS?

3. Claims made not supported by sources: A big problem with CFW's article is that he makes claims and they are not supported by the sources. I had been thinking about compiling a list, here it is .... so you can see for yourself the OR.

• The claim is, "The practice of Sahaj Marg is said to be not suitable for younger people," but source #2 says one must be 18 years of age to start the practice. Interpreting this sentence to the claim given is original research.
• The claim is, "The current Master, Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari, was not recognized unanimously by some members of the movement, which caused a split in the movement in 1984," but the sources given are legal documents that do not support the claim. #6 is a 1-page court document that simply says "orders reserved" (with an OR label in the reference); #7 is a case about a football group that contains a small footnote on Sahaj Marg, which says, "In another National Arbitration Forum decision (FA003000094237, Shri Ram Chandra Mission (California) v. Shri Ram Chandra Mission (India), April 4, 2000), the request was denied but it was not contested that trademark or service mark rights under the Policy may be obtained on "Sahaj Marg", an Indian religious expression meaning "natural path" in fact used by several different religious groups, irrespective of any registration."; #8 is an internet trademark case that says, "An Indian entity registered the domain name “sahajmarg.org.” Plaintiff brought an in personam action against the registrant under the ACPA, but the court dismissed it for lack of personal jurisdiction." It is original research to extrapolate the claim made above from these three legal documents.
• The claim is, "He later re-registered his group in California, USA in 1997," but sources #9 and 10 are primary legal documents on domain names and trademark issues. It is interpretation to make the claim for domain name/trademark cases.
• The claim is, "Sahaj Marg spirituality foundation (SMSF) is patented in India in name of PARTHASARTHI RAJAGOPALACHARI (current guru) and his son P.R. KRISHNA," but source #13 lists five persons on this primary source patent. This is another attempt to push a negative POV by only listing the first two persons when the whole Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation board is listed on the patent.
• The claim is, "Tax evasion charges were pressed against the group in India, for which matter was listed in upper house of Indian parliament on 5th Dec. 1995," but source #16 refers to tax notifications sent to various groups, notifying them of various new exemptions, etc. (This is one of the more blatant examples of original research to promote a negative POV.)
• The claim is, "Leaders birthday celebration yearly. (22nd July-25th July)," but source #24 describes a gathering that occurred "three weeks in late April and early May."
• The explanation of the evening prayer is a severely broken quotation (with several ellipses), but source #31 doesn't contain any part of this quotation.
• The claim is, "In Sahaj Marg, leader is considered God," but source #34 (from ISRC by the way) refers to the inner "God/Master" as "the real goal of human life." (read to end)
• The claim is, "The school is run mainly on donation and charity given to the group," but source #47 only describes a fundraiser for the school only. It is original research to extrapolate that the school is run on donations and charity from a single fundraiser.
• The claim is, "Sahaj Marg is also listed in International Cultic Studies Association's list of cults," but source 55 says "No records returned" in response to the search for Sri Ram Chandra Mission and when one clicks on source 56 it also resolves to "No records returned." (This source is a self-published anti-cult website, which does not meet NPOV, R, or V.)

4. Errors due to original research:

• The sentences sourced to #11 and 12, are Hindi language newspapers, there are no links to actual article, and I have tried to search for these myself. Marathi Mulgaa has pointed out that translating Hindi to English is context-dependent. I speak and write Hindi and can translate these articles myself if CFW emails them to me. It is my understanding that the Shahjahanpur group resisted the police which caused them upset. The sentence is written in such a way as to imply that Chariji did the "roughing up." English language sources are needed to make exceptional claims like these.
• The marriages and divorces section are complete original research, developed by creative selection of primary quotations from Sahaj Marg texts or French blogs.
• The "user of channeling and mediumship" is original research based on SRCM websites and texts. Don, I know you to be an honest man and you know this section is completely false and a deliberate attempt by CFW to promote a negative POV.
• The first paragraph in the controversies and criticism section is a made up libelous story by Pragya Prabhati Mishra with no evidence by even the newspaper that what she says is true (the attorneys for the newspaper "...have given much emphasis that it was on the basis of the statement made by Smt. Pragya Prabhati Mishra," they have no corroborating evidence). The second paragraph is mostly original research from French blogs (the latter is a custody dispute unrelated to Sahaj Marg). The French secte report should be moved to this section and the domain/trademark dispute should be here, these other things are not supported by any secondary evidence (and most, not even by primary sources, only blogs). I know how any kind of court case can be launched in India, relying on such report for Wikipedia is more funny than reasonable.
• The court case labels are OR. The court cases are primary sources and should be deleted unless there is a secondary source for interpretation.
• The last link under the "external links" is OR. It's my understanding that SRCM Chennai won the domain name case which is why this website goes to the SRCM Chennai website (if you remove the incorrect "default" at the end) and not the old SRCM Shahjahanpur website. Does SRCM Shahjahanpur now have a different website?

Don, Though we differ on many topics, I have an opinion of a reasonable and rationale person about you. Also, I do not believe you to be a meatpuppet, as was alleged on the sockpuppetry case against CFW. I also know that you understand the WP policies and believe you to be fair in your application of them. I have spent many hours writing out comments for first CFW, and now above for you. It is my sincere hope that you will take them as a good faith effort to explain the critical problems with this article. I hope you can prevail upon CFW to adopt Wikipedia policies and work toward consensus with all of the editors on this page. May your day be blessed. Duty2love (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No-one can read your long essays, you should provide abstract for what you want to say, incase you are attempting to say anything about policies for articles, kindly refer as how you all were running rampant for BLP violation, whereas there was nothing of that sort. Due to your WP:COI you are coming up with all sorts of excuses because you do not want any information to comeout in public domain about your cult. You are at wrong place, wikipedia does not work as per PR policy of any cult, it has its own. --talk-to-me! (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear CFW, The only reason I can think you would respond like this is that you don't have answers to these issues. Please note, you may own the user space but not the subject you are writing or intending to write about. I would like to caution you against crying for COI everytime someone disagrees with you. Everyone here has a COI. Per WP:COI, it is only a problem if it prevents you from editing in a neutral manner or from abiding by Wikipedia core policies. Your COI is causing problems because you are editing to promote a POV by (a) making claims not supported by the sources and by (b) engaging in the creative selection of text from SRCM websites to promote a POV. This type of COI is grounds for banning.

Regarding the BLP violation, there is not consensus on this issue, some think it is a BLP violation and others do not. Even those who do not think it is a violation believe that the source cannot be considered a reliable source the truth of any of the underlying allegations that are in dispute in that case.

If you edit neutrally, work toward consensus, and abide by Wikipedia core policies of WP:NPOV, WP:R, WP:V, all is well my friend. Currently, your edits are not neutral and I am trying to give you specific points to help you. Duty2love (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Duty2love...

I will attempt to reply (and be short)...

1. NOTABILITY: You say: There are only two real secondary sources (sources #1 and 2)...Let us start there... and use those two "real secondary sources", according to you. Sources 18 and 24, although by "preceptors" and not "NPOV" could be used if the part used is a fair "concensus" position, that represents the GROUP accurately and is not simply a POV or PROMOTION by a USER.

Ex. Testimonials of the benefits of a drug by an 'addict", in a magazine that "promotes" the use of drugs, and who (the author) is also a "dealer", are not "credible".

If there are many Primary sources and two "real secondary sources" that are "verifiable" then I would say that it is NOTABLE... Look at other groups that are branded as "cults" by some, and "religion" and "spirituality" by others, they manage to have an "article" on WIKI. This group is NOTABLE enough IMHO

PS...I find it odd that some who follow a path to the ONE, the "DIVINE" would suggest that this GROUP is not NOTABLE with 300,000 claimed followers, and centers in 90 countries!! I would think that the PR material would attempt to promote the "NOTABILITY" and the "UNIQUENESS" (as it does) and the "APPEAL" of the PATH and not promote that it is not NOTABLE. I would think that the abhyasis here would want to call this PATH ...NOTABLE at the very least and VERIFIABLE (show some who have reached the GOAL which is claimed to be so "easily" reached with the "EASY PATH" that is SM).

2. SECONDARY SOURCES (lack of ?)

Presuming that we can't agree on any other "real Secondary Sources", let us start with the ones we can agree on and "BUILD" an article....even as a STUB or a SHORT concensual article that we can agree on... To do that, one has to start with "one sentence" and "one section at a time". Then we can DEBATE ONE ISSUE...not the whole article at once.

3. CLAIMS NOT SUPPORTED BY SOURCES

Again... start with the first sentence and see if you and CFW or Talk-to-me can come together on the first sentence and go from there...then we the "PEOPLE" or the WIKIANS can give our opinions (vote) and reach a "concensus" on ONE issue at a TIME... I agree with you on some and I agree with "others" on some others...to debate every issue you bring up at one time will "chase others away" who have a "LIFE" and other issues to deal with... then rather that being "you two" discussing ad-nauseum, it will be "us two"...and no one will read our deliberations...

4. ERRORS DUE TO ORIGINAL RESEARCH

To claim that articles in another language can't be used in an English article is not WIKI...We just have to come up with a "verifiable" and acceptable translation... It is possible...All languages are "context" driven and as such, translations can be scrutinized for their WIKI acceptability.

Your, or my understanding of the situations and issues is POV and is not WIKI...I agree with that. In newspaper articles, we need reports from an "arm's lenght" staff reporters, not columnists, or member of a group in a newpapers that accepts "promotional" articles in their "LIVING" or "RELIGION" sections. Articles in "advertizing rags" called YOGA LIFE or other such names that are meant to PROMOTE a certain lifestyle or philosophy are not WIKI ....Those are usually written by adherents or those who profiteer from the sale of "products" to that selected clientelle.

• I will not touch every issue you bring up here because it is useless... ONE sentence AT A TIME will fix the PROBLEM that is FACED HERE...

Your seem to be correct on some of the following points and your "accuracy" is debateable on some other issues but if you want to be read and receive input by others, we (and you) have to get "SHORTER"... IF YOU WANT TO PROGRESS, we have to START WITH ONE SENTENCE...the first one in the proposed article... IS IT ACCEPTABLE?

If you only want to DELETE and HIDE this GROUP from the WIKIans, on the grounds of not being NOTABLE or without SECONDARY sources (you seem to agree that there are some secondary sources), then to WRITE LONG THESES will eventually win out...

WIKI can be manipulated by numbers, be it number of "HOURS" spent writing theses what will not be read, or numbers of people to "vote to delete" or to "vote to KEEP" in a cabal...IT IS NOT PERFECT but it can work better if we TAKE ONE SENTENCE AT A TIME...and see!!

4d-don

Thank you 4d-don for your civil response! Yes, I think we should start with the first line only as I do not agree the organizations should be in the first line. Once we get consensus on the first line, then we can move to the second line, which I've already pointed out above is not supported by the source.

I am glad you are surprised about my questioning the Notabality of this article. This is precisely the kind of things many people do not know. This organization (SRCM) believes spreading its teaching by word of mouth and exemplary behavior of oneself. It is strongly against spreading its teaching through publishing articles in media, and that (in my opinion) is because it is likely to get misrepresented and/or misinterpreted. In simple words, it believes in tasting the apple vs writing/reading about it. Your analogy regarding source 18 & 24 was very good one, I have thought about it manytimes. Only difference is though - the purpose is different, a drug addict's goal is pleasure, where as here it goals is evolutionary, secondly if you look from this perspective, this analogy fits to anything and everything people do, someone is addicted to money, some to power, some to career, some to women .... etc.

I propose you move all but the first line to a sandbox or offline, whichever you prefer. This would show a good faith attempt to work with other Wikipedia editors to get consensus. The reason for this is that CFW keeps slipping in poor sources and claims that do not match the sources and I'm sorry but I need some demonstration of good faith on his part, that he is committed to Wikipedia principles of NPOV, NOR, V, and RS.

Please remember that consensus is not just with me or CFW, but with everyone who's interested in this article including Marathi, Sethie, Renee, Innerself, Embhee, Mayawi, Sheffield Steel and anyone else who have voiced their opinion for this topic. I am one of the privileged ones, whom CFW has asked opinions in past, but if this article has ever to make mainspace, it needs to get buy in from all interested users.

Thank you for proposing a plan to work on the draft. Again, to start, please remove all but the first line to a sandbox or somewhere else and we can start there. (I'm going out of town for a few days so I suggest others start working with Don and CFW on this; I'll check in when I can.) Duty2love (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Duty2love and ALL Editors

Removed all but the first sentence as per your request for a concensual "atarting position"...

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Check out this Wiki Policy, the 5 Pillars, and specially pillar #5... In the future, you can do your own editing rather than relying on me to "show good faith" ;-)) You can "PRESUME" good faith as per WIKI policy until I show the opposite. And if you tell me (civilly), I will correct the mistake.

PS...You say above... (your POV): where as here it goals is evolutionary...that is not a certainty and opens up a path for others to include their own "POV" also... so here it is...

That is the problem with RELIGION or "faith based systems" which according to Jiddu Krisnamurti, "lead inevitable to violence"...everyone thinks, or are told and "believe on faith, not on facts", that they have the TRUTH, and that their truth is "evolutionary", and that they can then proselytize and teach it, as long as they call it "spirituality"...but sometimes, those same people who claim to be "evolutionary" are really regressively selling the "OPIATES of the MASSES" or a FANTASY, such as "GOD is MALE", "Women can't be GURUS", "Sahaj Marg can erase SAMSKARAS but Catholic priests can't erase SINS" (all quotes by Chari)... I agree that "SPIRITUALITY" is evolutionary. But SPIRIT is not MATTER, and not MATERIALISM under the guise of SPIRITUALITY such as RELIGIONS and SPIRITUALISM....

When a group gathers "MATTER" (real estate (commercial), buildings (castles), icons, statues, and other symbols of religious MATERIAL POWER) around itself rather that "pushing matter away and getting nearer to SPIRIT, then we can call that "regressive" not "evolutionary". It is what RELIGIONS have done for millenia and what makes them corrupt according to CHARI.

....but we should be able to deal with that by not including our POV's in the article...(at least..right?)...In this discussion, we sometimes have to give a POV to support our position for includsion or removal of material and I accept and respect your POV as valid in the discussion, so to make a point...Do the same for others...

4d-Don--don (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets consider WP:LEAD of other articles for this one also.. --talk-to-me! (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Fifth Pillar
Don,
Thank you for reminding about this! Only reason I was hesitant so far in modifying this page was that it is CFW's user space and he did not appreciate anyone editing it in past. But since not doing it is not taking this anywhere and whole thing is lingering as CFW has mentioned below, I completely agree with you in following the fifth pillar guideline. Thanks again for taking a lead on this. Somehow not everything was deleted as you mentioned in your edit comment so I removed everything but the first line and moved all of the previous text [User:Cult free world/CFW version here] in case CFW wanted it. I also edited the first line to take the difference between SRCM Shahjahanpur and SRCM Chennai group out for the simple reason that the ownership dispute case is still not resolved in courts (as far as I know) so mentioning anything conclusive here would not be right. Perhaps we can state that this dispute is underway between these two groups, but just for the sake of a clean start I have put it away for now.

Is CFW agreeable to this proposal? I am still out of town but I can search for some secondary sources this weekend. Duty2love (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Time line

I feel this stuff is lingering for quite some time now, no neutral editor has expressed any concern about the text of the article, only those having WP:COI are arguing un-necessarily, I will publish this article soon, LEAD currently is not appropriate, as I have expressed before !--talk-to-me! (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear CFW,

I am still out of town hence the delay in responding. Please be patient (you have advised us of the same). My hunch is that people are not responding because in the past you have reverted all other editors' edits and ignored all of their suggestions. If you are now ready to work with all editors to gain consensus that is needed for this article to pass a deletion review, then you must say so and then give people time to research for secondary sources. I don't think this article will pass the notability requirement for deletion review with only two sources that only peripherally mention the group, so it is in your best interest to be patient. Also, this article will never make main space without consensus, so it is in your best interest to encourage all editors to contribute per Wikipedia policies.

If you would like to start building consensus yourself, then please review this and begin making changes. So far I have not seen you make a single conciliatory change to soften your POV. As 4d-don had agreed to delete everything but the first line as a start, I have moved everything but the first line to here. If you wish to work further on that version then that is your choice, but that is not the consensus version. I take the one-line version as it exists now here to be the starting point for the consensus version. Duty2love (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You have always been dead against any information been published about this cult on wikipedia, as such, (given your history), I am unable to assume good faith, and consider that your approach is to build the article, and not hold the proceedings. MfD, BLP, jimbo's talk page, sock case, ANI, and many more acts, have forced me to come to a conclusion that you are not willing to support any constructive work, but are working only for deletion and removal of information, and to be very honest, none of your edits on this user-space itself has demonstrated that you are willing to build, but all you do is to remove, and come-up with all sorts of wikipedia policy violations, whereas there is nothing of that sort at all!! (remember BLP ?). This is the sole reason as why wikipedia also has a policy of WP:COI. You are at wrong place.--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to comeup with an alternate article about the same subject, do it in your own user-space, not mine.--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

CFW, A friendly reminder ... you may own the userspace, but not the subject. I take it as a good thing that the article is now published while I was out of town, as now I can edit it freely without you getting upset of changing something in your user space. Looking fwd to working with you in the mainspace! Duty2love (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete this page

Now that the page is published, Shashwat, please delete your userpage. if you don't I will nominate it for deletion myself within the next day.Sethie (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have changed my mind. I will give this page 4 more days to be cleaned up, which will be one month since the last afd, then I will nominate it. Sethie (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Measures

[[22]]

This page shows up prominently on google searches.... violating This,this, and [23]. I will be removing all content which would allow it to be caught by search engines and leave the rest. Sethie (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sethie, I suggest you just delete the whole page and then leave a message saying, "This page has been published in mainspace here. What justification is there for having a page here now other than webhosting or soapboxing, as you note? Renee (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for some admin advice in a day or so. Sethie (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is currently showing up as #2 on google, I have blanked the page. Sethie (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Good move. There's absolutely no reason for this page now that it has been published (and in fact, it is the very first historical version of the page, so now this page really is acting as an archived version of preferred content). Thanks. Renee (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)