Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:41, 13 April 2008

This page was nominated for deletion on 2008-03-26. The result of the discussion was Keep.

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)

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)

Your name

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

Duty2Love

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 Misplaced Pages 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: , myself: , Sethie: , Reneeholle: . 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)