Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:55, 24 March 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building blocks

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

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

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

Dear Cult Free,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step-2

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

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

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