Talk:International Sahaja Public School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...

This article is related to the WikiProject Schools. This Project is an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Current Collaborations: Greenwich High School - New Albany High School (Indiana) - St. Mary's High School (Calgary) - St Albans School (Hertfordshire) - Wesley College, Melbourne - Pope John Paul II Catholic Secondary School - Mundelein High School

Contents

[edit] Allegations & facts

We need to find a better way of handling these allegations then simply deleting and re-instating them. Is there a rebuttal to the allegations? Were they thrown out of court, or some other resolution? That would be more helpful. Also, the article is very short, so more information would be helpful too. How large is it? when was it founded? and things like that. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

There was no court hearing about the allegations, these remain pure speculation, and there are numerous witnesses who testify against these false allegations. I think we should erase the criticisms which aren't backed by documentation. This is an Encyclopedia, based on facts, and it is up to the person who makes these claims to provide proof.

Shane 22:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We have verifiable sources for the assertion. Can we get a rebuttal into the article? That'd be great. We can't just remove sourced material. Even widespread allegations are encyclopedic. -Willmcw 00:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


What do you mean by widespread? Willmcw, In the article sahaja_yoga you reffered to the NPOV document. I would like to cite a paragraph that shows that shows that some of the views held are those of an "extremely small minority" (refer to the Undue Weight section of the WP:NPOV approach to neutrality, and should, strictly speaking, have no part in this document.

The allegations stem from a small minority. Shane 12:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

How do we know how small the minority is? These charges would seem less prominent if we had more regular information about the school. We haven't even indicated how large it is. -Willmcw 21:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

PR? on the contrary, I merely placed a link to testimonials refuting certain claims... Kill Bossy, are you attempting to conceal information that would deny people the possibility of making up their own minds? For shame. Shane 23:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked the link and the testimonials don't refute the allegations, they just don't mention them. -Willmcw 00:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

ok, perhaps not refute them, but do offer another perspective. Also, I changed your sentence where you said the testimonials existed on the school's homepage - There is not (as yet) an official webpage for the school... Shane 02:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Since the website is an authorized website of the organization, some note should be made. I hope I've labelled it accurately. -Willmcw 02:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sfacets/Shane, you are the one who ought to be ashamed of yourself, calling obvious PR a refutation of some very serious allegations. I suggest you look up the word "refute" and try to understand its meaning. Or was it your goal all along to deceive? Kill Bossy 12:31, 2 December 2005 (EST)

---

Allegations - look up the word, in fact, here is a definition:
  • A statement asserting something without proof: The newspaper's charges of official wrongdoing were mere allegations.
  • Law. An assertion made by a party that must be proved or supported with evidence.

You see, I do not write anything based on groundless material. You, however, appear to be quite good at dredging up gratuitous material unconnected to any tangible or real evidence.

You are right by the way, refutal is the abnegation of factual statements. I was in error to use that word in this context. For that you have my sincerest apologies. -Shane 02:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I accept your apology, Sfacts. Thanks. Question: If you admit I was right, and that you could not refute the "factual statements" made on the page, why do you accuse me of being good at "dredging up gratuituous material," etc? Facts don't qualify as gratuituous material. I suggest you get yourself a good dictionary. Maybe English isn't your primary language? Also: Suggested reading for you: htp://www.sahaja-yoga.org/ -Kill Bossy 19:52, 3 December 2005 (EST)

--- The point I made (maybe your understanding isn't good?) was that the material you present isn't factual in nature.
A fact can be described as:

  • Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
  • Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.

The keywords being "real" and "demonstrated".

It is important to quote impartial and relevant sources to state any fact - this is the basis of a Universal Encyclopedia.

An example, of your obvious inability to cite impartial and/or middle-ground material is your references to unprofessionaly edited docuents (like that website you so kindly suggested), or perhaps even worse, lack of any documented proof. Shane 03:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Sahaja Yoga isn't "factual in nature," so as a supporter of the organization, you're hardly one to lecture me on facts. It's interesting that you are able to discredit a website that is indeed professionaly edited (http://www.sahaja-yoga.org/) while promoting one that bases its beliefs on the unprovable. (http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/default.asp_) BTW, Please explain what it is about the website I suggested you visit that isn't professional in terms of editing, and show me the editing errors. Perhaps you are more of an expert than I. Also, what does professional editing have to do with the website? If it's the truth, editing isn't an issue.
Has it ever occurred to you that victims of sexual abuse may not want to have their names published on the Internet? Does that mean the abuse never happened? Would having the victims' names serve as proof to you? And yet you believe an Indian housewife is God. Get help. And I'm not just talking about help for your problems with English, editing, manners and professionalism. You are obviously a very hostile and disturbed person. We have nothing further to say to each other. Kill Bossy

You seem to have drifted off subject, ending up somewhere in Japan perhaps. We were talking (or at least it seemed to me that we were talking) about POV and factual references. Not about wether or not SahajaYoga is factual in nature (which contradicts the meaning of religion, really, which is based on a system of beliefs.)

By a professional source I mean one that has both factual information, and is edited by someone knowledgeable in the field, preferably someone who holds a degree. Read up on it.

You obviously have a problem respecting other people's beliefs. I have been nothing but curteous (have I ever insulted you, or your beliefs?) to you and your POV, it is for that reason that I haven't erased any of your allegations. Stating that I require help because I believe there is some foundation to the teachings of an "Indian housewife" is not only insulting and agressive, it is also prejudicial. Do you go around insulting Christians because they follow the son of a carpenter? Or the Muslims, because they follow the teachings of a tradesman?

Why make it personal? We are discussing, not fighting. I also have no problems with English, being a trained linguist.

Have you ever heard of the judicial system "innocent untill proven guilty"? It is a common factor in both national and international law.

Writing up information which is unbacked by facts is considered slander. Are you being Slanderous, Kill Bossy?

I don't consider myself a hostile person (am I the one with the word "kill" in my Username?) I am certainly not hostile towards any of your beliefs.

Peace. Shane 02:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


I will remove certain content from the critic section, unless sources are provided. Please discuss. Shane 04:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, please? Which content, and what sources are you looking for? -Willmcw 09:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Mostly the sources backing up claims to the effect that the school "provides a substandard education for its students, unhygenic conditions and supplies an inadequate amount of food for its boarders" Shane 10:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that these allegations relate to the first few years of operation of the school. Irrespective of the accuracy or otherwise of these allegations, why should these be of relevance for the school today? Sahajhist 14:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact not needed

Deepak Gupta - The reason I removed your [citation needed] tag (and I suppose why User:Sahajhist did too)was because the proposition that there are critics of the school does not need to be demonstrated. One can only provide sources if there were speculation on the nature of the criticism... Sfacets 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Look, you can't just go and revert the entire article because you disagree with the word, "Hindu." Either edit the sentence that you don't like, and provide a better source, or leave it alone. But these blanket reverts have got to stop. --NovaSTL 05:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The source is obviously not a very reliable one, and is attempting to put everything into Hindu context. Sahaja Yoga is not part of Hinduism. You had added content which ended up being most of the article based on that one source. Sfacets 05:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Then provide another credible source that says something different. Until then, the sourced information stays. --NovaSTL 05:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Sfacets 05:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You can't just keep saying, "It's not reliable," for any source you don't like. Stop being disruptive. --NovaSTL 08:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't like it because it isn't reliable. Big difference. Sfacets 08:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Infringement

This is a blatant and obvious copyright infringment. Please do a rewrite. Sahajhist 12:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright infringement of what? And if you don't like how it's written, feel free to rewrite it yourself. --NovaSTL 03:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You basically plagiarized the source from which you took the information. Sfacets 03:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Quoting a source is not plagiarism. Show me an example of what you think was improper, by quoting from the Wikipedia article, and quoting that section of the source which you believe is identical. --NovaSTL 03:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Quoting is one thing. Lifting out whole strings of words and re-arranging them in much the same manner is a whle other thing.

What made you thing the source was reliable? from the website:

THE HINDU UNIVERSE is the website for GHEN (Global Hindu Electronic Networks). GHEN is one of the many projects undertaken by HSC (Hindu Students Council). HINDU STUDENTS COUNCIL is a voluntary run organization committed to realizing the ancient Vedanta truths such as Vasudaiva Katumbakum (The Whole World is One Family).

Notice: Students, Hindu and accompanying mission statement.

I have removed the notice and paragraph per reasons given above. Sfacets 03:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you want to discredit all of the sources? Well in that case, there would be no valid source for this article, and it should just be merged into Sahaja Yoga. Would you rather do that instead? --NovaSTL 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you just use http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010421/windows/main2.htm as a source (which was obviously the original source for the source you provided) which is an actual media source. Is this another way of trying to push your POV in disfavour of Sahaja Yoga in addition to calling it a cult? Sfacets 21:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Why was this source ("Shri Who Must Be Obeyed" deleted? The edit summary was:

  • Again, it's not about removing criticism, rather than establishing NPOV based on RELIABLE SOURCES - As usual you are unable to justify/provide such sources..

Over at talk:Sahaja Yoga I thought we agreed that this was a relaible source. -Will Beback 11:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was this deleted a second time? Folks need to agree to some on some sources. -Will Beback 22:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted because the full text of the article is not freely available at the url you gave. Sahajhist 02:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no requirememt that sources must be freely available. Most newspapers charge for their archives. -Will Beback 04:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Will that this is not a valid reason to delete the contents. Andries 22:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I maintain my view. As Will Beback knows perfectly well, the full text of the article is available on the web, so why not cite it, thus allowing readers to read and draw their own conclusions? Sahajhist 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I added both links and another editor removed one. Readers can already pay a couple of bucks to read the article. I'll note again that you previously agreed that this is an acceptable source. -Will Beback 11:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I note for the last and final time that Will Beback wilfully and continually distorts other editors' views. I return to the real world. Sahajhist 11:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's the first time too. Do you have a policy basis for your assertion that non-free archives can't be used as a source? -Will Beback 12:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It might be in Wiki:Commonsense - WikiPossum 10:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Are only books that can be had for free usable as reliable sources? Are only free newspapers and give-away magazines reliable? I don't see where a claim of "common sense" applies here. -Will Beback 10:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Just outside opinion: I tend to agree with Will Beback here. Source doesn't have to be free, and, although the practice of paid websites isn't always good, they may be used as a source, if they are credible. An example is Jane's, which is quite a good overview and news source, available offline and online, but not for free. However, not all such sources are reliable, and, unless well established like Jane's, I don't really trust them too much, as have seen major factual mistakes. But if this is reliable, it fits. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I have added an {{unreliable}} tag to the article in regards to this source. Wikipedia policy on sources stresses that news-article-based sources come from reputable news media. This is not the case with the independant, which relies on freelance contributors for it's articles. http://news.independent.co.uk/article294441.ece There is also the question on how notable this source is. How many readers does it have? It appears to be a local London tabloid. Sfacets 09:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. See The Independent. Please remove the {unreliable} tag. -Will Beback · † · 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Why? Sfacets 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It silly that no source is good enough if it contains any negative information. " The paper was named National Newspaper of the Year at the 2004 British Press Awards." - Will Beback · † · 22:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to claim that a leading newspaper in the U.K. is unreliable. You've given no legitimate reaosn to consider it unreliable. (Merely hiring freelancers does not make a source unreliable). -Will Beback · † · 05:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It'snot a leading newspaper (an award doesn't make it a leader in thefield) it uses freelancers meaning that the authors of the article inquestion have unknown credentials. But that is irrelevant when youconsider that it is a small tabloid that circulates in London.Including it in the article gives it undue weight. Sfacets 01:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Show me a newspaper that never hires freelancers, and where in the WP:RS that requires we learn the credentials of journalists. The article in question is apparently written by a staffer who writes regularly for the paper. The award was for "national" newspapers. What proof do you have that it is only a local paper? Furthermore, while it has changed to a "compact" tabloid printing format, it is still considered a "broadsheet" as far as its editorial quality is concerned.
  • Recently, three traditionally broadsheet daily newspapers—The Independent, The Times, and The Scotsman—have switched to tabloid size, although they call it 'compact' to avoid the connotation of that word.Tabloid
  • In the UK, one major daily broadsheet is distributed nationwide, and three on a Sunday; of the four major broadsheet quality papers, two are generally on the right wing politically, and one more left wing:... The Independent on Sunday (The Independent is now a compact); broadly liberalBroadsheet#UK broadsheets
If you have any information that actually impugns the reliablity of the source then please provide it. Otherwise please reomve the {unreliable} tag. -Will Beback · † · 02:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless a legitimate reason for the {unreliable} tag is made and discussed, I'm gogin to remove it. -Will Beback · † · 00:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it was an oversight, I have removed the template from the Sahaja Yoga article, but didn't think about removing it here (which I have now done). You were right - it does appear to be a legitimate newspaper, and so deserves inclusion. Sfacets 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInternational_Sahaja_Public_School_365b.html"