Talk:International Sahaja Public School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

	This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.
Current Collaborations:	McGill-Toolen Catholic High School - Newton North High School - Kennet Comprehensive School

[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)

[edit] Undue weight

I have removed the one time event of a child purportedly having lice and bad grades, as this is undue weight - please also refer to WP:NOT.

"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."

"Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed."

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information.:

Sfacets 01:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, how many times have you deleted material from this source? Didn't you say just hours ago that this issue had been resolved? We both know that there are other reports of problems at the school and with other SY schools. This is not the sole example, just the best sourced example. So it does not give "undue weight" to list it. I'm also disappointed that you'd make such an aggressive edit while you'd committed to not edit SY articles during mediation. It makes kind of a joke out of the procedure, but you've never taken it seriously anyway. -Will Beback · † · 01:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove the content because of the source, the source is fine - however the content is undue weight because it refers to one incident in the schools history. I committed to no such thing, please read carefully, I agreed "to obstain from editing Sahaja Yoga until we can come to a compromise. The mediation has been dragging on for far too long (and not going anywhere) anyway. Sfacets 03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The mediation is dragging on because you keep making non-replies and being "away". Let's revert this contentious edit and add it to the mediation. -Will Beback · † · 18:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit is correct and long overdue. Sahajhist 21:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I reverted Will Beback's edits (who also seems to be on a rampage to criticize any Sahaja Yoga-related article) because no discussion/consensus was reached for those controversial edits to be made. Discuss first, edit later. Sfacets 23:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There was previous disuccion in the mediation, if you recall. What, exactly is the problem? withthe material? Was all of it bad? Isn't removing sourced criticism censorship? -Will Beback · † · 23:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-16 Sahaja Yoga#Complaint for the other disucssion about this material. -Will Beback · † · 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Material

The school teaches around 250 international students annually. Subjects (as followed by the ICSE curriculum) include standard courses as well as English, German, Indian Classical Music (including instruments), and Indian Classical dance (Kuchipudi, Kathak etc.)^[1] Hindu festivals are celebrated,, students are re-christened with Hindu names and become "more Hindu than Hindus themselves." ^[2]

The school has an Internet-connected computer lab, science lab, library, art and craft halls, music and dance rooms, and sport facilities including a gym, skating ramp, basketball field, cricket pitch, and soccer fields.^[3]

There have been complaints by parents who claim that their children were found to be dirty, lice ridden, and wearing tattered clothing.^[4]^[5] Complaints about sexual abuse have also been reported.^[6]^[7] The school has an "aura of secrecy", with outsiders and even parents not allowed to enter the grounds. ^[8]

[edit] References

^ ICSE syllabus
^ "A School for tradition", The Indian Express, December 24, 2000, by Sukhmani Singh
^ School's official website
^ "Shri Who Must Be Obeyed", July 13, 2001, The Independent
^ http://www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/test6.htm
^ http://www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/lance.htm
^ http://www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/sam.htm
^ "A School for tradition", The Indian Express, December 24, 2000, by Sukhmani Singh

[edit] Discussion

What do you object to about the above material? -Will Beback · † · 06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe we had already discussed the The Indian Express article. There is nothing wrong with the Independant as a source - except that it lends undue weight. The other two links (again) cannot be used as reliable sources. Is there any reason you are trying to bring back all these sources after they had alrready been iscussed - at length - in the past? Sfacets 09:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did we discuss the Indian Express article? I don't see any discussion on this page. We need to include all significant viewpoints, and material covered in a majotr newspaper is presumably significant.

There has been an issue of bias and non-NPOV when editing this article, in that critical links and content is systematicaly removed or hidden. Please improve the article so that it includes all significant viewpoints. [1]

That sums up the problem here. -Will Beback · † · 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Another way of putting it is:

It was reported in the media (sources provided) and as such is notable.[2]

Isn't that true? -Will Beback · † · 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooooo crazy stalking... The fact is, the material is inaccurate. Childrean are not re-christened with Hindu names, and you cannot simply insert the writer's opinion that the children become "more hindu than hindus". This is definitely an exceptional claim, per WP:RS... if you can provide other sources which concur with this then the material can stay. I dislike that you would follow me around like you have repeatedly done, this is [[Wikipedia:Harassment|harassment] (wikistalking) and I have seen other instances where other editors have complained about your attitude in this regard as well. You are taking my edits completely out of context in an effort to prove yo ur point of view. Please stop. Sfacets 02:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The material has been published in a major newspaper. How do we know it's inaccurate? Why isn't it notable if it's been printed? And haven't we had a problem with editors removing critical links from this article? It would certianly appear so. -Will Beback · † · 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's further discussion I'll add the material back. -Will Beback · † · 03: 26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I question the accuracy of the article - if you can find another source confirming it then please add it, however just because it appears in a newspaper doesn't mean it's accurate. Please read Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Sfacets 04:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. Certainly much more reliable than the website of the school itself. I don't see why this would be considered a fringe theory. Do you have a source which calls it that? -Will Beback · † · 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a majority view - do you have a source that confirms what the 1st one says? Sfacets 06:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, just that one, reliable source. There's no rule in Wikipedia that assertions require multiple sources. -Will Beback · † · 06:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:RS - "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known - surely the writer's claim of SY being Hindu is not a widely accepted view. Sfacets 06:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a direct quotation of the school's director, published in major newspaper.

Says H. N. Kaul, the school’s 60-year-old director, “Some of the students are Christians and Muslims, but when they come here they transcend all religions. They become more Hindu than Hindus themselves.”

I have no way of knowing how widely accepted this remark is, and neither do you. There's no reliable discussion of this assertion, it isn't controversial, it hasn't been commented on or refuted in the press. Note also that it isn't an isolated quote, but part of a general description of the school which includes many Hindu cultural practices. Since the school is in India, there's nothing fringe or surprising about that. Also, since some describe SY as a "a Hindu-based world religion", it isn't at odds with the school belonging to SY. The quote itself is a little odd, seemingly asserting that Christianity and Islam are religions but Hindu transcends religion. How would you interpret it? -Will Beback · † · 07:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a fringe belief that SY is part of Hinduism, since most sources would call it an NRM or similar. I would interpret his quote as having to do with the fact that Hinduism (in essence) encompasses multiple beliefs in various forms of God. (see concept of God section in Hinduism). So interpreting the quotation made by the then-director as actually meaning that the children become Hindus is in question. Sfacets 08:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So anyone saying it's a "a Hindu-based world religion" is expressing a fringe idea? Hmmm. As for the quotation, we don't interpret it, we just quote it.

Hindu festivals are celebrated, students are re-christened with Hindu names and become "more Hindu than Hindus themselves."

That seems like an accurate quotation. -Will Beback · † · 21:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it a widespread idea? No. Otherwise you would be able to provide another news source. That it seems like an accurate quotation is your opinion. Sfacets 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a quotation in a major newspaper. Unless you have some other reliable source questioning its reliability then it should be considered reliable. Why did you delete the phrase "No visitors are allowed"? It is visible on the sign, and it's also mentioned in the "The Indian Express" article.Or are you saying that the article is untrue and that taking the sign at its face value is an "interpretation"? - Is the sign incorrect as well? Do you have any source which says visitors are allowed to contradict the two sources we have that say otherwise? -Will Beback · † · 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already given my objections to including the erroneous information. As for the sign, it is a primary source. Sfacets 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You objected but you didn't give any source to contradict the reliable source. The picture confirms what the article says. I'm going to restore that material while we're disucssing the rest. If you find a new source on the matter we can disucss it again. -Will Beback · † ·

I object, and will revert your edits - if you want to take this further, feel free to request an RFC. I don't need to give another source to contradict the source, you should be the one looking for another source confirming this one, for the sake of insuring that only reliable content is used in the article. Sfacets 00:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a sign which says "No visitors allowed". There's an article in a major newspaper saying that outisders are not allowed. All you've said in response is that the article isn't accurate. You haven't said what the visiting policy of the school is, or offered any source. I've met the burden of proof. It's up to you to file an RfC if you think additional editors are needed. In the meantime, please don't delete sourced information - it does not improve the article. -Will Beback · † · 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please restrict your use of automated revert tools for vandalism only. Tools used incorrectly may be removed. -Will Beback · † · 00:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an automated tool. And if it were vandalism you would have a large warning template on your talk page. Ok then, I will file an RFC. Sfacets 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Isps gate.jpg was released by you under the GFDL. Why did you ask for it to be deleted? Do you think that the GFDL can be rescinded? -Will Beback · † · 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I deleted the image too hastily. I've undeleted it. Sorry, Sfacets. Bishonen | talk 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Request for comment

A dispute over possibly erroneous content in a news article.

[edit] Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Sfacet's statement: I have requested that Will Beback provide additional sources to confirm the validity of some of the articles claims (red flag per WP:RS), however he has refused to do so. The article contains questionable content, and to insure that correct information enters the article, confirmation by other sources is needed. Also in question are Will Beback's interpretation of the source.Sfacets 01:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

The source provided, The Indian Express, fully counts as a reliable source. In addition to that I found a photo which confirmed the information that article contains on visiting. However Sfacets, who took the pictre, just decided to delete the image, giving no reason. Considering the range of excuses given to delete material from this article, the deletions do not appear intended to promote the neutrality of the article. All properly source viewpoints should be included. -Will Beback · † · 01:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The original discussion centered around Will Beback's interpretation of quotations in the article. The article contains questionable material, which IMO is not correct. The purpose of this RFC is to determine whether or not another source should be produced to confirm the 1st article's claims, or wether the claims should be removed.

this is the selective material Will Beback wants to place into the article.

It should be noted that Will Beback rarely, if ever, contributes non-critical content to this or other related articles. (don't let the reply to that sound like something off a broken record, Will.) Sfacets 02:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not discusing the edits you linked to. We're discussing the material at #Material. Please don't characterize my editing or mischaracterize my position. -Will Beback · † · 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that we've both made our comments I suggest that we leave this area for outside editors to leave their comments. -Will Beback · † · 02:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The sign at the gate is intended to keep tourists out - since the area has become quite a prolific tourist attraction. To classify the warning under the same source which you (mis)interpreted yet again to mean that parents are not allowed is just another example of your interpretation of sources to fit your POV. Sfacets 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you've now deleted the edit for the 3rd time today, here's the link to it, for reference. -Will Beback · † · 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the claim I've misinterpreted the source, it says:

Given its revolutionary activities, an aura of secrecy envelops the school and entry is strictly forbidden. Says Kaul, “We believe in a vibratory existence - in two kinds of vibrations those that are free and those that are bottled up. So we don’t like the vibrations to be polluted by outsiders. Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here.” That’s a tall order indeed, considering that students get just a three-month break every winter.

How is it a misinterpretation to write:

The school has an "aura of secrecy", with outsiders and even parents not allowed to enter the grounds.

That seems pretty close to me. -Will Beback · † · 02:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, pretty close to you. Sfacets 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How about:

The school reportedly has an "aura of secrecy", with outsiders and sometimes even parents not allowed to enter the grounds.

Is that better? How would you word it? -Will Beback · † · 08:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It may reduce conflict if direct quotations from reliable sources were used in the article rather than summaries or interpretations of the sources. For example, instead of saying "The existence of space aliens is proven by what happened at Area 51.<ref>Doe, John. Area 51: What Really Happened. (Oxford University Press: 1987), p. 8.</ref>" try saying: "John Doe, in his book on Area 51, says that "dozens of alien bodies were recovered.".<ref>Doe, John. Area 51: What Really Happened. (Oxford University Press: 1987), p. 8.</ref> Then the discussion may be about using Doe as a reliable source, if Doe has been quoted correctly, or if other reliable sources do not agree with Doe. Buddhipriya 19:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so how about:

The school reportedly has an "aura of secrecy" with no visitors allowed. According to the school's director, "...we don’t like the vibrations to be polluted by outsiders. Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here."

Would that be better? -Will Beback · † · 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

By inserting some quotes and leaving out other parts of the article Will Beback is basically removing them from all context (for example the quote "more Hindu than Hindus" becomes ambiguous when separated from the surrounding article, and opn to interpretation or "fitted" to suit an editor's POV.

Further interpreting two separate sentences "Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here" and "...with no visitors allowed" to read "The school has an "aura of secrecy", with outsiders and even parents not allowed to enter the grounds" is a good example of taking something out of context and molding it into a new one.

The second proposition above is slightly better, however I challenge the factual accuracy of "no visitors allowed" - this is simply untrue, which is why I was also requesting secondary sources to be provided to back it. Sfacets 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We have the director saying that outsiders pollute the vibrations, we have a sign saying visitors aren't allowed. On the other hand, we have a Wikipedia editor making an assertion based, presumably, on his first-hand knowledge. The newspaper is a secondary source, the sign is a primary source which confirms it. Do we report what the school director and the sign say, or what the WP editor says? No offense, but WP:NOR forces us to choose the former rather than the latter. As for the "more Hindu than Hindu" quote, we can give more the context: that students get Hindu names, play Hindu games, listen to Hindu music, etc. -Will Beback · † · 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

...And then we have an editor arbitrarily making connections between the different elements. The photo is a primary source, and needs a secondary source to confirm it. Not the other way around. The article does not describe the sign. Claiming that the students are Hindu is a POV gleaned from an interpretation of the source. Are you asserting that the students are Hindu? Seriously? The fact that they participate in what are described as "Hindu" cultural activities does not give you the liberty to classify them as Hindus - and as I previously mentionned, "More Hindu than Hindus" is ambiguous in it's interpretation. Sfacets 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters which way we go with it. Either we take the primary to confirm the secondary or vis a versa. 2+3=5, and 3+2=5. As for the Hindu stuff, here's the proposed text:

Hindu festivals are celebrated, students are re-christened with Hindu names and become "more Hindu than Hindus themselves."

That's derived from the source text:

Children aged six and above, studying in classes one to 12 are re-christened with names from Hindu mythology - you’ll find lots of Hanumanas, Mahalakshmis, Ramas, Radhas and Viruttamas. While the uniform for boys is kurta-pyjama, girls wear salwar-kameez. Students are taught only Indian classical music and dance while Hindi is a compulsory language up to Class 8. Says H. N. Kaul, the school’s 60-year-old director, “Some of the students are Christians and Muslims, but when they come here they transcend all religions. They become more Hindu than Hindus themselves.” Apart from Independence Day, only Hindu festivals are celebrated - this includes Bhaiyya Duj, Teej and Navratri. Celebrations are traditional and rather elaborate - for instance, on Janmashtami, a child dressed as Lord Krishna plays with other costumed children, finally clambering up to break a matka of butter. On Dussehra, a proper Ram Lila is enacted, complete with a grotesque effigy of Ravana, which is created and then burnt by students. On Bhaiyya Duj, girls dress up and perform aarti and puja, while special meditations and pujas, morning and evening, are carried out during the Navratras.

I think that's an accurate summary. We are not classifying them as "Hindus". We're directly quoting the school's director. -Will Beback · † · 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way - Primary sources can only be accepted if there is a Secondary source there to "summarise, analyse, and/or interpret" it. (see WP:RS#Primary_and_secondary_sources). The only problem is that they are not re-christened, that's completely out of context - it implies that students in the school are renamed upon entry to the school, that's just ridiculous. You took the "more Hindu than Hindus" completely out of context - when put together with the rest of the text (as seen above) it takes on a whole new meaning. You are not directly quoting the director, you are attempting to fit his words into your version of reality. Sfacets 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How can we better summarize the visitor policy and Hinduism issues, based on these sources? -Will Beback · † · 11:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If there aren't any suggestions for better summarizing the sources then I'd assume we're doing the best we can. -Will Beback · † · 23:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how direct quotes from news sources can be objected to, as has been covered here already. The opposition to inclusion of negative press reports is unjustifiable. This unbalanced article needs a "Criticism" section. This article seriously needs some additional editors looking at it to prevent bias from either side. Compare the highly-visible coverage of alleged child abuse in the ISKCON article. Buddhipriya 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, I would appreciate it if you would let the RFC run it's course. I have listed by concerns over the source and its interpretation. 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

RfCs don't have any deadline, so if folks have stoppped commenting the RfC has run its course. Also, there's another source for the visitor issue. Children in New Religions Susan J. Palmer, Charlotte Hardman, Rutgers University Press (July 1999) has extensive coverage of this and other SY schools. Included is this text:

...[T]he Austrian report on the school in 1995 stated: "People dropping in at the door are - [in a] more or less unfriendly [manner]- refused. Because of that refusal of contact, the domestic and foreign popyulation nearby does not know anything about the teachers, pupils and the daily routine at the school , which is-regarding the rustic surrounding-an astonishing fact."...Access to television and radio is not allowed...Contact between the children and their parents has been limited. The children have been allowed to write home once a week and receive packages from home twice a year; parents may telephone from time to time. [Sri Mataji]'s model of childhood centers on detachment from parents and grandparents and isloationfrom the dangerous effects of contact with the outside world.

So that's a third source which asserts that visitors are not allowed. Sfacets, you have expressed concern over the interpretation of the souorces, but you haven't proposed any alternate text. Again I ask, how can we best summarize the visitor policy and Hinduism issues, based on these sources? -Will Beback · † · 02:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The RFC has only been open a week. As far as I'm concerned there is no Hinduism issue - Children are not re-christened, and Simply inserting the direct quote isolates it from context. I also fail to see how the visitor issue is relevant - the school is private property - of course random people aren't allowed to pop in, let alone the fact that it is a school. However, the most neutral way you could insert mention of visitors not being allowed in using the second source would be "An Austrian report in 1995 stated that casual visitors were refused entry". If you insist on including the Hinduism thing, then According to one of the directors, the children "transcend all religions", and become "more Hindu than Hindus themselves". This puts things in context. As for the re-christening thing... Sfacets 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We have a reliable source saying that children are called by Hindu names, etc. So we can describe that one way or another, but unless you have a source which contradicts it we've got then we'll do the best with what we've got. If you like we could use your text as a start (though it doens't use the word "casual":

An Austrian report in 1995 stated that visitors were refused entry. An Indian newspaper decribes the school as having an "aura of secrecy", and a large sign at the gate warns, "Visitors are not allowed." Contact with parents is also limited. According to the school's director, "...we don’t like the vibrations to be polluted by outsiders. Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here."

That covers the visitors issue in a neutral manner. -Will Beback · † · 07:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the sources includes an official statement from SY:

A statement made by Sahaja Yogis aboutt he school in India says that "...many women from the town come to see the children, bring them presents, and look after them. The whole village enjoys looking after these children."

We could summarize that by saying:

An official school statement says that the villagers bring presents to the students and enjoy looking after them. An Austrian report in 1995 stated that visitors were refused entry. An Indian newspaper decribes the school as having an "aura of secrecy", and a large sign at the gate warns, "Visitors are not allowed." Contact with parents is also limited. According to the school's director, "...we don’t like the vibrations to be polluted by outsiders. Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here."

That's more NPOV, right? -Will Beback · † · 09:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't use the word casual, however they use the phrase "People dropping in" which would mean unexpected visitors. I also do not see the relevance of commenting on the sign - the description is POV (Still a primary source). There is a difference between someone saying "Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here" and asserting that 'Contact with parents is also limited'. The way the sentences are put together is contradictory and awkward. Sfacets 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK then, so how's this?

*An official school statement says that the villagers bring presents to the students and enjoy looking after them. An Austrian report in 1995 stated that visitors "dropping in" were refused entry. An Indian newspaper decribes the school as having an "aura of secrecy", and signs at the gate read, "No admission" and "Visitors are not allowed." Contact with parents is also limited. According to the school's director, "...we don’t like the vibrations to be polluted by outsiders. Sometimes we even tell parents not to come here."

As for the limited contact, two sources indicate that contact is limited with parents, including a quote from the director. Phone calls are limited, letters are limited, care packages are limited, and there's only one long vacation per year. We could list all of those things, but it's more economical to simply say, "Contact with parents is also limited". -Will Beback · † · 09:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by outside editors

News reports appearing in the popular press are clearly fair game and should be included, particularly since at present the article appears to be unbalanced in presenting all views fairly. Removal of properly sourced material of this type could be interpreted as furthering a coverup of child abuse. Buddhipriya 03:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no issue which presenting different views, as long as the sources in question are reliable(not an issue here) and not taken out of context and represented following an editor's POV (very much an issue here). Sfacets 03:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am commenting because it appears that there is a RfC on this page. You may not agree with my opinion, but that is my opinion. For an example of similar use of press reports to disclose controversy regarding a Hindu temple, see Siddhivinayak_temple. In the case of that article there was a similar push-pull over inclusion of news reports as well as a proposed link to a web site attacking the temple. As the article stands now, the news reports were judged fair game but the link to the opposing web site did not stay because it was not specifically just about the temple controversy. Buddhipriya 03:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, why did you move my comment to a "previously involved" section? Have I previously been involved in conflict over this article? Buddhipriya 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't intentional, a copy+paste mistake from another article. I have removed the subsection, and welcome your input. Sfacets 03:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the use of press reports as WP:RS here is the text of the guideline: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." This was the guideline that ultimately prevailed on the other article I mentioned. Buddhipriya 03:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT clearly states media articles are reliable sources. You may not like the claim, but it was reported in the media and therefore passes the standard for inclusion of the claim. The media mention should be included, but should be presented in a neutral fashion and attributed to the source. Vassyana 10:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The dispute isn't over the reliability of the source, rather over Will Beback's interpretation of said source. Sfacets 11:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your comments that start the RFC section seem to indicate that you do take issue with the source, demanding additional sources, while his interpretation of the source is "also" a problem. Regardless, what would you like to see in the article? Would more direct quotation of the source instead of paraphrasing be acceptable? Vassyana 11:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See #Comments above for the most recently proposed text for the visitation issue. It's almost all direct quotes from either the media source or the school director. -Will Beback · † · 02:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to my comments above^ Sfacets 04:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current situation

Why do certain editors repeatedly use old second-hand allegations to attempt to describe the current situation at this school? If any current students or staff happen to read this, please join the discussion. Thank you. Sahajhist 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. All information in this encyclopedia should be "second-hand". First-hand information (AKA "original research") is not allowed. -Will Beback · † · 07:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand very well how Wikipedia works. I have two questions for you: 1. So factual accuracy is not of concern to you? 2.You would prefer to use unsubstantiated allegations merely because they were used by a journalist in a print publication some years ago? Sahajhist 10:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We want verifiable information. If we didn't use unsubstantiated allegations made by journalists in print publications from years ago then what would we use? The unsubstantiated and unpublished allegations of anonymous Wikipedia editors? If two reliable sources say a door is red and one Wikipedia editor says it's green then we should say the door is reported to be red, not that it's green. -Will Beback · † · 11:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that the current situation should be reported. If that is not possible according to your rigorous standards, then better that paragraph be deleted. The present wording is unfair to current staff and students. Sahajhist 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We only know what the "current situation" is based on reliable sources. If we can find relaible sources which say something esle we can report that too. So far no one has provided any sources which dispute the assertions included in the reliable sources mentioned on this page. -Will Beback · † · 06:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInternational_Sahaja_Public_School_365b.html"

Categories: B-Class India articles | B-Class India articles of Low-importance | Low-importance India articles | Unassessed school articles | Unassessed-importance school articles