Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Note to anonymous editors

Tothe anonymous editors, please read the archived discussion(s) to seewhat has been previously discussed before adding content... and feelfree to talk about ways to improve the article. Sfacets 19:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


Iagree with Sfacets. The medical section has been continually vandalisedin recent weeks for no apparent reason. Also, discussion should besigned. sahajhist 7:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This article does not follow WP:NPOV policy. It has bias towards Sahaja Yoga. It is necessary that sites critical of Sahaja Yoga be included in the external links to meet the WP:NPOV policy. --Thomaskmfdm 08:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is carefully written in neutral language, and assertions are referenced. sahajhist 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Iagree the article is written in neutral language and that assertionsare referenced, My objection is that the article in its current formdoes not discuss criticisms of sahaja yoga at all. Links to the pagesof critics are also omitted even though the official response to theirallegations is included.--Thomaskmfdm 08:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have extensively rewritten the article, to include both positive andnegative viewpoints. Please let me know what you think. --NovaSTL 06:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Religious Movements" homepage

Thearticle concerning Sahaja Yoga is outdated (2000), and is not areliable source, since it states as fact hearsay from other websites.There is no information on the author of the document, we do not knowif Tamara L. Clark is in fact a specialist on the subject or just afirst year student. Sfacets 06:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Whathas changed in Sahaja Yoga in the past six years that would outdate anarticle? Are we holding all links and article authors to the samestandard? -Will Beback 07:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sfacets regarding this student-authored page. In response to Will Beback'squestion, much has changed and is continuing to change within theSahaja Yoga movement. This is not however the place to discuss thosechanges. Sahajhist 18.05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thisis an ideal place to discuss changes in Sahaja Yoga. The articledoesn't mention them at all. I note that other links also date backmany years; if these changes are significant should those links bedropped too? So far as I can tell the Religious Movements page seemsthorough and well-researched. Many external links and sources do notlist any author - should those be removed too? -Will Beback 10:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Theother links are apparently primarily official country/center websites,and belong in the article by default-dealing primarily with the generalpresentation of Sahaja Yoga.

It doesn't matter howwell researched the RM page seems, if the author isn't a specialist onthe subject, then it cannot be admited as a valid source... Sfacets 13:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an inapproporate standard. The article in question has dozens of footnotes. -Will Beback 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The footnotes mean nothing if the conclusions drawn from their study are not made by a specialist...

Sfacets 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:ELthat says only links to articles by specialists are permitted. I askagain, how is the article out of date and what changes have occurred inSahaja Yoga to render it obsolete? -Will Beback 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
From WP:EL:"Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverifiedoriginal research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources."

From WP:Reliable sources: "Beware false authority

Lookout for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority inthe topic of the degree. Web sites that have numerous footnotes may beentirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What arethe credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for awebsite?" Anyone can post anything on the web."

Sfacets 00:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this the standard you wish to apply to every link and source? If so, there will be no links, no sources, and no articles. -Will Beback 04:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Isee that a reference dated 1996 was just added. If articles from 2000are out of date then surely even older articles are also out of date. -Will Beback 05:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thisis ridiculous! Academic articles from the medical literature given inthe References section, are of permanent use and need to be treateddifferently from links to webpages based on outdated information andhearsay. Please understand the difference. sahajhist 15.49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Message to Sfacets: please clean up the citation numbering in the Medicine section. Thanks. sahajhist 15.57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What information is outdated? Is it a secret? -Will Beback 06:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sahajhist: Yup on it...
Will Beback: Yes - very secret. I don't know... look it up somewhere! Can't be that hard. Also - There is no Cabal. Sfacets 08:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey,you two are the ones asserting that these mysterious changes haveoccurred which render unfavorable links obsolete while leaving older,more favorable articles timely. Unless you can give a betterexplanation I'd say I'm getting the runaround. -Will Beback 09:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually the link is still out according to WP:Reliable sources... Consider this: if Sahaja Yoga is an NRM, started 40 or so years ago, 7 years is a long time - a lot has changed, and as Sahajhistmentioned above, this isn't the place to discuss the changes, rathercompile information on the subject... wouldn't know where to beginotherwise. Sfacets 12:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"Compileinformation". Yes, exactly. History is a major part of the informationabout a group. It's illogical to say that a lot has changed in 7 years,yet the past is irrelevant, that a 10-year old article is stillrelevant but a 6-year old paper is outdated, and that articles bynameless individuals (also from 6 years ago) that don't site anyauthorities are better than articles by named individuals who listnumerous sources published on an academic website. No one pointed outanything in the "Religious Movements" article that is actually wrong.It appears to me, who knows absolutely nothing about the recentchanges, to be detailed and well-researched. Please prove me wrong. -Will Beback 12:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Wellunless you can prove that the article was written by an expert,according to Wiki policy the link stays off. What is contested are theconclusions drawn in that article, unverified original research, basedon the author's questionable knowledge of the subject.

As for the changes,

“ Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ”

Sfacets 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It'sself-evident that an author who writes such a detailed,fully-researched article is an expert. Therefore the link suffices.There is nothing incorrect about it, it is newer than several otherlinks and sources, and it fulfills the NPOV requirement of includingthe full range of viewpoints. Thanks for working together to resolvethis matter. -Will Beback 13:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyfirst year could have written the article complete with interpretationsand included the long list of sources. It is unverified personalresearch, inadmissible by Wiki policy. Please read the policy if youare unsure what I am refering to. Thank you, have a nice day. Sfacets 13:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There'sno reason to think that it is written by a first year student - you'rejust assuming that without evidence. The authority is the "TheReligious Movements Homepage Project@The University of Virginia", whichis a respected institution.[1]They have an editor and advicsory staff, so the article in questionpassed through a review process, one of the key requirements for areliable source. The director of the project is an expert in the fieldof new religious movements. All of that is sufficient to establish thatthis is a reliable source. -Will Beback 22:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Howcan you be sure it did in fact pass through review? It could be nothingmore than a collection of freshmen assignments, noted individualy. Oranything. You're just assuming that it went through a review process. Sfacets 01:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The page in question was prepared as a course assignment by an undergraduate student at the University of Virginia in 2000:

          Created by Tamara L. Clark
          For Sociology 257: New Religious Movements
          Fall Term, 2000

Thiswas compiled as a student assignment being based on web resourcesavailable to the student in 2000. It was never intended to be anauthoritative summary. If it gets replaced by a newer survey sometimein the future we can revisit the issue. Until then it should not, in myview, be linked to. Sahajhist 13.05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Andwhat, pray tell, are the credentials of the other sources for thisarticle? Shall we delete everyone who doesn't have at least a master'sdegree in comparative religions? Every article older than 5 years?Every article that uses footnotes? We can do that, if you think that wenned to set such high standards. -Will Beback 08:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It would greatly help the editing process if editors such as Will Bebackwould understand the difference between peer-reviewed articles from themedical literature, and an undergraduate student essay. Sahajhist 20.05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thearticle in question is published as part of a well-respected academicproject overssen and edited by a PhD with particualr expertise in thetopic. -Will Beback 09:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Religious Movements Homepage Project

The particular article, regardless of who wrote it is an apparently official assessment by the Religious Movements Homepage Project. So are Sfacets and Sahajhist attacking the credentials of the project? From the homepage about the project.

Begunnearly a decade ago in conjunction with a course on New ReligiousMovements that Prof. Jeffrey K. Hadden had taught at the University ofVirginia for more than twenty years, the Religious Movements HomepageProject has grown into an Internet resource for teaching andscholarship that is widely acknowledged as among the finest in theworld.
The founding editor of the Religious Movements Homepage Project, Jeff Hadden, passed away in 2003. The new editor-in-chef is Douglas E. Cowan, Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Sociology at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Working with an advisory boardof internationally recognized scholars of new religious movements,Prof. Cowan will be overseeing the ongoing development of the Web site,and all correspondence regarding the Religious Movements HomepageProject should be directed to him.

Paul foord 14:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT in any way an 'official assessment' as Paul foordasserts - what a ridiculous notion! What we are assessing here is anundergraduate student project from the year 2000. One of many producedon that course at that time. Thats all. And btw, there have been norevisions to the site since mid 2005, probably due to the fact thatAssoc Prof. Cowan has moved from Missouri to Canada. The site remainsprimarily one based on undergraduate student research from the period1995-2001. Sahajhist 07.53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Noone has pointed out any inaccuracies in the article. If there aren'tany then I don't see why there's so much resistance to it. -Will Beback 22:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Whathas been pointed out are the conclusions the author draws based(mainly) on reasearch done on website sources, and what is contestedare her credentials to do so, and more importantly the validity ofincluding a link to her study which is questionable. Sfacets 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Usingwebsites as sources is not a problem. We do so all of the time. We alsodo not require specific credentials. These are both strawman arguments.If there are no significant errors in the article then let's include itas it has a lot of nformaiton not represented in other links andsources. -Will Beback 23:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Howare they strawman arguments? Your arguments are irrelevant seeing thatthe claims raised (erroneous or not) in said article are not admissibleunder WP:Reliable sources.Using websites as sources is not a problem, no - if said websites arein fact a) Official websites dealing specifically with, and about thesubject or b) Authored by someone with suitable credentials.

Sfacets 01:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please cite the exact language of WP:RSwhich rpevents us from using this article as an external link. I am notaware of anything in there which makes works by students, and publishedby an expert in the field, illegitimate. -Will Beback 03:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
As I mentionned above, "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources."

Sfacets 03:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Andagain I ask, what is inaccurate? Where is the original research? Whatnovel conclusions does the author make that are objectionable? -Will Beback 03:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Don'tyou get it yet? That there are inaccuracies doesn't matter, since theauthor hasn't been established as a specialist in the area. Goingthrough them one by one would be an absurd waste of time, but you arewelcome to cross reference them if you feel like it. Sfacets 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The authot of an external link does not need to be an expert. -Will Beback 05:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, I am not aware of any original research intha article. Can you point to it? -Will Beback 05:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, we come to WP:EL - links to be avoided - "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." Sfacets 05:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Right,so where's the original research in the article? What conclusions ofhers are novel and unverified? If you can't point to anything wrongwith the article then there's nothing wrong with it. -Will Beback 05:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
They are unverified by the very fact that we know nothing of the author's qualifications. Check out Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Beware_false_authority specifically "Evaluating Sources". Sfacets 08:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thisdicussion is like a merry-go-round and, like that amusing ride, we'renot getting anywhere. The carousel of vague reasons why this link isinadmissible includes these objections: we don't know if theinformation has been verified, the information could have errors in it,we don't know what the qualifications of the author are, theinformation is out of date, the article has has too many footnotes, andthen back around again. But we're going around so quickly that we neverfocus on any one of them. There's no evidence that the article isactually inaccurate, out of date, unverifiable, or unsupported, butblurry assertions to that effect keep whizzing by. As much fun as thisdiscussion is, I think we need to move it to a new level and probablyto a new page (see #External links: practice versus organization).Let's recognize that we're at a momentary impasse here and consider adifferent, though related, issue below. Perhaps we can get some focusand forward progress on a new track. -Will Beback 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This link, http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sahaja_yoga.htmlwas removed again, with the comment "rmv source by author of unknowncredentials (see talk))". As it happens, we don't know the credentialsof the authors of any of the weblinks, official or otherwise. If thislink is removed again I will remove all the weblinks which don't listthe credentials of the authors. -Will Beback 02:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes,it was removed again, sice we still haven't established the credentialsof the Author. The other links do not draw conclusions (we have alreadybeen through this) about the subject and do not claim authority on thesubject. They are informational links. Other links link to medicalarticles published by medical journals. Sfacets 02:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thereare many articles which draw conclusions. May I ask what conclusionsare drawn by the article in question? I'd furhter note that thecredentials of even the author of the medical articels are notapparent. Can you prove that they have expertise in this topic? -Will Beback 20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sahaja_yoga.html is a valid, credible, and well-referenced source, and continuing to try and insist that it isn't, is just being disruptive. --NovaSTL 06:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

External links: practice versus organization

We have (thanks the hard work of many good editors) two separate articles, Sahaja Yoga and Sahaja Yoga International.One covers a practice or belief system and the other covers anorganization. Most of the external links, whether "official" or"critical", pertain more to the organization than the practice.Therefore, I propose we move them to Sahaja Yoga International, leaving only the medical research papers and anything else excluvely relevant to meditation and yoga. -Will Beback 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As an editor who has worked extensively on both Sahaja Yoga and Sahaja Yoga International I wish to record my disagreement with this unnecessary proposal. Sahajhist 22.32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, how can there be official yoga sites? The "offficial" websites belong to SYI, right? -Will Beback 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you actually know what you are talking about? Sfacets 23:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Iagree that most of the external links pertain more to the organizationrather than the practice of Sahaja Yoga and that moving the officialand contested links to the article Sahaja Yoga International while leaving the medical research papers and other relative information on the Sahaja Yogapage, as suggested by Will Beback, is appropriate. If a consensus isunreachable perhaps a seperate page dedicated to criticisms of SahajaYoga is necessary.--Thomaskmfdm 07:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
...And we should follow your (obviously) biased opinion? The websites link to the practice of Sahaja Yoga in different countries. Sfacets 10:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Theinitial set of links in this article are by anonymous authors, who haveunknown crednetials, etc. Since there is an article about SYI, that iswhere official websites belong, as well as websites that are criticalof the organization. Websites that simply talk about the practicebelong here, but must be held to the same standards as other websites. -Will Beback 16:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thoselinks don't require credentials - they are Sahaja Yoga sites & makeno new claims, and are not writing a critical essay on the subject ordrawing any conclusions. All of the international sites deal with thepractice of Sahaja Yoga meditation, as opposed to the organisationalside of the SYI organisation. Sfacets 21:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Theyare, in fact, offical SYI sites and so they really should be in the SYIarticle. The practice, like any proactice (mediation, confession,stretching) has no "official" sites. Furthermore, I don't believe weshould have a long list of non-English sites. This Wikiepedia is forEnglish speakers, so the links should be in that language. -Will Beback 01:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Second that. Under Wikipedia's External link policy, foreign language sites are to be avoided; also, Wikipedia is nota link directory. Further, most of these sites appear to havecommercial intent, and little or no useful info. Note that externallinks should be to sites that contain "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". Most of the info from these sites that is not already in the article can and should be added, and the links ommitted. -- Mwanner | ][[User talk:Mwanner|Talk] 01:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Idisagree with the comment about 'commercial intent'. The other commentshave merit, and I have therefor trimmed the links section, excludingnon-English sites, and limiting English sites to major ones only. Sahajhist 11:56, 10 October (UTC)

Mwanner- Where do you see commercial intent? Also the links link to sites withrelevant information with regard to the practice of SY in therespecrive countries. Agree with 'trimming' the non-essential sites. Sfacets 02:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"Majorsites"? How does a site that is "under construction" count as a majorsite? How does a biography of the founder (when we already have aninternal bio) help tell readers about the practice of SY? -Will Beback 20:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thefounder of Sahaja Yoga (for obvious reasons) plays an important role inthe historical development of SY. I have removed the under contructionsite, but I see no reason for there not to be a link towards abiographical site that complements both 'the founder's' and SYpractice. Sfacets 22:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
We have a link to the founder's biography in the first paragraph. External links about her should go in that article. -Will Beback 23:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Someonehas been going around and creating multiple articles about SahajaYoga-related activities, but I do not believe that each of these isdeserving of separate articles, so I recommend that they all be mergedinto Sahaja Yoga. Specifically:

Does anyone have an opinion on the matter, or know of additional articles which should be included? --NovaSTL 10:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Thatsomeone was probably me. They all deserve independant mention,Yuvashakti (as a stub) still needs information on the Rajiv-Yuvashaktiprogramme [2](of which I know nothing about, so cannot add). Vishwa Nirmala Prem, asan NGO deserves mention (it is a newly created stub, sources and moreinfo are forthcoming). International Sahaja Public School, has been thesubject of many articles and sources, and SYI (see afd debate). Sfacets 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


I note that similar subjects, like Transcendental Meditation cover both the practice and the organization in the same article. -Will Beback 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That's because TM has a veriety of practices such as Maharishi_Vedic_Medicine and Maharishi_Vedic_Sciencewhich branch from the TM organisation. If you want to think of it thatway, SYI could be considered a branch of SY (or vice-versa).

Sfacets 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well,that's just the point, I think. SYI doesn't promote any other practicesthan SY, and SY is only promoted by SYI. That's why there's no need forseparate articles. -Will Beback 21:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No,that isn't the point, because (as is mentionned on the SYI article) SYIcoordinates different projects such as a hospital, NGO etc. Sfacets 05:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Yuvashaktiis an term used internally within Sahaja Yoga, not externally. So Iagree with deletion. The other three entries have merit as independententities. Sahajhist 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a single source listed for Yuvashakti.Unless we can find some reliable sources (which apparently have to bewritten by graduate students within the last three years) then thearticle should probably be stubbed or merged. -Will Beback 05:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yuvashakti is a term being used more and more frequently, and not just in Sahaja Yoga, but also in India. Do a search. Sfacets 05:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's up to the authors of the article to provide the references. -Will Beback 06:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I was refering to content, not sources. Sfacets 08:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well,whatever you meant it is still the case that the article is totallyunreferenced. As you know, unsourced material may be removed. -Will Beback 09:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have since added sources... what part of the article in unsourced? Sfacets

BBC program

Ihave moved the reference that "Sahaja Yoga is manipulative and hasbroken up families" which is one editor'stake on the broadcast to thelink section to avoid influencing the reader. Sfacets 21:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't this link be more relevant to Sahaja Yoga International and Nirmala Srivastava?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)

Sahaja Yoga International

Anyoneknow what happened to the text of this entry? If the cryptofascists onthe Wikipedia board want to delete a long-standing entry there'snothing mere mortals can do (obviously) but the text should have beenmerged into the Sahaja Yoga entry BEFORE deletion. Anyone know the official complaints procedure? Maybe a WikipediaWatch blog should be started... Sahajhist 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Please don't call your fellow editors names. -Will Beback 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
If you ask nicely, I'm sure an administrator would be happy to make the deleted text available. -Will Beback 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack, notice the plural form of "cryptofascist". Sfacets

Enjoy your games guys - I'm returning to the real world. Sahajhist 00:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To whom was the comment directed? -Will Beback 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
To the flowers and the bees, and the trees (and maybe to the possums, they feel left out sometimes, poor things). Sfacets 00:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
How many of those are "on the Wikipedia board"? Whatever, please act in a civil manner. -Will Beback 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Its a beautiful day. Dont let it slip away... JoeldeM 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced content and invalid sources

Iremoved unaacked content/content backed by invalid sources, includingthe link discussed in detail above, as well as links to websites that1) Didn't back the claim and 2)Are biased sources. Sfacets 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased sources are allowed. Otherwise none of the "pro" sites would be allowed. How are the sources otherwise invalid? -Will Beback 00:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Biased external links are allowed. You can't use those links to back up claims made by Dr. so and so. Sfacets 01:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
These aren't external links, they're sources. Can we establisht the lack of bias of every source now in the article? -Will Beback 03:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Iagree that the sources critical of Sahaja Yoga should be restored. Sources whcih are critical of Sahaja Yoga are not invalid links. Organizations involved with Sahaja Yoga are biased in favor of SahajaYoga. Should we also remove these biased sources? --Thomaskmfdm 11:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thereseems to be a confusion here between sources and external links.Sources, by definition need to be unbiased to back a fact, whereasexternal links are 'allowed' to be biased so long as they adhere toWP:EL policy. Sfacets 11:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Everysource is biased in some way. Even the New York Times is biased. Theview here seems to be that any source (or external link) which iscritical of the subject is unacceptable. This is a strong case of Wikipedia:Ownership. Unless reasonable criticism is allowed we may need to seek further dispute resolution. -Will Beback 19:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes,however the NYT source is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia.Other websites may not be so reliable. Nobody is censoring reasonablecriticism - but you've got to find that reasonable criticism, so thatit conforms to either WP:EL or Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Sfacets 22:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
"Religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu"is used as a reliable source in dozens of Wikipedia articles. Yet ithas been repeatedly removed from this article with a variety ofspurious reasons. -Will Beback 23:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Spuriousreasons? Knowing wether or not the source is valid is spurious? Justbecause it is used in other Wikipedia articles doesn't make it a validsource. Sfacets 23:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Someof the reasons have include that it is outdated, but with noexplanation of what material is obsolete, that it has too manyfootnotes, that it was written by an undergraduate, etc. None of thoseare legitimate reasons to remove a reliable source. At the same timesupportive websites have been kept that are just as old, that areanonymous, that show bias towards the subject, and that themselves citeno sources. That is a double standard. -Will Beback 23:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Iseem to recall sources being removed because they weren't up tostandards, since they didn't reliably back up information. Fair enough.The very reason that link was removed was because doubts were raised onit's validity as a reliable source. You need to disambiguate betweenexternal links and sources - these are not the same thing. None of the'supportive websites' are being used to back controversial content. Howdo they show bias? Sfacets 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)