Attempt by Sahaja Yoga organization December 2006 to remove www.adishakti.org from Wikipedia
To whosoever it may concern,
It is not without good reason i am willing to challenge the Sahaja Yoga organization who refuse to tell the truth about Shri Mataji and Sahaja Yoga.
Appended below is the latest evidence of attempts to suppress the truth about Shri Mataji and Sahaja Yoga, this time from Wikipedia. It is obvious that WCASY (World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga) is dead against openly declaring the truth. Even before the formation of WCASY most of the leaders, starting from Yogi Mahajan, were against the revelations of the Adi Shakti. So it is not a recent development.
John Noyce from Melbourne, Australia is a watchdog for WCASY to monitor sites and forums that do not follow official policy. On the Wikepedia Mediation Cabal below he uses his multiple IDs, a ploy used by him in the past. To the unsuspecting it gives the false impression that a number of SYs are involved. (But i believe Will Beback eventually cornered him on this deception.)
He has the WCASY tacit approval to do everything possible to prevent Sahaja Yogis/seekers from knowing the truth about Shri Mataji and Sahaja Yoga. At present he is trying his best to prevent the listing of www.adishakti.org at Wikipedia (appended below). This is the latest of many sustained efforts by the Sahaja Yoga organization/leadership over the years to suppress knowledge of the site as they want to project the subtle system as the foundation of Shri Mataji's teachings.
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-16 Sahaja Yoga
Shri Adi Shakti: The Kingdom Of God
Why have links to this website been deleted repeatedly? Sfacets removed it again today, saying "rmv website - not on SY". Clearly it concerns Sahaja Yoga, which is mentioned 38 times on the home page alone. Please explain in more detail how this website has no relevance to this article.
-Will Beback · † · 21:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The group behind the website do not consider themselves Sahaja Yogis, although they practice techniques taught by SY.
-Sfacets 07:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
They also comment extensively about SY, therefore it's relevant.
-Will Beback · † · 07:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you give examples?
-Sfacets 11:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
We can start with the 38 mentions on the home page, which I already mentioned.
-Will Beback · † · 11:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If this site is to be included then it should be under a heading called something like 'alternative views' since although the link does mention Sahaja Yoga 38 times it also plainly tells the reader that the author no longer considers themselves to be part of Sahaja Yoga and in fact acknowledges that some of his views are unaccepted by the Sahaja Yoga community. As this wiki page is about Sahaja Yoga and the Sahaja Yoga International (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) organization that has been created by Shri Mataji then it would be misleading to have the link under an ambiguous heading.
-Willia 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't object to calling it an "alternative view".
-Will Beback · † · 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it belongs in the Criticism-Complaints section. If I read some of it correctly, they are experts on SY's declared practices, and complaining that SY is too timid and moderate to declare more divinity — a complaint from the hierarchist right. It would fit well with RMHP's documentation of complaints from the anti-hierarchist left — that there is already too much declaration of divinity. Assembled sequentially, these two opposing complaints make SY look like the moderate center of practice. As I understand it, taking the middle path is considered a virtue in much of India.
-Milo 22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Milo in saying that it belongs in the criticism- complaints section. I wouldnt agree that the author of the site is an expert but that is another matter altogether. If moved to the criticism-complaints section it would make it evident to a reader that this view exists but that it is not an accepted view of the majority of individuals who practice Sahaj Yoga.
-Willia 11:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstand, but the group behind www.adishakti.org appears to be a schism, branch, or rival of Sahaja Yoga. If so, schisms, branches and rivals typically know with ultimate expertise how they differ from each other, since otherwise they would have less reason to exist.
-Milo 09:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
That seems like a good assessment.
-Will Beback · † · 09:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
They do not describe themselves as such...
-Sfacets 09:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not unusual among religious or philosophical rivals, due to the frequent 'we're the one true' and the 'who's a heretic' positions by which some converts are persuaded. I can't recall the last time I read that Catholics and Protestants were "rivals" (in religion), "schism" is term best known by the educated, and "branch" is almost exclusively an academic term (except for "Branch Davidians"). Therefore, both the common knowledge and academic analysis is constructional: rivals are identified by having an in- common focus of devotion, but with more or less differing practices of devotion. Intense complaints, as in this case, make for an easy common knowledge rivalry assessment.
For example, the person in the street commonly knows that Jesus Christ is the in-common focus of both Catholic and Protestant devotions, and that the intensely disputed devotional practice of naming a Pope is their most important differentiation.
-Milo 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
But can you really call this a schism or branch, when we are unaware of the number of believers in this philosophy? Surely these qualifiers may only be used when applied to a movement, rather than an isolated theory? The definition of 'schism' for instance, is given as "a split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief." (source Oxford dictionary) while here what is in question is both the number of adherents to the divergent philosophy as well as the degree of opposition.
-Sfacets 18:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
"can you really call this a schism or branch" I didn't; rather, I called them rivals. -Milo 21:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
"Perhaps I misunderstand, but the group behind www.adishakti.org appears to be a schism, branch, or rival of Sahaja Yoga." - also in what capacity would you say they are rivals?
-Sfacets 22:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
"in what capacity would you say they are rivals?" Please refer to my statement posted 18:08, 16 Dec above.
-Milo 22:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't know how many people practice SY, so I don't see why we should be picky about how many followers this related group has. What is the most appropriate label for this group, or do we even need to label them?
-Will Beback · † · 19:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Its all semantics really. Going back to the point that I made the other day; the author of the link in question makes it pretty obvious that he and his 3 children are no longer part of Sahaja Yoga or the Sahaja Yoga International (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) organisation and since this organisation is what the wiki entry is telling people about then it makes sense to me that the link should be mentioned but under a 'criticism-complains' or 'alternate views' section. To me it really makes no difference if it is a schism, breakaway group, faction, rival or whatever.
-Willia 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC) ...
The issue is not so much the edits as the editing behavior. Pro-Sahaja editors, you and Sfacets in particular, add unsourced information and remove sourced info. Regarding the 'Shri Adi Shakti' if it is incomplete then why did you delete it instead of adding to it? The repeated deletions of sources and external links without adequate explanation I requested this mediation. Is that an adequate source or not, and if not then why not?
-Will Beback · † · 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
This discussion should be on the relevant talk page.
-Sahajhist 07:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
No, only discussion of content should be held on article talk pages. This is a discussion of the editing behavior that is the subject of this mediation.
-Will Beback · † · 08:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. If I can widen this slightly: I would suggest that the Nirmala Srivastava page be a straight-forward biography, leaving matters of theology such as 'Shri Adi Shakti' to be dealt with on the Sahaja Yoga page. What is your view on this?
-Sahajhist 00:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The editing problems that we need to address here are that you deleted that assertion without comment, and what sources we can use to reference the theology. Why did you delete it? A complete section on theology, whether in the Srivastava article or the SY article would have to include using "Shri Adi Shakti: The Kingdom Of God" as a source, but that link has been removed countless times from the articles. Can we agree to use that as a source for Sahaja Yoga's theology and for views of Srivastava?
Also, I gather from your statements that both you and Sfacets are residents of Melbourne, and hence members of the Melbourne collective. There have been problems with several unregistered editors from Melbourne. (most recently user:188.8.131.52). Is there a discussion of Wikipedia articles among the Melbourne Collective? Do you know the individuals who are editing? They are a part of the problem and their editing behavior reflects poorly on all pro-Sahaja editors.
-Will Beback · † · 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not ask them directly: symelb[at]yahoo.com.au
-WikiPossum 11:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's start with you. Are you responsible for any of the unregistered edits? What is your involvement here? Would you like to participate in a useful manner in this mediation?
-Will Beback · † · 12:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Count me in for any meditation.
-WikiPossum 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: Since user:184.108.40.206 added a link to Sahajhist's blog it appears that the user is that editor. Sahajhist has been warned previously about adding links to his blog. Is there something about our policies which isn't clear? Do you think they don't apply to you?
-Will Beback · † · 23:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/ 2006-12-16 Sahaja Yoga
--- In email@example.com, "sfacets"
> This is the clone speaking, articulating slowly (the cloning process
> went wrong, I only have 2/3rds of my vocal cords - also most of my
> fingers on my right hand are fused, and I have a club-foot.)
> I can only laugh at how bad your grasp of the situation is - do you
> apply such methods of research into all your writing?
> Also, the mediation hasn't concluded, nor does it overly-concern
> your website -that's just your selective interpretation (glad to
> see that that is consistent) at play.
> Have a good one,
i am a bit distressed that, notwithstanding that you are a defective clone, you do not seem to have the manners to address others with difficult to spell words like "Hi", "Dear", "Members of the Forum". What i am trying to say is that you do not sound human despite having a name. i could be wrong because even cows and dogs have names that they respond to, so why not clones?
So why do i think you are a clone?
i) you took offence that i rubbed your master John Noyce the wrong way and reacted. But, sir, i have had the displeasure of meeting him in the past and i was warned by SYs that he is a control freak with an unstable personality and tantrum streak. And he proved them right!
i believe that you are just as cracked, maybe a fracture or two more. Despite self-realization you claim that "I edit Wikipedia as a way of maintaining my sanity, with varied success." Common sense tells me that you admit not being sane at all times. That's a great Sahaja Yoga success story, don't you think?
ii) like JN you have this tendency to laugh at others, only that JN does so hilariously when he ridicules others for the slightest error. This is a serious mental fracture i would say. So when i read that you "can only laugh at how bad your grasp of the situation is", i immediately remembered JN. You guys must have bonded extremely well in Melbourne ............. to the extend that few in cyberspace can differentiate your conniving ways and tendency to laugh off loud at others. See, you must give me the benefit of doubt that you _are_ a JN clone, shoddy as the workmanship is. But then neither is JN as stable as you think he is, and that only makes matters worse ..... ................. for both of you i mean. If ever you guys go to a park both will sit on the same side of the see-saw and think it's fun, that is until children tell that you are unbalanced. See how bad matters _actually_ are my friend?
iii) you said that "the mediation hasn't concluded, nor does it overly-concern your website -that's just your selective interpretation (glad to see that that is consistent) at play."
i beg your pardon sir but i know the mediation hasn't concluded. And perhaps you may want to rephrase "nor does it overly-concern" to something more honest, though that may not be in your best interest. i was under the impression that Will Beback was taking up the matter with the mediator because your clone Sahajhist (John Noyce) and others were constantly deleting links to www.adishakti.org. But i am probably wrong to accuse you good folks of doing just that because English is a language that i do not understand well. i believe that both the mediator Somitho and Will Beback have no evidence or reason to believe that you guys are guilty of deleting links.
Now i do not even know what the whole commotion is all about. Yes, i agree that all the selective interpretation of Somitho, Will Beback and myself does not meet your exacting consistency. terrible as our comprehension of English is. My humble apologies sir.
iv) You believe strongly that:
"Censorship sucks. Auto censorship sucks more. I count warnings in articles as a form of censorship. Sfacets 05:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)"
i now understand that neither you nor your clone Sahajhist were involved in any form of censorship i.e., removing links because they do not meet you interpretation of Sahaja Yoga. As self-realized souls both of you have advanced far in dharma, honesty and comprehension of English. So if i have offended any of you with my lies, ignorance, lack of evidence and English education i publicly ask for forgiveness. Let me know how i can atone for my terrible sins.
Hope you had a better one,
Sahaja Yoga Archives
Shakti/Last Judgment/Qiyamah Archives