Talk:International Sahaja Public School

Insinuation of physical abuse

I have removed the following quote to the discussions page:

"Nirmala Srivastava has opined that: "Bhoots can sometimes only go away with slapping. I have seen especially with children it happens. Two slaps on the face and they're alright. Because they're bhoots you see and they have to go away.""

Someone has used this quote to insinuate that the school has a philosophy of corporal punishment, which is not the case. The above quote was not made in relation to the school and the context is not stated. Freelion (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote give some context to the alleged beatings, whether or not corporal is or was an official part of the School philosophy. The school website clearly states that the education is based "on the teachings of Her Supreme Holiness Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi". If you have some other quote where Nirmala Srivastava says it's not OK to slap children, then feel free to complement the current one. --Simon D M (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote about "bhoots" does not relate to the school and has been put there only to make an insinuation of physical abuse. A headmaster was apparently suspended from the school for physical abuse, so what does this tell you about school policy? As soon as I find a more suitable quote, which actually relates to the school, I will substitute it and deconstruct this insinuation. Freelion (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain the slapping quote and how it relates to the Mataji's theory of educating children which the school says it is based on. --Simon D M (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the school avows to follow the teaching of its spiritual head it's relevant to mention what the teachings on child rearing and education are. But we shouldn't imply that the school follows everything that the leader ever advocated. Could we just say something short and simple like, "the spiritual head of the school has advocated corporal punishment for children, but a headmaster who practiced it was suspended"? Or something else short and verifiable? (We should be clear that the school does not condone corporal punishement, if that's the case.) Should we use a paragraph or short section to cover the leader's philosophy re: children? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Will. I've found another quote published in the guide for parents at the school for this year. This is more appropriate.Freelion (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your new quote doesn't say anything about corporal punishment. --Simon D M (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there's room in the article for both quotes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to it going back in as long as it is not used to dislodge the long-standing/relevant quote. --Simon D M (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I love the use of the long-standing argument! Long standing only reflects the fact that editors of this page have been delinquent in letting it sit there so long. Now sit back, take a deep breath and let me explain: the new quote does reflect a position on corporal punishment. It outlines a middle road between corporal punishment and too much spoiling of children. That is why it has been published in the guide for parents by the school. This makes it especially relevant! The old quote does not relate to corporal punishment at all actually. If you could just bear with me for a second I can explain this too. The original quote is in relation to the clearing of bhoots or negativities in the chakras. The practise of slapping also applies to oneself: to clear the back agnya chakra for example, one is advised to hit the back of the head lightly and repeatedly with ones own hand. It creates a discomfort and the negativity leaves. In the same way, by giving your own child a slap you achieve the same effect. Just as an experiment Simon, you could give yourself a good slap now. You might feel better. Freelion (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So which chakra is in the face? --Simon D M (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Do Sahaja Yogis slap adults in the face too? Or is it just defenceless children? --Simon D M (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider what I have written above and do not simply revert the work of others. Freelion (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please let us know which chakra is in the face. Incidentally, your reading of an anti-corporal punishment message into your quote is original research, as is your justification for slapping children's faces (unless you can produce some reliable source that Sahaja Yoga believes in chakras in the face and that slapping is a method for clearing 'face chakras'). --Simon D M (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if it's all own research then it makes little difference what I say about it. All I can say is that that quote is in relation to bhoots, another subject and can not be taken as dictating a pro corporal punishment approach at the school. Using the quote to insinuate this is pejorative. Now I have found another quote in a publication by the school which relates precisely to the disciplining of children. So there's no need to include the original quote anymore. To harp on more about it only highlights your anti Sahaja yoga agenda. Freelion (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your quote relates to 'harshness' in treatment of children, it doesn't specifically mention corporal punishment or even discipline. The fact is that Mataji condoned slapping children's faces and the school website clearly states that the education is based "on the teachings of Her Supreme Holiness Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi". Will has suggested a compromise of including both quotes which I have been willing to accept. It would be nice to see some movement on your side rather than repeatedly deleting sourced, relevant content. --Simon D M (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found another quote in a rock solid 3rd party source showing that Mataji promotes slapping children in the context of disciplining them, even for just answering back. I'll add that to the article in place of the other 2 less clear quotes. It is as follows: "Sahaja Yoga children have to be extremely well-disciplined... If they answer back give them two slaps, that's allowed... If you do not teach them they will be disrespectful to other people and other people will smack them, then you won't like it. But they have every right to smack if a child misbehaves, because children must know how to behave themselves." [Sahaja Yoga Internal Circular 3, 7, cited in Judith Coney, Sahaja Yoga: Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement (1999) p152] --Simon D M (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The most recent reference to slapping of the face can be found in the Easter 2008 talk [[1]]. --Yogiwallah (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK but it's not really relevant to the current discussion. --Simon D M (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Simon D M has just substituted one pejorative quote for another. You cannot imply that the school advocates corporal punishment when you have no evidence. The quote I put there is specifically from a publication by the school to espouse a balanced approach to discipline. As Will said, for a negative person to simply choose any quote they feel like as a policy for the school is wrong. By negative I mean consistently negative against the movement. That's a fact. Your change has no consensus. My change had more consensus. Reverting back to how it was. Freelion (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restructured the points about the same subjects into individual paragraphs. This is better than lumping all the "negative" reports into one paragraph in order to push a particular slant. Instead there is a paragraph about a subject with differing reports about it. Freelion (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your restructuring seems to have included censoring out the notable relevant well-sourced quote where Mataji advocates slapping children for answering back. As stated above your quote doesn't mention discipline or corporal punishment. You objected at length to the original quote because it wasn't about discipline in your view, but about clearing out (face chakras???). Now there is a quote that is clearly about corporal punishment and discipline and you are continuing to delete it, despite the fact that it comes from the most rock-solid source available. You want to replace it with an irrelevant self-published quote that made an obvious point (there should be balance in harshness) that is really not notable in any way. I've agreed to Will'suggestion that you be allowed to add your irrelevant self-published unnotable quote but it appears the compromise is not enough for you. --Simon D M (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually my argument is that you have no evidence of corporal punishment being a policy at the school. But despite this, you are trying to imply it by using pejorative quotes which have nothing to do with the school. Just because Shri Mataji said something at some time, doesn't make it a policy at the school. The quote I put there is specifically from a publication by the school to espouse a balanced approach to discipline so it is absolutely relevant. Freelion (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither I, nor the article, have ever said that it is current policy at the school, this is your straw man. In fact, corporal punishment is very unlikely to be official policy in the school because it was outlawed by the Supreme Court of India in 2000. However, Coney, a rock solid 3rd party source, reports that the headmaster was 'beating' the students and Mataji's advocacy of slapping children (even for answering back) is clearly relevant context. We don't know if the headmaster was dismissed merely for beating the children or because the beatings were going too far. We can only report the relevant information available. --Simon D M (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also Simon, could you please refrain from sneakily changing the title of discussions. I was the one who initiated this one and it's about the insinuation of physical abuse, not the choice of quote regarding it. I have restored the heading. Freelion (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The physical abuse was not 'insinuated', it was reported by Coney. Let's keep the headings NPOV in accord with WP policy. --Simon D M (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It suits your purposes to act like you just don't get it Simon. Listen again. This discussion is about "insinuations of physical abuse", I began the discussion - that's what it's about. You have put irrelevant quotes in the article to insinuate that there is physical abuse at the school. But this is unsubstantiated and you have no evidence. The fact that the headmaster was suspended is the only hard fact that you have and it suggests that physical abuse is NOT tolerated at the school. But you insert these other quotes to imply that it is. To change the heading again like you did is utterly shameless on your part. I call on the administrators to do something about this. Freelion (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The physical abuse was not insinuated, it happened according to a reliable 3rd party source, and you are not denying it, so it is non-controversial. Using the term 'insinuation' in this context is inaccurate, POV and needlessly controversial - this is against WP policy, see WP:Title#Controversial names. Whether you started the section is completely irrelevant - there is no ownership of content in WP. Furthermore, there is no insinuation in the article that corporal punishment or other physical abuse is currently practised in the school, as a matter of policy or otherwise. The inclusion of the information on the Supreme Court goes a long way to making it clear that corporal punishment is unlikely to be official school policy - we can't go any further than that. As mentioned above, we don't know if the headmaster was temporarily dismissed for corporal punishment per se, or because the beatings went too far. We only know what's in the reliable sources, any other assumptions you wish to make are original research (if that is not too grand a name). --Simon D M (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

An article pertinent to this discussion: [[2]] Yogiwallah (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Another article pertinent to this discussion reports that the ex-Headmaster of the Rome Sahaja Yoga School hit a 10- year old child full across the face with clenched fist for answering back, when all he did was supply his name on request. Years later, when that Headmaster and Sahaja Yoga World Leader turned his fists on adults who supported Mataji's medical treatment, he was finally removed from his formal leadership positions. --Simon D M (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

An even more pertinent article where a 1991 visitor to the India school is reported to have said: "It was dirty, disgusting. There was no heating, the mattresses where devoured by mice and rats, and lice could be found everywhere. As a result of getting beaten with sticks to 'clear the evil in them', the children had become aggressive. During the day they would fight between themselves. In the night they would turn into poor lost kids sobbing for their mom and dad. During class, at every single wrong answer, they would get slapped with a ruler on their face. There were no toys, no colour pencils, no paper and no first aid kit. I have seen a little girl with an infected tooth and pus all over her mouth. I proposed to take her to a hospital, but it was forbidden because everything was to be healed with the vibrations and the picture of Shri Mataji". The quote is from Marie Claire, February 1992 (French Edition). --Simon D M (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote published by the school in the Guide For Parents is more relevant than those other quotes which are not about the school and probably relate to parents disciplining their own children. The quote published by the school in the Guide For Parents contains Shri Mataji's words about the school. By publishing it the school is stating its position on discipline. I'm not challenging the quote about the headmaster; that's why he/she was asked to leave. What I'm challenging is the use of other irrelevant snippets to create the impression that corporal punishment is used at the school. The statement about the Indian Government is irrelevant and is being used to make it look like the school was prevented by law from using corporal punishment. Insinuation in the absence of evidence has always been one of Simon DM's favourite ways of attacking this New Religious Movement. These insinuations are plain to see so my heading is not POV. Freelion (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote is clearly less relevant as it does not mention corporal punishment or even the words 'discipline' or 'punishment' - it is about 'harshness' in general. The quote is from an Easter Puja in Rome and there is no indication in it that it specifically applies to the children in the India School. If it did apply to the India School, it could refer to the extreme spartan conditions of the time as reported in the above quote from Marie Claire - Mataji was under pressure at the time to justify the substandard conditions at a time she was spending heavily on her own palace in Cabella. The inclusion of this quote in a 2008 self-published source tells us very little, if anything. There is also the question of verifiability - how can readers verify what is in this source, is it published and publicly available? You must refrain from second guessing the motivations of other editors - comment on the edits not the editors. --Simon D M (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Harshness is another way of referring to punishment and if you read the quote carefully it is obvious that it applies to the school. Just because you don't have access to the publication doesn't mean anything, many other references on the page are not accessible. Your reference to a french rag mag is just trying to muddy the water, another of your common tactics. Freelion (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The equation of harshness with discipline is just your original research. Even if it had been clearly about discipline, it does not mention corporal punishment. All the other references on the page are published and accessible. Again I ask you to stop commenting on editors. You've been given a lot of leeway with your personal attacks and it's time for you to start abiding by WP policy. --Simon D M (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out your techniques is not a personal attack. Your above arguments are, dare I say, straw men. You have studiously ignored my previous logical argument and keep throwing up red herrings. Freelion (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. --Simon D M (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that you accuse others of the same behaviour that you specialise in. Freelion (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So which of your arguments are you claiming hasn't been dealt with? --Simon D M (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}The following quote sheds more light on the subject of discipline at Sahaja Yoga schools.
"The Sahaja Yogis must respect their children. The teachers must also respect the children. If the children are extremely difficult then the parents can sometimes slap them, but not the teachers. No teacher is allowed to in any way punish the child in such a way that the child gets hurt."
The above quote should replace the following existing quote which only tells half the story. "Nirmala Srivastava recommended that children should be slapped for misbehaving, even for just answering back." Freelion (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest combining what we have as follows:

Although Nirmala Srivastava has recommended that parents and others should slap children for misbehaving, even for just answering back, she has specifically stated that teachers should not slap or hurt children as punishment. --Simon D M (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Freelion, I'm looking for this source you mention [Her Holiness Mataji Shree Nirmala Devi, Sahaja Yoga (1989)] but I don't seem to be able to find it on amazon.com/.co.uk, google books or boodfinder4u.com (which references 130 online Bookstores & 80,000 Book Sellers). It doesn't even show up in a straight google search, isn't mention at sahajayoga.org or here. I'm wondering, has this source ever been published? --Simon D M (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This book has been available at Sahaja Yoga centres in many forms and has been reprinted many times. The version I have was reprinted in 2006 by Yogda Prints and published by Nirmal Transformation PVT.LTD. 8 Chandragupt HSG. SOC., Paud Road, Kothrud, Pune. I am quite happy with your suggested combination, but I would suggest the following changes:
1. The words "even for just answering back" contain a judgement which is not reflected in the source. I would recommend that those words be excluded since they are POV.
2. The use of the word "Although" at the beginning of the sentence is like one of those words which Wikipedia advises we avoid due to its usefulness in leveraging a POV. So I suggest we remove it.
3. I'm not sure that Nirmala Srivatava is recommending the practice, but rather saying that it is allowed for parents to do it and acknowledging that others have every right to. So how about the following:
Nirmala Srivastava has allowed parents practicing Sahaja Yoga to occasionally slap extremely difficult children for misbehaving, and warns that others have every right to discipline disrespectful children. But she has specifically forbidden the physical punishment of children by teachers.
Freelion (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Freelion, I broadly agree with what you are saying. The statement "If they answer back give them two slaps, that's allowed" is clearly more than allowing, it takes the imperative mood - if this is not an order it is advice/recommendation. There is no mention of 'extremely difficult' in the source, so that must come out. The 'answering back' is notable because it shows the level of misbehaviour for which slapping is recommended so should stay in, although I agree the old wording did suggest the widespread belief that answering back is a minor misdemeanor not meriting physical violence, which I guess you can say is POV. The source refers to others smacking children and I see no reason to blur this into 'discipline' - indeed this is the most relevant point. The term 'although' is deprecated where it implies "that one alternative is less favored than another." Here it is not the case, it is just used to show that the specific case [hitting by teachers] contrasts with the general case [hitting by others]. I've replaced it with 'however' for which the same principles apply and is better English for the first word in a sentence than 'but'. I'm glad to see that we seem to be achieving consensus here. --Simon D M (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the word "sometimes" and the phrase "extremely difficult" do appear in the quote by Shri Mataji, so I've referenced them. I think it's important to keep the word "allowed" in there because the advice is not a command and it suggests that parents can use their discretion. It is in the source by Coney. I've changed the order of the paragraph so that the sentence about the temporary dismissal of the Headmaster is in context. Freelion (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

They appear in the other quote by Mataji, the self-published one that you provided, not the one in Coney. To avoid this going on forever I am going to rewrite based very closely on the sources. --Simon D M (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The original was a concise and accurate paragraph and it has been replaced with something more cumbersome. There was no need for that. Wikipedia is about creating an article that conveys information, not simply a collection of quotes. If you look at the original paragraph you will find that the references are all in the correct order. The two quotes do not need to be differentiated like that; they can be integrated quite accurately and effectively.

Nirmala Srivastava has advised parents practicing Sahaja Yoga that they are allowed to sometimes slap extremely difficult children for misbehaving (including answering back), and warns that others have every right to smack disrespectful children. However, she has specifically forbidden the physical punishment of children by teachers. Coney reports that there have been 'instances of children having been beaten' leading to the temporary dismissal of the Headmaster. The Supreme Court of India banned corporal punishment in schools in 2000.

Coney reports that there have been 'instances of children having been beaten' leading to the temporary dismissal of the Headmaster. Nirmala Srivastava has said:

Sahaja Yoga children have to be extremely well-disciplined... If they answer back give them two slaps, that's allowed... If you do not teach them they will be disrespectful to other people and other people will smack them, then you won't like it. But they have every right to smack if a child misbehaves, because children must know how to behave themselves."

However, she has also written:

The Sahaja Yogis must respect their children. The teachers must also respect the children. If the children are extremely difficult then the parents can sometimes slap them, but not the teachers. No teacher is allowed to in any way punish the child in such a way that the child gets hurt.

The Supreme Court of India banned corporal punishment in schools in 2000.

Freelion (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As said above, you should not be using the sense of the self-published quote to push out the sense of the reliably sourced, verifiable quote from Coney. --Simon D M (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

By pushing out I assume you mean putting after? Both quotes are reliably sourced and verifiable. As said above, I put the sentence about the dismissal of the Headmaster after the sentences about discipline so that it appears in context. The dismissal of the Headmaster is consistent with the school's policy on physical punishment. That should be the correct sense of the paragraph. It's important to keep the word "allowed" in there because the advice is not a command and it suggests that parents can use their discretion. The spelling of the author of the book comes from the book itself. Freelion (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The RS says: "If they answer back give them two slaps, that's allowed", this is clearly advice/recommendation, if not an outright order (considering that it comes from a self-proclaimed Goddess). Your statement that it is not a command is just OR, as are your claims about the school policy. You are pushing the sense of the other quote into this quote. The mention of the dismissal should come first because without it the rest seems like a tangent till you get to the end. I'm putting it back to raw quotes pending an agreed wording. Let's worry about perfecting the style of the page once the content is agreed, otherwise this will go on forever. --Simon D M (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is just a smokescreen. There is no OR in the paragraph, the word "allowed" does appear in the source. Nothing is being "pushed" into either quote, the sense of both is equally represented. The dismissal of the Headmaster is consistent with the sense of the preceding quotes about physical punishment. Putting back the "raw quotes" is not an answer because this paragraph is the result of some consensus already. Freelion (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. The OR was in your rationale for your edits. Please read my comments carefully before dismissing them. The RS says: "If they answer back give them two slaps, that's allowed" - this is clearly advice/recommendation followed by saying it is allowed. If you can't accept this obvious fact, the raw quote will have to stay as the only thing that can be agreed upon. --Simon D M (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You are just engaging in frivolous arguments. There is nothing wrong with the existing paragraph. The word "allowed" is in the reference and the paragraph honours this. The paragraph summarises both quotes accurately and puts the dismissal of the headmaster in context. For you to claim that it's an order is your interpretation but to use the word allowed is just being true to the reference. You need to re-align your POV with the facts. Please discuss the paragraph instead of backing out of the conciliation process.Freelion (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The RS says: "If they answer back give them two slaps, that's allowed" - there is clear use of the imperative mood, this is grammatical fact. Thus this is clearly advice/recommendation (if not a command) followed by saying it is allowed. I've requested Will to give a 3rd party opinion. Given your concern with wrong interpretation, I suggest you leave the raw quotes until Will has had a chance to comment. --Simon D M (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a gramatical fact. An imperative is used to tell someone to do something without argument. But the quote says "If they answer back give them two slaps, that's allowed". You must look at the sentence in full - to say something is allowed means that you can do it if you want, but you don't have to. In other words there is room for discretion. You could paraphrase it as "If they answer back give them two slaps if you want to" or "If they answer back, you are allowed to give them two slaps". The other quote says “If the children are extremely difficult then the parents can sometimes slap them”, using the dual qualifications of “If the children are extremely difficult” and the word “sometimes” which underlines the fact that Shri Mataji is advocating the discretionary use of force by parents. The existing paragraph reflects the sense of both quotes and puts the dismissal into context. The existing paragraph is the product of some consensus. Don't back out of it now Simon, you were doing so well. Freelion (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You present no counter-evidence to the obvious fact that the imperative mood is used. I agree that this could be a command but the imperative mood has wider usage. I was giving Mataji the benefit of the doubt by using 'advise' or 'recommnd' which also allow for discretion and can be indicated by the imperative mood. Let's wait to see what Will says, I've put the raw quotes up as a neutral baseline from which we can proceed. I suggest you respect that rather than constantly revert to your preferred wording with edit summaries spuriously claiming consensus. --Simon D M (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your argument about imperative mood is truly vacuous in the light of my last post. You cannot find anything wrong with the existing paragraph despite throwing everything you have at it. So if you want to wait for Will's opinion you should leave the paragraph as it is. At least this paragraph represents some consensus unlike your post which is out of nowhere, not presented neutrally as you claim and only shows that you are backing out of the conciliation process. Freelion (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, be honest about the lack of consensus in your edit summaries and try reading what I have repeatedly written about the problem with your edits and there is no point endlessly repeating the same points. As a final compromise I have left only the disputed quote as a quotation and returned the 2nd quote to the previously agreed wording. WP:Quote#When to use quotations states that "Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors." I suggest you respect the compromise till Will comments, and respect the spirit of the policy on which it is based. --Simon D M (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As previously stated, Wikipedia is not just a collection of quotes. There are no controversial statements by editors in the existing paragraph. The only argument you had against the existing paragraph is one of "imperative mood" which as I have demonstrated, holds no water. You were the one who originally started on the paraphrasing of the quotes into one paragraph, I made a change, you made a change then I offered this most recent edition, now you want to depart from the process. If you would start addressing the actual paragraph we could work towards a compromise. Freelion (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you were unaware that the imperative mood has uses beyond that of commanding, and that you are unwilling to accept the fact that it does. I have made several attempts at compromise: (1) originally suggesting that 2 quotes be used (2) suggesting raw quotes as a starting point to avoid disruption pending 3rd party input (3) suggesting partial use of raw quotes. All you have done is revert, revert, revert. These actions speak louduer than words. --Simon D M (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

All I am doing is reverting your departures from the conciliation process. You keep forgetting that the existing paragraph is the result of some agreement from both of us. So why not use that as a base. If the imperative mood has uses beyond that of commanding, then it is irrelevant in this case. Because if the statement "If they answer back give them two slaps, that's allowed" cannot be proven to be a direct command, you have absolutely no argument. Please turn your attention to the following two quotes:

"If they answer back give them two slaps, that's allowed"
"If the children are extremely difficult then the parents can sometimes slap them"

As previously explained, the first quote could be paraphrased as "If they answer back, give them two slaps if you want to" or "If they answer back, you are allowed to give them two slaps". The words "allowed", "if the children are extremely difficult" and "sometimes" are all qualifications which show a consistent discretionary message. Therefore it would be reasonable to sum up both quotes with the following:
"Nirmala Srivastava has advised parents practicing Sahaja Yoga that they are allowed to sometimes slap extremely difficult children for misbehaving".
Please keep your discussion to this disputed sentence and not continue to back out of the conciliation process. Freelion (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's get back to basics. It looks like advice/command to me (especially considering the context of a self-proclaimed goddess addressing her devotees) and you say that is just allowance. We should let the quote stand so the readers can decide for themselves, or at least not have one POV pushed on them. --Simon D M (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That self proclaimed goddess stuff is just inflamatory. Please address the following points. 1. We can do better than just repeating quotes. 2. We can represent the consistency of the message in both quotes by paraphrasing. 3. Each quote contains at least one qualification and cannot be misconstrued as a command. Freelion (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The 'self procliamed goddess stuff' is documented fact. The facts of the context necessarily affect interpretation. Regarding your points: 1. Yes we can, but until we do so it is better to have the raw quote. 2. The supposed consistency is just your original research and I can provide many examples of clear inconsistency. 3. You are setting up a straw man, the issue is over advice/recommendation/command not just command. --Simon D M (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this topic is drawing towards a compromise - see Protected topic below. Freelion (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Yoann case

the Yoann case mentioned in the article is also covered here: AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION D'ENQUÊTE (1) SUR LES SECTES.

See also: Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France#Commission of 1995

--Simon D M (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mataji refers to this case in Meta Modern Era pp 164-165:

"Some frightened French Sahaja Yogis wanted to save their children from the immoral society of France and they send very few to our school of Sahaja Yoga, where children from all over the world come. But the Catholic Church had a blind folded organisation called ADFi [sic] who gave two [sic] much trouble for one boy that the school has no French children. They were afraid these children might become moral and maybe absolutely misfit in the Catholic traditions."

Protection?

The article has been under full protection since 18 April. I see that there may be some progress on the Talk page about how to phrase the section about discipline in the school. When the editors on Talk feel they have reached a consensus, it would be reasonable to lift the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no further argument on the above topic. Freelion (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected again

Due to edit warring I've protected the page again. I haven't followed the arguments closely, but it appears to be oscillating between two versions. I suggest trying to find a third version that would address the issues of each side. On Wikipedia we call it "writing for the enemy" and it's a powerful tool for achieving neutrality and consensus. I suggest that each of you propose a draft that you think would express the viewpoint you disagree with in a neutral way. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The sticking point is that in Coney's book, Mataji is quoted as follows: "If they answer back give them two slaps, that's allowed". Freelion cannot accept any suggestion in the article that this constitutes a recommendation or advice, only that it constitutes allowance. He also wants to qualify this as only for 'extremely difficult children' based on another quote from another source. I've suggested using the raw quote so that readers can decide for themselves. Writing for the enemy in the sense of including various interpretations of one short quote would be clumsy. --Simon D M (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Freelion - anything to add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We are writing about discipline for children as suggested by Nirmala Devi. Instead of just paraphrasing one quote or another quote, we can faithfully represent the consistent message expounded by both quotes. As explained above, both quotes do contain at least one qualification and both quotes complement each other. So it is reasonable to combine them to express the consistent message. Freelion (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The supposed consistency and complementarity is just your original research and is unverifiable. On the other hand, I can provide many examples of clear inconsistency. I don't see 'answering back' as being 'extremely difficult' and I don't see how we can verify that Mataji does. I offer the following alternative option:

Regarding disciplining Sahaja Yoga children, Nirmala Srivastava once said, "If they answer back give them two slaps, that's allowed" and that "other people ... have every right to smack if a child misbehaves." On another occasion where she allowed for the occasional slapping of 'extremely difficult' children by parents, she forbade teachers from slapping children or punishing "in such a way that the child gets hurt."

This version reduces the quotations still further while remaining very close to them, and minimises interpretation.--Simon D M (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The consistency is plain to see, there is no need for any interpretation. The only sticking point was your red herring of imperative mood. Regarding answering back and being extremely difficult, the two go hand in hand - ask your mum. The "self proclaimed goddess stuff" is just a tilted comment and may be argued separately. It has nothing to do with interpreting two straightforward quotes. Despite the above, I am glad to see that you are finally working towards a compromise. I request that you respect my previous arguments and put the sentence about the temporary dismissal and the one about the Indian government after the new wording so they remain in the context of teachers not using physical punishment, as follows:

Regarding disciplining Sahaja Yoga children, Nirmala Srivastava once said, "If they answer back give them two slaps, that's allowed" and that "other people ... have every right to smack if a child misbehaves." On another occasion she encouraged parents and teachers to respect children and wrote that parents are allowed to occasionally slap 'extremely difficult' children, but forbade teachers from slapping children or punishing "in such a way that the child gets hurt." Coney reports that there have been 'instances of children having been beaten' leading to the temporary dismissal of the Headmaster. The Supreme Court of India banned corporal punishment in schools in 2000.

I've slightly expanded the second quote to include the "children should be respected" part. It's not all about slapping. Freelion (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

References