Talk:International School of Temple Arts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status update[edit]

The current page has altered text and additional citations from the one moved to draft in May 2018. The restoration of the page, with improvements, has been discussed with User:Anthony Appleyard (the Admin who moved the page to draft in May 2018) on his Talk page (User talk:Anthony Appleyard#International School of Temple Arts), and it appears that he has acquiesced to the restoration.--Ben Best:Talk 12:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it simply describes the history and character of the organization, even including references (with citations) indicating that some persons or organizations have opposed the school, and the reasons for their opposition. If this were a promotional page there would be laudatory comments, but instead the comments are neutral and objectively descriptive. --Ben Best:Talk 19:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose @Quek157: What exactly do you find worthy of {{Db-spam}}? I have reexamined the article. Of the six sentences, this is what I see:

  • Sentence one is a statement from a source unconnected with International School of Temple Arts (ISTA). It's a pretty general description about the purpose of the organization.
  • Sentence three is a statement indicating who founded the school. It is sourced from ISTA & Babadez sites, but I do not understand why this statement would be promotional.
  • Sentence four is a statement from the Brigitte the largest women's magazine in Germany & a source unconnected with ISTA.
  • Sentence five is a statement about how ISTA practices can "cause controversy and opposition" from a source unconnected with ISTA. This cannot possibly be construed as promotional.
  • Sentence six is a statement about how ISTA trainings are not welcomed by many of those who are uncomfortable with counterculture and New Age practices" & includes a source unconnected with ISTA. This cannot possibly be construed as promotional either.
This leaves sentence two, which is only sourced from ISTA itself. Is this what you object to as promotional? If so, then this can be removed from the article, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
There are problems with this article, but being promotional is not one of them. I therefore ask that you withdraw you request for speedy deletion on that basis, unless you can justify it.
Peaceray (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
dear, I nominated the mainspace page for speedy and deleted by admin now I proposed to be move to draft, and we are very reluctant in our language to keep this in mainspace. I don't intent to do anything with this, and will let other decide. as long this stay promotional, we will still be able to mark as deletion through speedy or mfd now. I washing my hands off this . and to educate you, it's I propose a g11 and admin must agree which Anthony did and still did now, hence this is here upon my request or else it will not be unrelated. sigh can you read talkpage of the admin or not, so many years user already. end, and the db11 is mistakenly left there after restoration of page, happy to remove Quek157 (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Quek157: I outlined sentence-by-sentence why I do not think the article is promotional & asked you to respond to those items, but you have not. I am still unclear after that about why you feel this is promotional. I think you are implying that since you put a speedy delete request on it & an administrator deleted it, that this justifies that it was promotional. I disagree with that & the admin would need to speak to that. Many admins are busy & may only give an article a cursory glance & not check the sources. I also have been communicating on the admin's talk page. The admin must have seen some merit to my request as the admin restored the page, albeit in the draft namespace upon your request.
Since it appears are withdrawing your speedy deletion request, after a day or two, I will ask to move this back to the main namespace, as it is pretty obvious to me that it is not promotional.
Peaceray (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
submit the draft as I can't move this per policy or else I will be banned. do you want me to help you do it? Quek157 (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Policy at Wikipedia:Drafts#Publishing a draft says "Publishing a draft requires an editor to use the page move function to move it in the Main (article) namespace." & "An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft." Is there another policy to which you are referring? Since I have been editing for a while, I have long had the ability to move pages. However, first I would like to see something like {{subst:Afd top|keep}} placed after giving a day or two for additional discussion. Peaceray (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do this, if I did this my afch rights will be taken off as I personally think it is under quick fail under afch advertising. and if I move a draft to mainspace and then afd it, it is clearly unacceptable. you may if you wish not me. If I am without this right I can do it and all autoconfirmed user can. But not with this right. I will not participate anymore deletion discussions. Quek157 (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peaceray clearly both Quek157 and Anthony Appleyard believed it failed the guidelines and you have not changed it so unless your arguments have persuaded Quek157 they cannot in good faith move it to main-space. You can either move it and then it may get a speedy tag again, or more likely an AfD. You could ask Quek157 to not speedy it but to AfD if you did move it which they may or may not agree to, but someone else may speedy it. The other alternative is you submit for AfC review by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article does not appear promotional to me. Rathfelder (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article's name[edit]

  • Given a name "International School of Temple Arts", I would have expected the article, or the organization which it describes, to be generally about the art found in Indian temples, not only about sexual matters. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sexual rituals & sacred sexuality have been associated with temples in various cultures for millennia. Peaceray (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repubished[edit]

I have revised the content and added citations to this article, which I have just republished as International School of Temple Arts. I don't know what the Wikipedian bureaucratic politics of doing this would be but I have done my best to publish this valuable article with thousands of world-wide participants. All that remains is for you to beat me up about my action, and for you to delete this valuable article again. --Ben Best:Talk 13:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ynetnews article[edit]

The author mentions ISTA a couple of times in this article, but it may not be enough for inclusion in this article.

  • Mandelevich, Michal (2022-06-18). "How small town of Pardes Hanna-Karkur became Israel's alternative sex capital". ynetnews. Retrieved 2022-06-20.

Peaceray (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cursory mention[edit]

There is a passing reference to ISTA in this article about a contestant in sl:Sanjski moški [Dream Man], the Slovenian version of The Bachelor (American TV series). The woman has been to an ISTA training. Not relevant for inclusion in the article unless, perphaps, the contestant went on to win this competition. I place it here because news sources about ISTA are scarce, & to let folks know we can ignore this one.

Peaceray (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page vandalism?[edit]

I have made several relevant, factual updates to this page that have been undone. I have also moved pieces to the proper category, only to have those changes undone. For example: allegations of a high pressure environment are repeatedly being added to the top of the page rather than the Controversy section. When I move them to controversy my edits are undone. I also noted that the organization itself posted a response to some issues in the Controversy section and added that reply, which is clearly relevant to the topic. That piece was immediately removed.

Users @141.226.170.39 and @SocialTechUser appear to be aggressively shaping the page outside the bounds of an unbiased viewpoint including vandalizing the edits of others on an almost daily basis, posting content with poor readability, and citations that are often unrelated or do not support the text. Can either of you explain why unbiased, cited information is being repeatedly removed or altered while you insert terms including "satanism" and "cult" into this page? Editforthecredit (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not characterize as vandalism, but I believe there has been some disruptive editing, including the the most recent edits of 31.210.181.158 that removed cited material, added material to the lead that better belongs in the Controversy section instead of the lead section that is intended to be a summary of the article (please see MOS:LEAD), & the posting of an archive.org link that fails to produce a viewable page, at least on my PC using Firefox & Edge browsers. Peaceray (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that if there's such a big controversy section that it would have to be included in the lead - summarizing recent developments in the organizations life. I suspect User @Editforthecredit has some special interest in this organization since he repeatedly tries to dispose of criticism. The inclusion of criticism in the lead is relevant and was an accepted change for quite a while before this user tried to revert it as well as edit the criticism section in order to include favorable information. 31.210.181.158 (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Detail, including citations, should go into the Controversy section & the lead should be used for summarizing. Also, please do not remove cited material by other editors without an explanation. Indeed, please leave an edit summary for all your edits. Merely reverting without explanation is an indicator of edit warring. Peaceray (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Editforthecredit Why do say I have anything to do with using the terms Satanism or a cult in this case?
I would expect a follow editor to make the minimal effort of reading the names of other editors and see would they actually wrote.
Are you related to ISTA? SocialTechWorker (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alleging Satanism is placing a contentious label & you editors have included no citations to verify this claim. Alleging "cult" is also a contentious label, & as the citation that contains the word appears to be the opinion of one author, use of this term is undue in the lead. Language acknowledging that an author has wondered or alleged that it is a cult is appropriate in the body, in the Controversy section in this case.
To put contentious labels in the lead that lack citations or that are undue are indicators of potential BIAS. Please provide citations for all attestations.
Are you in accord with WP:AGF in your question to Editforthecredit, Are you related to ISTA? Peaceray (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceray I didn't use the term satanism or a cult! This is outrageous. SocialTechWorker (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I misinterpreted your statement Why do say I have anything to do with using the terms Satanism or a cult in this case? I have struck "you" & added editors. I am sorry if I misread & misspoke. It was the early morning & before caffiene when I responded, but that is no excuse. Peaceray (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceray No worries. Thank you for this comment. SocialTechWorker (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceray And I am in accord with the wp:agf policy. I think my question was relevant. SocialTechWorker (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editforthecredit does not appear to be a single-purpose editor at the least. As of now, of the 32 edits this editor has made to date, 11 edits are to the article page & 3 edits are to this talk page. Note that these numbers may increase, so these were accurate as of this writing.
To me, this indicates that Editforthecredit has other interests. Peaceray (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not related to ISTA. I do have knowledge of and interest in this field in general and noticed some misinformation on the page so engaged further. There is no denying that there is controversy around the organization however we should follow Wikipedia rules on all pages which includes placing content in proper sections and not including personal opinions or deliberately misleading comments in our edits. As you can see I have not removed any controversial pieces and have actually added links where appropriate to that area. Editforthecredit (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations with an appearance of bias from an Israeli anti-cult site[edit]

An Israeli IP, 188.120.129.251, posted a number of allegations from an Israeli anti-cult site, www.infokatot.com. Since this source is essentially infokatot's word against ISTA, we cannot rule out bias on infokatot's behalf.

ISTA has denied this:

Note that at I am linking to the Facebook post because at this time that I write this, www.ista.life appears to be down.

I suspect a DDOS attack against Ista.life but have been unable to confirm.

Since the claims are clearly contentious & are only listed from an obviously anti-ISTA source, I will revert the edits as information coming from a WP:QUESTIONABLE source: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

While infkatot.com may not fit all those criteria, I think that the following do apply:

  • no editorial oversight
  • relies heavily on rumors and personal opinions
  • contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions

I ask 188.120.129.251 to provide citations from reputable, non-biased sources that themselves do not cite infokatot.com unless they have independent confirmation as per our Wikipedia:Reliable sources content guideline. I added a notice on that editor's talk page directing here. Peaceray (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a biased edit. The cult's response did not actually deny any of these practices. 188.120.129.251 (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
THEIR CLAIM: In a typical “Level 1” activity, participants gaze at the bare genitals of several female participants.
OUR RESPONSE: The Level 1 program, indeed, may include an activity where participants gaze at each other bodies, regardless of gender, without touch.
Nudity - check.
THEIR CLAIM: In another typical “Level 1” activity, group masturbation takes place, including staff.
OUR RESPONSE: This is a distorted and sensationalist statement.... In this practice, like in all others at ISTA, each participant is absolutely at choice as to the level of nudity they want to have. While there aren’t specific instructions to touch one’s own genitals, this is not forbidden or prohibited. While a space where consenting adults engage in giving loving touch to themselves may seem offensive to some, it is probably the least dangerous group context one can imagine.
Masturbation - check.
THEIR CLAIM: At the peak of the “Level 1” workshop, there is a ceremony where male participants massage the female participants’ genitals. The ceremony takes part in pairs with a random selection, using a raffle.
OUR RESPONSE: This is a gross misrepresentation of a very intimate and consensual ceremony. Level 1 does include activities where participants are paired up, not by a “raffle”, but by a respectful, heartfelt guided randomized process.
Randomized process - check.
THEIR CLAIM: Regarding the follow-up workshop, called “Level 2”, reports were obtained describing ritualistic animal slaughter ceremonies, ceremonies that involve sexuality and death, insertion of carrots into participants’ anuses, and more.
OUR RESPONSE: As for “ceremonies involving sexuality and death” — the only truth here is that Level 2 does explore the theme of death from a spiritual and shamanic perspective. And surely, Level 2 just like Level 1 is a sex-positive container, so participants are free to engage sexually in a container that explores the themes of death and rebirth, while at the same time being at the level of nudity that they prefer. If this is disturbing for the Center, this is understandable. Yet many intelligent and sovereign adults are longing for spaces where their spirituality and sexuality are not shamed, repressed, or belittled.
No denial of any practices.
I suspect bias by the editor. 188.120.129.251 (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for an independent third-party source as part of WP:RS. No denial of any practices is hardly the same as admitting that the practices take place. I think that there is a huge discrepancy between painting activities as required of all participants & ISTA's statement of each participant is absolutely at choice as to the level of nudity they want to have. While there aren’t specific instructions to touch one’s own genitals, this is not forbidden or prohibited. Instead, 188.120.129.251 simply writes Masturbation - check. I could go on, but my impression is that 188.120.129.251 is engaged in substantial cherry picking here in disregarding large swaths of ISTA's response to conclude that they do not disagree with infokatot.com. I, however, conclude that ISTA generally disagrees.
While relying on an anti-cult website's allegations to attack an organization as a cult might be fodder for social media, it is not good enough for Wikipedia. At most, one could write that "infokatot alleges", but 188.120.129.251 presents the allegation as facts.
There is also a larger issue, which is that infokatot's allegations seem to relate just to Israel, whereas the International School of Temple Arts is international. Even if these practices are occurring in Israel, 188.120.129.251 fails to state that & applies the allegations to ISTA as a whole.
188.120.129.251, the solution is simple. Find an independent third-party source, preferably one that has attempted to talk to both ISTA & its accusers, & a source that presents sources that collaborates claims. If you cannot produce neutral reliable sources, then I would suggest that you edit elsewhere (see WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK) or other topics (see WP:Single-purpose account). For an explanatory essay concerning independent sources, please see WP:Independent sources. Peaceray (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, seems too easy to just ignore this sentence:
"While a space where consenting adults engage in giving loving touch to themselves..."
Does that mean they deny masturbation? 188.120.128.23 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that response by 188.120.128.23 seems to ignore a few things:
  1. ISTA has stated that the participants are at choice. While there aren’t specific instructions to touch one’s own genitals, this is not forbidden or prohibited. The added allegations imply that masturbation is required of all participants. ISTA states it is not.
  2. The interpretation of ISTA's objections to infokatot.com's allegations as confirmation of those allegations is original research, which is disallowed in English Wikipedia.
  3. Most importantly, 188.120.128.23 ignores that presentation of the allegations as fact requires a reliable source. As per the reliable sources content guideline, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). infokatot.com cannot be considered neutral nor can it be credited as a reliable, published source. One cannot present that website's allegations as fact. Again, please see the WP:Independent sources explanatory essay.
I will note that 188.120.129.251 geolocates & 188.120.128.23 geolocates to the same coordinates in Tel Aviv. I invite other editors with a more diverse worldview unlimited to what may have happened in Israel to also weigh in on this matter. Peaceray (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they want to masturbate there, or even if they have to masturbate there, or if they get carrots inserted in their anus: it's a free country. You might not like what they do, but they are free to do it. So, I understand that Christian preachers and Jewish rabbis have an axe to grind against that, but it's not illegal. Otherwise, trafficking in human beings is a crime, but that has to be rendered in WP:RS in order to state it here. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of much deleted content[edit]

On October October 21, 2023 deletion of most of the content of this page happened without ANY discussion in the talk page to justify that deletion. Admittedly, the "Controversy" section, and allusions to the controversies had led to edit wars and considerable debate on the talk page. But aside from the Controversy section, the October 2023 deletion included material about ISTA from reliable sources cited. I am restoring most of that material, without restoring the Controversies section.

PLEASE DO NOT MAKE FURTHER MAJOR DELETIONS WITHOUT DISCUSSING YOU JUSTIFICATIONS ON THE TALK PAGE.

--Ben Best:Talk 22:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what was removed was crap and borderline WP:PUFFERY. The WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include disputed content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are emotive POV statements "crap" "puffery" with no substantive content. NO REVERT WARS PLEASE. Let's be civilized and discuss before editing. Don't put your arguments in your deletes. DISCUSS -- this is why TALK pages exist for WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES. ---Ben Best:Talk 21:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A publication by ISTA facilitators is the most reliable source about the contents of ISTA. A entry on relativity or Einstein would reasonably include references to the published works of Einstein. --Ben Best:Talk 21:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How the fuck is part of a global transformational movement where human consciousness is being opened to its source as love and harmoniously integrating with other sentient kingdoms and dimensions an appropriate opening summary of what this organisation is? You obviously don't understand basically any Wikipedia policy despite your long tenure on this website, as your talkpage archive shows numerous unheeded warnings. The WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include disputed content. Please see WP:PRIMARY: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_School_of_Temple_Arts&oldid=1216586186"