Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Note to anonymous editors

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: The authot of an external link does not need to be an expert. -Will Beback 05:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I am not aware of any original research intha article. Can you point to it? -Will Beback 05:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: The Religious Movements Homepage Project

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, how can there be official yoga sites? The "offficial" websites belong to SYI, right? -Will Beback 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you actually know what you are talking about? Sfacets 23:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  ...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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External links: practice versus organization

message: 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)
replies: text: WP:NPA. Please don't call your fellow editors names. -Will Beback 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: To whom was the comment directed? -Will Beback 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: How many of those are "on the Wikipedia board"? Whatever, please act in a civil manner. -Will Beback 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sahaja Yoga International

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unsourced content and invalid sources

message: In this edit I removed what seemed like a total misrepresentation of the cited source (Coney p. 214); but on further examination the second cited source (Coney p. 184) did indeed say that ex-members could find some nice things to say about the movement. I have accordingly restored this text in a new "Apostasy" section and expanded per Coney – the idea that these "positive" comments were the only reaction of ex-members was cherry-picking to the point of misrepresentation. Separately, I have made the citation markup more consistent throughout the article to make it easy to see what sources are supporting which text. Alexbrn (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experience of apostates 

message: According to the Dutch Wikipedia, the Belgian court case (which we currently report as being found in favour of the Sahaja Yoga Belgium), was overturned on appeal and, in a final ruling, found instead for the State. Does anybody have the language skills to verify? It's important we get this right. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult case in Belgium 

message: Please Change: "Sahaja Yoga has sometimes been characterized as a cult" to "Sahaja Yoga has sometimes been confused as a cult"
Please remove all comments related to "Judith Coney", she seems to be obsessed to disapprove Sahaja yoga and thus preparing various EVIDENCES. The article is supposed to be neutral and people must be free to judge by practicing it rather then judging by words of some person who is making evidences on basis of her personal beliefs. Millions of people are accepting Sahaja Yoga as way of life after following it as a practice and it has some disciplined ways which are only understood once we practice it. No one is forced in any way to accept and stay, people enter end exit as their will. Deepika Sahal (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Hi there — I am 100% in agreement with Deepika Sahal (noting that this was closed a few months ago, but I'd like to "reopen" it). This article reads like a WP version of a summary of Coney's book. Judging by the talk history it seems like it may have used to read like a "propaganda poster" for Sahaja Yoga, but just because an article appears biased in one direction to some viewers should NOT mean that we have to fix this by biasing it in the opposite direction! Nor does a neutral approach mean a generally skeptical and negative approach to something like this. Why can't we have an article that neutrally explains the facts about Sahaja Yoga instead of trying to impress one POV on the reader? Just to make sure, the reason you want to use Judith Coney's book so extensively throughout is because (i) there aren't really any other "academically reputable" sources on Sahaja Yoga and (ii) everything else is either from Shri Mataji's speeches Herself or from practicers of Sahaja Yoga whose books are academically unverified/not allowed to have credit because they may be biased? If this is so, would an academically verified book published on SY but written by a practicioner of SY count as a reputable source for this page? Also, on the subject of biases, is it necessary to have the description of SY as a cult (which is completely unfair and baseless as Deepika Sahal outlined above) so prominent throughout the page?? On Nirmala Srivastava, the first sentence literally classifies Sahaja Yoga as a cult — I feel like this is very unnecessary, especially given that the argument that "WP is being factual and totally unbiased" is just wrong: the word cult IS pejorative and negative however it is used, and in this case it is very much untrue — compare the description of a cult with SY. If you don't agree with my individual assessment I can provide further explanation to back this up. Thanks in advance. Vibrations1008 (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge on topics as published in good sources. Such sources are typically independent, secondary and reputably-published. Scholarly sources are particularly prized. This article does not "literally classify Sahaja Yoga as a cult", and neither does Nirmala Srivastava. However, SY has notably sometimes been classified by reputable authorities as a cult, and neutrality requires us to mention that. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021 

message: since when wikipedia started publishing thoughts of an individual in it's articles. in all of the article only thing can be read is Judith Coney said this, remarked this, found this. looks like a biased ideology have been published about Sahaja Yoga by wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.196.36 (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  remark on judith coney