Talk:Yogi Bhajan

message: I am removing the legal issues sections – both of them – for the simple reason that in the big scope of things, they do not merit mention in an article about a man of the caliber of Yogi Bhajan, a religious figure considered by the United States Congress to be in the same elevated category as just three other individuals, Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II, and Martin Luther King, Jr.   Anyone who seriously looks at the remarkable contributions Yogi Bhajan has made, as sketched out in the article, in areas from the healing arts to interfaith dialogue to standing firm against terrorism, will come away impressed, if not amazed at his consistent humanity and passion for peace and the good of all.
Rick Ross aka “Sharkbait” has inserted these hackneyed and libellous sections (poorly written, with word for word redundency) about unsuccessful litigations for one reason alone: to slander a great American who does not fit into his Judeo-Christian model of what a good man should be and do, and incidentally to attempt to enlarge his case file as a deprogrammer.  If it is a reputable Jewish connection you are after, I can tell you that Yogi Bhajan was a good acquaintance of the former Head Chaplain of the U.S. Armed Forces.  He also shared Shabbat with Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach.  
As I indicated in previous editions of these sections you inserted into the article, at least one of these legal cases of the 1980s was funded by third parties with an interest in defaming Yogi Bhajan.  Moreover, one of the plaintiffs, Premka returned to New Mexico in 2000 and was employed for a time by a 3HO company as she sought to reconcile herself with Yogi Bhajan.  I might add that the notable students (see the Notable Students section of the article) of Yogi Bhajan – people of staunch morale fibre, superior intelligence and high ideals, would certainly have denounced their teacher or simply abandoned him had they believed there was any substance to the allegations made against him.
In summation, you are on the wrong case and you've got the wrong man, Mr. Ross.  (If you want to write about cases of wrongful confinement and rape, you can supplement your wiki bio with details about your work as a “deprogrammer,” kidnapping and subjecting your unwilling guests to your brainwashing techniques.)  None of the three cases you mention was successful and dragging them up clearly serves no purpose but your own.  In the big picture, it should not surprise us if Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II and Martin Luther King, Jr. also dealt with vexatious and petty litigations.  But since these were neither memorable nor significant, why should they be included in a wiki article about their amazing lives and tremendous contributions?  Of course, they should not and consequently, they are not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment..There is no value to excessive legal jargon,the average reader can not understand it and it is currently masking the article unreadable, also there are an excessive amount of primary citations, we need reliable secondary citations, not the original court doc or legal document but independent reports of what happened. Also Rick ross is not a reliable citation. There are excessive overly long quoted or copied sections of text in obituaries and the kundalini yoga section, this content should be summaries and shortened, also there is excessive content in the footnotes, the complete retraction request for example and some of the other stuff, if it has any real value add it to the article if now then it is of little value to the reader and simply serves to elongate the article necessarily. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is getting to be utter codswallop, User:Guru Sant Singh and his socks keep adding the same gibberish, which is one person's opinion, none of which has been shown to be relevant to this article except in passing. —SpacemanSpiff 02:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of litigation sections 

message: This was cited to rick ross, the rick ross cite is not reliable, it is quite excessive commentary are there some reliable weblinks to support it, has it/was it widely reported? Was he found guilty of anything at all? Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  content discussion 

message: I am amazed at how much of the material shows only one point of view of Yogi Bhajan, that of 3HO. The lawsuits were totally expunged. The lack of inclusion of any other account of history of Mr. Harbhajan Singh Khalsa, but that of Mr. Fatah Singh is audacious in its presumptuousness. The total lack of respect for any other accounts is amazing. We cannot even verify if the college that Bhajan received his Ph.D. degree in "humanology" had any credibility. It is as if the history of the man was written by a dozen Winston Smiths. I suggest Wikipedia use some of its endowment to hire a credible researcher, because if this account is closed without any of the accounts of him abusing students, and breaking many laws as evidenced by his cash settlements, we will end up with a monster of a man presented as a saint for all of history. Truth does not always win out in history. Many times it is only known by those with private archives while the lies are repeated by school children. Those who want to present a false story always seem to have more passion, time and resources than those who see a more real version of events. You cannot be polite when you see a liar. It isn't nice to call someone a liar, but the fault lies not with the one who points out the miscreant, but with the liar himself. The psychopath will always have standards of politeness on his side. Sharkbait061 (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: In the footnotes there's an extensive quotation, starting:
*Time Will Tell: September 5, 1977 Mr. Henry Anatole Grunwald Managing Editor Time Magazine Time Life Building Rockefeller Center New York, N.Y. 10020 DEMAND FOR RETRACTION Your article in the September 5, 1977, issue of TIME entitled “Yogi Bhajan's Synthetic Sikhism” was a scandalous attempt to besmear the reputation of one of the world's major religious leaders. A copy of said article is enclosed as Exhibit One....
It isn't clear where this was published. I can't find it in the Time archive. If it was never published then we shouldn't use it as a source, per WP:V.   Will Beback  talk   00:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The source - a 3HO Foundation publication - was given in the body of the article.  It is now also given in the endnote.Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that fix, but it's still unusual. Aren't 3HO publications copyrighted? If so, posting such a long excerpt may be considered a copyright violation. Is it really necessary to include all of that text if interested readers can just go to the original source? We don't even explain what Time magazine said that is being rebutted.   Will Beback  talk   20:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Retraction request

message: I think the request makes a mockery of fair use provisions for copyrighted works. Also we never see the author's opinion more fully expressed, so I cannot really get the flavor of what was said.
It is as if one was making objection to only the article's title without anymore context than that. It is not very sporting to do so and thus shows the intent to hide historical fact. As to the disappeared article from the Time Magazine archive, there are plenty of libraries with past issues of Time archived. Additionally I really don't want to take only Mr. Bebeck's word that Time does not have the article. I think this needs more verification. Sharkbait061 (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall saying that, and if I did I was wrong. The article is right there on the Time website. I agree with the concern about quoting the entire rebuttal. Wikipedia is not intended to be a repository of source material.   Will Beback  talk   00:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see what you meant. However I was referring to the rebuttal or the request for retraction, not the original article.   Will Beback  talk   00:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Retraction Request

message: I support the inclusion of this lawsuits in this article. The lawsuits are very telling about Yogi Bhajan's real character. The recent article in the Eugene Register Guard "Yogi's Legacy in Question" exposes this hidden agenda of YB. No matter what 3HO does the truth will come out and expose their veiled attempts to highjack Sikhism to further the Bhajan Puri cult. signed Gursant Singh  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.51.53.206 (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the version re-inserted by Rick Ross aka Sharkbait with editorial comments:
There were three prominent law suits against Yogi Bhajan. ALL 3 UNSUCCESSFUL, ONE MINOR The lawsuit with the most emotional impact for the Yogi Bhajan community was the Kate Felt lawsuit. SAYS WHO? This lawsuit alleged that Mr. Harbhajan aka Yogi Bhajan had raped and forcefully sodomized Ms. Karta Purk Kaur aka Kate Felt. Further the complaint alleged that Mr. Harbhajan had ripped a mole off of Ms. Felt's backside. There were also allegations of false arrest and false imprisonment of Ms. Felt. The plaintif was represented by Messers Peter N. Gorciades, Esq. from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Gordon Reiselt Esq of Singer Smith and Williams from Albuquerque, New Mexico. NEEDLESS PRURIENT AND OTHER DETAILS FOR AN ARTICLE OF THIS TYPE  A second lawsuit had been initiated by Premka Kaur for rape, and assault and battery. An affadavit MISSPELL by Manmohan Singh will attest to the fact that Harbhajan Singh and Pritam Singh had met to discuss a settlement for both lawsuits. MORE NEEDLESS DETAIL Harbhajan Singh had expressed the sentiment that the lawsuits would be damaging to the Sikh religion in public opinion. OF COURSE.  THE TACTIC IS TO DESTROY A PERSON'S REPUTATION JUST BY GETTING THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INTERNATIONAL MEDIA. THE LEGAL OUTCOME HARDLY MATTERS. The third lawsuit was a complaint over defamation among many other wrongs. The plaintiff was Mark Baker, and he had left Akal Security in order to become a law enforcement officer with the state of New Mexico. It seems that Yogi Bhajan or Harbhajan Singh had made allegations that Mr. Baker was a danger to the goup MISSPELL leader's life. Harbhajan's complaint was made to the state of New Mexico which resulted in Mr. Baker being dismissed from the police training program. In the end Harbhajan's insurance company made a settlement check to Mr. Baker for the sum of $250,000 in order to have the lawsuit dismissed.  A LOT OF PRINT IN A WIKI ARTICLE FOR A MINOR LAWSUIT Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

text: There is a better standard still.  A person is known by their legacy.  It is too early to tell what Yogi Bhajan's legacy will be.  Let's give it 500 years and see if he is remember for Ms. Felt's mole or for his contributions to peace, goodwill and the healing arts.  As for defending himself, Yogiji set a standard.  He said a saint never defends themself.  Slanderers abuse.  Saints endure.  Let's leave this discussion.  I am sure you think you are doing a righteous and honorable thing.Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuits Restored

message: Most influential of Harbhajan Singh's relations in his early development was his paternal grandfather, Bhai Fateh Singh. Fateh Singh taught him the essence of Sikh teachings and instilled in him a respect for all religions. As a teen, Harbhajan Singh spent several years under the strict tutelage of Sant Hazara Singh who declared his student a Master of Kundalini Yoga at the young age of sixteen.[6]
''
The only source for this information is provided by a book, The Man Called the Siri Singh Sahib, written by two 3HO insiders. I cannot call this a third party point of view. Can the authors provide a direct reference from Sant Hazara Singh's writings or memoirs. Has Mr. Sant Hazara Singh  ever been quoted by any other author or news source? 
Harbhajan Singh's schooling was interrupted in 1947 by the violent partition of India, when he and his family fled to New Delhi as refugees. There, Harbhajan Singh attended Camp College – a hastily put together arrangement for thousands of refugee students – and led the Sikh Students Federation in Delhi.[7] Four years later, he graduated with a Masters Degree in Economics.[8]
Again is a quote from the same authorized biography written by two of his followers. Is the sole source for the claim? Can the book quote those who were in the Sikh Students Federation? Is there any such group with that name? If the group exists do they have archives of this Harbhajan Singh leading them?
Harbhajan Singh years later graduated from the University of Humanistic Studies in San Francisco with a Ph.D. in Psychology with his seminal doctoral thesis, Communication: Liberation or Condemnation.[9]
How do we know HS attended the University of Humanistic Studies? How do we know it is not a diploma mill? I had read his thesis, and I cannot find any experiments done by him. No surveys of humans. No longitudinal or latitudinal studies involving statistics or factor analysis. There is nothing involving any sort of psychometrics. I think this section should be mostly deleted except for him earning some dubious degree. I do believe he earned a degree in economics but I would like to know for sure. There is only the book written by two Yogi Bhajan Sikhs that claims this. Sharkbait061 (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education Section Disputed 

message: Throughout his life, Harbhajan Singh continued his practice and pursuit of yogic knowledge.[7]  His government duties often facilitated his traveling to remote ashrams and distant hermitages in order to seek out reclusive yogis and swamis.
Again the same incestuous source is mentioned, "The Man Called Siri Singh Sahib". There is no mention of any third party source with the names of yogis and swamis recalling their encounters with Yogi Bhajan. It is self claimed claim by all appearances.
In the mid-1960s, Harbhajan Singh took up a position as instructor at the Vishwayatan Ashram in New Delhi, under Dhirendra Brahmachari. This yoga centre was frequented by the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, his daughter, Indira Gandhi, and diplomats and employees from a host of foreign embassies.[8]
And yet another claim made by a follower of Harbhajan without any other source. Can we directly quote PM Nehro? Has Indira Ghandi mentioned Harbhajan in her memoirs? Can we get source material directly from diplomats and employees? Why can't the bibliography of TMCSSS be published instead of TMCSS always tirelessly being used as the main source? I would say this material needs deletion unless other neutral source material can be found. Sharkbait061 (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Yogic study in India 

message: The sources by Shanti Kaur and Guru Fatha are not neutral sources as they express a point of view as followers of Harbhajan. Are there others outside 3HO who can give a more unbiased view?  Sharkbait061 (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Rick Ross the cult deprogrammer aka "Sharkbait" is hardly a neutral authority either.  At least, as Yogi Bhajan's biographer I have the original source material, and as a member of the University of Toronto's multifaith Campus Chaplain's Association, there is a reasonable chance I can offer a dispassionate point of view.Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan 

message: I made efforts to include what was actually said in the Time Magazine article by complying with fair use provisions of copy righted works and by paraphrasing what was said in the Time Magazine article. I felt that the reader needed to know what was said in the Time article that prompted the rebuttal by Mr. Tohra and the Retraction Request Letter from Mr. Terath S. Khalsa, retained lawyer for 3HO. Sharkbait061 (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Media Coverage Section

message: I felt that more needed to be said on the education of 3HO children. Sharkbait061 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miri Piri Academy 

message: I gave opposition voices a fair hearing on the External Links section. The earlier external links mostly fed into 3HO and its affiliated web sites. Sharkbait061 (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links Restored 

message: Why has so much of the discussion been deleted? Just want a reasoned answer. Sharkbait061 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussions weren't deleted, they were archived.  It's standard practice on Wikipedia talk pages to periodically archive old threads.  The archive is still accessible by clicking the link in the box at the top.TheRingess (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion Section Redacted 

message: I an effort to "de-peacock" the wording in the article, I removed "Charismatic" and "Successful" from the opening lines. They should be proven/given example of in later sections if relevant. While this may be both true, it should be backed by examples. Also, I though the line:
:"Although a promised position as director of a new yogic studies department at the University of Toronto did not materialize because of the death of his sponsor, Singh the Yogi made a considerable impact in the predominantly Anglo-Saxon metropolis."
Was superfluous. Does this add anything to the article? I'm just trying to reduce the impression that this was written by any fans or detractors. Should be neutrally worded. I'm happy to put these words back if they make encyclopedic sense. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Neutralizing the article... 

message: Who has the time and resources to keep redacting and censoring the section on lawsuits against Yogi Bhajan? Are they or is he funded by some foundation grant? Who can deny the validity of a picture of boys whose mouths are stuffed with socks by their instructor at the Miri Piri School? There is something fascist about this. Such a disregard for truth never ceases to amaze me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot use material sourced to a blog, nor can a photograph be used as a reliable source. Please actually read the link and try to understand what a reliable source is.  Yworo (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litigation Section and Miri Piri Academy Article Censored 

message: One example of which there are many:
It's ironic that Sardarni Premka Kaur Khalsa (Premka) is quoted as a source in numerous cases.
I seriously doubt that, after all of litigation that took place between Premka and Yogiji, after he got her pregnant, that Premka would assent willingly to the use of her name as a source.
This site is all very pretty, but the real truth is quite different.  Yogiji was a manipulator who used people for his own ends.
3HO is nothing more or less than a cult.
The so-called Truths taught by Yogiji, (disclaimer: other than standard Sikh teachings) do not hold up to scrutiny.
Most of Yogiji's talks, were incomprehensible rants.  They were full of coercion and guilt.  Of course it was anathema to question the word of a so-called "God-Man".
As a former teacher of 3HO, (I taught classes in Tempe and Prescott for three years), as a former ashram leader, I can tell you that the teachings nearly cost me my sanity.  It took me nearly ten years to recover. My former teacher left 3HO citing numerous problems and his inability to support the organization further since there was no effort made to correct them.  The problems were endemic, systemic and started from the top.
Something needs to be done about this site, considering the cult-like nature of 3HO and the numerous offenses committed by YogiJi, including fraud, sexual harassment and abuse, harassment, etc.  
A former student and Teacher.Jacksokol (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Wiki is an utter sham; everything negative has been redacted from the site. 

message: The Wikipedia flag at the top of the Yogi Bhajan cites the following problems with the page, I will talk about each one.
“relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject”;
“written like a personal reflection or essay”;
“it may contain original research”;
“its neutrality is disputed”;
--Daan singh (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia policy violations 

message: This page is need of some serious attention by senior Wiki editors. Otherwise it is simply a promotional page by Guru Bhajan's followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.37.53.52 (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2014
: Agreed, in spades. All of the critical comments in this Talk Page remain. The article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It is clearly being written and guarded by editors with a non-neutral point of view, who remove anything critical that has been written about Harbhajan Singh Khalsa (a.k.a. Yogi Bhajan or Siri Singh Sahib), about "3HO" (which also needs re-writing), about Kundalini yoga, etc. If you want a flavor of these critiques, look for the reliable-source articles linked on e.g. these blogs (among many, many, many others): http://www.wackoworldofyogibhajan.net/forums/index.php?sid=d463b3bb081913ede5d0cad9ae3f8025, http://indiakids.blogspot.com/search?q=abuse, http://www.sikharchives.com/?p=13439, http://www.sikharchives.com/?p=10638, etc. (Again, to be clear: I am not proposing that these blogs themselves are "reliable sources" per Wikipedia policy, rather that the blogs link to other, third-party sources that are reliable by Wikipedia standards.)  This is not what an encyclopedia should be. My guess is that in order to bring this back to a reputable encyclopedia page it will have to be semi-locked and maintained by neutral, senior Wikipedia editors. Benefac (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harbhajan Singh Khalsa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090610044331/http://tobias-lib.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2008/3596/ to http://tobias-lib.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2008/3596/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: By not including any, this page appears to claim there exists no controversy surrounding the subject. In every article I have read on the subject, controversy is mentioned and it should be here, too. I will be working on this as time allows, using the following sources to start.
* This article (2010) covers sexual abuse allegations, and several cases settled out of court.
*This article (2011) covers the controversies and lawsuits.
*This piece covers the lawsuits, and states" "The litany of complaints that have surrounded the group regarding abuse go back to the '70s: sexual, financial exploitation and allegations of child abuse. This is a group that has a deeply troubled history.'" None of this is mentioned in the WP article, to my knowledge.
*Even in this very positive NYT article written just after his death is controversy mentioned: "Yogi Bhajan inspired critics, including traditional Sikhs; the cult expert Rick A. Ross, who called him an "absolute authoritarian figure"; and people concerned with his sometimes explicit sexual instructions."  petrarchan47คุก 05:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning to address concerns listed at top of page, NPOV 

message: I believe the talk section lays out clearly several reasons to believe the article is far from neutral. 206.29.176.51 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you just work on improving it, and if you run into difficulties you'll have a more specific question for people to comment on? Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure RfC can handle open question with this open. Matthew hk (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

text: There seems to be a strong core of users hell-bent on removing any negative stuff from this article as soon as it is added, and smearing those who try to add it so I wonder if anything can even be done without protecting the article somehow. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for review 

message: This article appears to have a POV problem and exhibits bias both in it's content and on it's talk page. 
The lawsuits that have been removed from the article have been written about and mentioned in reputable news sources that meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability and should be included to prevent bias in this article. These sources also mention allegations of sexual abuse. For example:
LA Times:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-23-et-yogi23-story.html
Yahoo News Canada:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/the-cultish-call-of-yoga-studios-200139178.html
Furthermore with the recent publication of the book "Premka: White Bird in a Golden Cage" on January 8 2020, characterizing rape, sexual assault and imprisonment among other allegations from first hand experience, this article needs to be updated:
https://www.amazon.com/Premka-White-Bird-Golden-Bhajan/dp/0578621886
These updates may need to be done in a protected manner by Wikipedia Administrators/Senior Editors to prevent the immediate removal by biased POV writers.  New Author 9 (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Problem 

message: It is concerning that this article still seems to have an issue with point-of-view editing, despite the presence of multiple reliable sources which state quite plainly that accusations of sexual abuse have been made, and on investigation have been found to be "more likely than not". 
Now, even if (for the sake of argument) it were found LATER to be the case that the accusations were all false or misguided, and that the investigation had been flawed to the point that it should have concluded that it was unlikely that sexual abuse had ever occurred, it would STILL be quite wrong to remove the report of the earlier allegations. In that hypothetical case, the correct procedure would be for the article to report, truthfully, that (A) accusations were made[1][2][3] (B) the report validated them,[4] and (C) a later inquiry invalidated the report.[5] --- where the bracketed numbers symbolise reliable citations. It would be quite wrong, indeed inappropriate, to remove (A) or (B) and merely to report (C): this would be WP:POV, and given the situation, also WP:COI, a serious breach. I do hope this is crystal clear, as something very wrong appears to be happening here, and if it is what it appears to be, it must stop at once. 
I have therefore restored the (very brief) statement about the "AOB" report; the following paragraph about the "Thompson report" however goes into much more detail, which in comparison is both WP:UNDUE and gives a sharp impression of WP:POV even with the restored AOB statement. We must either cut down the latter, which gives the impression of speaking in the Thompson report's voice, or build up the former. Neutrality in such a sensitive matter is clearly essential. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry to see that people are starting to edit-war about the abuse allegations: that is never acceptable, even without the evident WP:COI issue. On such a sensitive matter, it is essential that people do not attempt to delete the well-cited allegations and indeed the citations. Given that we have been discussing already here and on other talk pages, continued non-consensus deletions are inappropriate. If there are substantive points to be discussed, then this page is the proper place, not the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated Point-of-View editing

message: There has been some confusion about what Wikipedia may report and the voice it may use to do so. Firstly, Wikipedia must never take either side in a dispute, so it must confine itself to reporting that A said X and B said Y. Secondly, when a subject is dead, a criminal trial is impossible, so a criminal standard of evidence cannot be attained. The most that can occur is an inquiry which finds that there is reasonable evidence that allegations are true, which is the case here. It is mere filibustering to argue that such evidence is insufficient for imprisonment: that will always be true in all posthumous investigations. When the appearance of Conflict of Interest is also present, as here, then attempts to suppress reliable reports of the findings of such an inquiry are unacceptable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard of evidence for posthumous, non-courthouse allegations 

message: 2021-02-28 Wow! I see people have been complaining about Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa's editing since as far back as 2010! Holy crap indeed. 
I posted this on Chiswick Chap's talk page, but see it might be more useful here.
Almost the entire historical information section in the Wiki entry on Yogi Bhajan has been generated from his own words or his own words as repeated by his faithful students. If you look at the sources of the core content, they are almost all written by 'Something Something Singh Khalsa' or 'Something Something Kaur Khalsa'. These are all the given names of 3HO cult members. There is no daylight between what the Yogi said and what they repeat. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa, a frequent editor of this page, wrote an almost 1,000 page book (Messenger from the Guru's House - it is cited in the footnote. Check it out if you are having trouble sleeping) on Bhajan without a SINGLE WORD OF CRITICISM. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa is not what I, or anyone not in the 3HO cult, would call a 'good academic'. Read some of his output, or take a look at his web site. That foundation, devotees spewing group dogma, for much of the material does not seem to be a reliable source to build a good and balanced encyclopedia entry on.
If Bhajan is the pathological liar, exploiter of his follower and serial sexual abuser that it is now evident he was, why is the AOB Report, or even the 1977 Time Magazine article any less compelling than the content that Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa and other dogmatic followers post? Why can't the abuse material be front and center? Why is it more balanced to base it on 'the official version' as provided by group members. Why is that any more legitimate? This is such a conservative approach to the Wikipedia entry on Bhajan.
I encourage all concerned to read the actual AOB Report. No less than 30 women came forward with stories of horrendous exploitation at the hands (and teeth) of Yogi Bhajan. This is not some mass hysteria. Their stories were given independently and the patterns of sexual abuse by Bhajan match up. He was a biter of their private parts. He hit the women in the face. He was into degrading sex with vulnerable women. Here is a table pulled from the report to give some flavour. I posted this to the Wiki entry, but Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa deleted it.
 Yogi Bhajan's Sexual Misconduct 
Type of Claim                                             	Number of Claims
Allegations of Sexual Battery and Sexual Abuse            	24 Total
Non-consensual Sex                                        	4
Physical Injury during Sex with Yogi Bhajan               	8
Unwanted Touching of Intimate Parts                       	9
Unwanted Exposure to Pornography                          	3
Allegations of Sexual Harassment                          	30 Total
Exposure to Sexually Offensive Language                   	17
Directing Women to Shave their Pubic Hair                 	6
Sexual Propositioning and Coaching                        	4
Asking Women to Describe Their Sexual Behavior with Others	3
Allegations of Unethical Behavior                         	30 Total
Non-celibate Behavior by Yogi Bhajan                      	12
Sex with Multiple Partners                                	7
Directing Women to have Sex with Other Women              	11
Factors that Enabled Misconduct                           	Number of Claims
Environment that Enabled Sexual and Related Misconduct    	115 Total
Organizational Practices that Subjugated Students         	73
Methods employed by Yogi Bhajan to Control Students       	42
To get an idea of where he created Kundalini Yoga from, read Philip Deslippe's account (unlike Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa, Deslippe is an actual historian) of how Bhajan changed his story of his 'golden chain' lineage. Bhajan lied about many things, including having invented both Kundalini Yoga and White Tantric Yoga. He lied about being designated the "Siri Singh Sahib" of the Western Hemisphere.
I would really like to know how to have these documented and well researched versions of Bhajan's story take prominence and have the stories of his abuse be brought back from the footnotes. Right now, it feels like someone is tending the garden and hiding all the truth under the compost pile. A casual reader is not going to get that there is a real problem with Bhajan.
So my question is, what do I have to do to get my edits to stick. What am I doing wrong? Also is there a method of having Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa, and other known devotees of Yogi Bhajan banned from editing this article? They are clearly in a conflict of interest position. 
-Anon for Now
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:79EE:5B00:D5B:B0CD:A5E5:221A (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Ban Something Something Singh Khalsa from Editing 

message: 2021-03-02 I see Chiswick Chap has changed my edit about the State Highway. I had: "The State of New Mexico honored Yogi Bhajan by naming of a 'highway' after him. State Highway 106, an approximately 1-mile secondary road with a 35 mph speed limit, which ran in front of his home was renamed the Yogi Bhajan Memorial Highway." citing  "rm WP:UNDUE detail on the highway, readers can look at the cited source undo".
I get that it is a detail, and readers could look it up, but to me it seems like an important detail. It speaks to how greatly they valued Yogi Bhajan's regular campaign contributions were to Bill Richardson. They named a 1 mile stretch of road with a 35 mile an hour speed limit, after YB, not a highway. This was noted by another commentator above. 
Compromise proposal: at least change it from State Highway to 'road'. I don't think the term 'state road' would apply. Just road. And yet, the sign says 'Yogi Bhajan Memorial Highway'. Its a fucked up thing and I go back to thinking that the detail is important. I changed my mind. No compromise seems right, can we put the detail back in?
:: PLEASE sign your posts (use ~~~~). 
:: I removed it as you say because I felt it was undue; I still think that is correct. Feel free to look around Wikipedia and see how Legacy is generally handled; we always do it very briefly, and that is certainly appropriate. Why? Because the name is the thing, not speed limits or lengths of road. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: State Highway

message: Has anyone perused this article on Harbhajan's yoga teachings?
Academia - Bhajan's Yoga
Lots of references that might be useful. Full disclosure: I know the author.
Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bhajan’s Yoga: The Roots and Context of Kundalini Yoga As Taught By Yogi Bhajan 

message: I have reassessed this article as C-class primarily because of the instability of this article recently and over the past 10 or so years, since it was first assessed as a Start-class in 2012. This downgrades the article from B-class for a couple of WikiProjects that were given in May 2020. Given the article seems to have been the subject to editing by contributors with a of a conflict of interest and is now in need of clean-up, as a result, I think some rigor needs to be brought to this article's assessment, so I have added a set of B-class questions that need to be asserted before the article is rated B class. I reproduce them here for the record along with my thinking:
# b1 = <yes/no> - Referencing & citations - Are there enough references and citations in-line and generally. Are these accurately and precisely described with sufficient detail, including headlines, page numbers, authors, publishers, URL's, Archive Url's, etc. to enable them to be found in the future and verify the sources still say what they said when cited. This is why an access date is important to know for on-line sources. - Not yet assessed. 
# b2 = <yes/no> - Coverage & accuracy - Is the subject fully covered? And is it accurate? - NO - because the article is still unstable, with so much being added and removed by various editors, at the moment, I do not think the coverage is going to be either accurate or fully covered.
# b3 = <yes/no> - Structure - Does the article follow the standard template for a biography, with appropriate headings and section titles? - Not assessed yet
# b4 = <yes/no> - Grammar & style - Is the article written in an appropriate encyclopedic tone and style that is free of grammar and spelling errors. In other words is it concise, precise and does it make sense, with writing that flow naturally? - Not assessed yet
# b5 = <yes/no> - Supporting materials - Are there supporting materials such as appropriate images and info-boxes? - Yes
Also, I have given this article a Low importance assessment, apart from Crime, because that is what it had been previously assessed as. For Crime, I have rated it Mid importance on account of the number of victims who came forward to tell their stories, which is an unusual circumstance for the crimes involved. Admittedly, assessment is a matter of opinion, in some respects, so I share mine here so others can understand my position. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject assessments for quality and importance 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Harbhajan Singh Khalsa →  – Yogi Bhajan is the WP:COMMONNAME as per: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Yogi+Bhajan%2CHarbhajan+Singh+Khalsa&year_start=1969&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2009&smoothing=3 ThethPunjabi (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Support as most common name used in referenced sources. BhamBoi (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 February 2023 

message: Presently, the sexual assault allegations are buried in the "Biography" section. However, given that these allegations largely surfaced (long) after Yogi Bhajan's death, it doesn't make sense to include this in the biography section. Furthermore, burying it there serves to produce an article structure that fails to reproduce the actual amount of emphasis and coverage of the sexual assault allegations by recent, reliable sources in relation to other facts about Yogi Bhajan, in violation of WP:NPOV, and in particular, WP:DUE.
Even "Obituaries and memorials" gets its own top level section, when anyone actually looking at the up-to-date reliable sources covering this individual could very quickly see that far more ink is split covering the (alleged) sexual assaults than "obituaries and memorials" to Yogi Bhajan.
The fact is that the sexual assault allegations are the single largest topic covered by every single reliable source about Yogi Bhajan in the last several years. (The fact that such a topic was poorly covered, or not at all, prior to circa 2019 is only because such allegations only surfaced (publicly, anyways) beginning in that year. Wikipedia articles are living entities, and WP:NPOV does not mean that we bury coverage simply because the coverage was of events not generally known until recently.)
This article has suffered from continuous NPOV problems throughout its existence, as evinced up and down this talk page, due to tendentious editing by individuals closely affiliated with Yogi Bhajan's organization. We should strive to correct these issues, and this is a good starting point. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burying of sexual assault allegations