Talk:Sahaja Yoga

message: I feel this section is heavily skewed towards a negative interpretation of this chapter in Judith Coney's book. I would like to restore the balance and context that I have found in the original text. The main message is that men and women's roles in SY are different but complementary. Preferably I would rename this section "Gender roles". 
The full chapter of the book can be read  here: 
and a summarised version of the relevant parts is   here.
Let me know what you think. Budgewoi (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should delete both those pages at once as copyright violations. see WP:COPYVIO - Roxy the dog  16:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Seems like a faithful summary. Interesting that it is not Shri Mataji being quoted about the Code of Manu but rather Judith Coney's proposition. To say "woman should be honoured and adorned but kept dependent on men in the family. Women are also described... as 'dangerous' and needing to be guarded from temptation." does not represent Sahaja Yoga in theory or practice. I've never heard Shri Mataji say anything like that. In her talks she always talked about the feminine power that women have, and responsibility for the family. Hire power (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of women 

message: I have raised a query about this article at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  FT/N 

message: Seems pretty silly for us to be using wikivoice to state this when its pretty out there and clearly pseudoscientific. Maybe rephrase to Practioners believe that during meditation seekers of truth they experience a state of self-realization produced by kundalini awakening --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's pure woo. Bon courage (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Went ahead and took it out of wikivoice. --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this line from the lead appropriate for wikivoice? 

message: To whom it may concern,
I noticed that upon my support of a new member in our community – @J.R.Hutcherson – unprovoked, I received backlash from the user @Bon courage, who decided to single-handedly rollback all my edits on this article. With the off-hand comments:
"Nothing reliable here" and "dump of junk resources".
The section, as you may see in previous iterations of the page, is fully within the remit of the guidelines of wikipedia, citing legitimate and long-standing academic journals in their relevant fields. In consideration to any medical claims, this section repeatedly underlines the fact any medical treatments were adopted as either an adjuvant or adjunct to standard medical practice. Moreover, the neurological findings in the field in the realm of fMRI findings are considered significant in their scope and possible applications in further clinical studies. 
The section quotes nearly 42 individual, peer-reviewed and approved studies. May I ask with what accolades does @Bon courage deem to have the authority to prevent the simple elucidation of facts and information; break the 3R rule; and, most importantly, undermine credibility in the ethos of users working under 'good faith.'
Without further indication of specific parts within the section that trespass wikipedia guidelines, rather than a wrangle of wikipedia jargon, I will forthwith reinstate the section.  Mr Birchwood (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:MEDRS for WP:Biomedical information. We need secondary sources, and not in fringey altmed journals. Your sources did not meet those criteria. Bon courage (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Birchwood, you're not using very high quality sources and they're very likely to be judged as not reliable. When a source claims something so far out of line with the mainstream preponderance of scientific and academic thought giving it prominence is a violation of WP:FRINGE. --(loopback) ping/whereis 13:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to give you a few pointers, large amounts of it are source to primary sources (papers in journals). These are specifically called out as a WP:PRIMARY source as an example:  It likewise tells us to be extremely careful using primary sources:  The entire first segment of that section is cited to primary sources, and they are the overwhelming majority of citations in all subheaders of that section. Additionally, even in the sections you do cite to secondary sources as the project asks, I'm only seeing one that unquestionably passes WP:MEDRS. --(loopback) ping/whereis 13:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 'In Scientific Research' Section 

message: This article clearly is influenced by the views of a single party. Rampant biasness. Needs major adjustments.  ― Falcon with appendix|[[User talk:Falcon with a (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biasness 

message: In a previous version of the article we had this sentence in the intro:
 Sahaja Yoga is not only the name of the movement, but also the technique the movement teaches and the state of awareness achieved by the technique.
This states quite accurately the three meanings of 'Sahaja Yoga'. It is a religion, a meditation technique and also the state of consciousness achieved by the technique. The reference seems OK and I'm sure anyone who knows anything about it would not disagree. Hire power (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, seems a sensible and accurate way to describe the movement. Bookish14 (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just a religion 

message: Currently the sentence "Chakras do not physically exist" sounds a bit blunt. I checked the source it was based upon and it didn't put it exactly like that and was not so dismissive. So I've expanded it to say:
There is no proven relationship between chakras and the anatomy or physiology of the human body. Chakras have never been physically detected using modern instruments.Hire power (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's worse, as it implies they exist (which the source does not). Bon courage (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: But these words are more consistent with the source as it doesn’t say they don’t exist, only that no physical proof has been found. Hire power (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The subtle system