Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 4

message: The current introduction, which is too promotional and unencyclopedic, reads:
:Sahaja Yoga (Sahaja meaning born with and Yoga meaning union) is a form of meditation, created by Nirmala Srivastava, more widely known as Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, in 1970. The term Sahaja Yoga is also used to refer to the Sahaja Yoga International (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) organization which she founded.
:The practice is internationally popular, having lead to the creation of meditation centers in almost 100 countries[1], and its own television show. It has also notably been taught to prisoners in Italy and the United States, such as at Rikers Island[2][3] The organisation has been criticised by some ex-members and writer Sudhir Kakar who describes the organization as a cult.[4][5]
Sahaja is a sanskrit term and does not exclusively mean "born with", it can also mean "natural", "easy", etc. What is accurate is saying that Sahaja here means born with, etc. Saying the pratice is internationally "popular" is promotional, and vague, not encyclopedic. Internationally "popular" among who? How many/what percentage of the population actually practice it? What is encyclopedic is that the practice has spread internationally and there are centers internationally. And, so Sahaja Yoga now has enough funding to buy their own TV show, as do some other NRMs, is that important enough for an introduction, why not put it in the organization section? And so Sahaja Yoga has a prison outreach mission, along with many other NRMs and mainstream religions, how is that important enough for the introduction.
Thus a better, NPOV introduction would be:
:Sahaja Yoga (Sahaja meaning born with and Yoga meaning union) is a form of meditation, created by Nirmala Srivastava, more widely known as Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, or as "Mother" by followers, who believe she is the incarnation of the Adi Shakti, the primordial divine power. The term Sahaja Yoga is also used to refer to the Sahaja Yoga International (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) organization, a New Religious Movement which she founded in 1970 in Nargol, India. The practice and associated organization grew from India and spread internationally, and there are now meditation centers around the world. The essential methods for beginning practice of Sahaja Yoga are currently made available free of charge to those interested. Sahaja Yoga claims the practice of Sahaja Yoga results in rapid, even instant self realization and Kundalini awakening. []. The organisation has been criticised by some ex-members and critics of NRMs, and writer Sudhir Kakar, who describes the organization as a cult.  [4] [5]. --Dseer 02:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Looks like progress. If you can fill in general, high level details like number of centers and membership, that is useful level of detail for an introduction. The rest can go in the body if deemed necesary. At this point, I'm breaking my analysis of problems with the article into sections to make it easier to follow what is proposed. I think that by restructuring the language here, section by section, we can come to a resolution on how to communicate all essential ideas fairly and equitably. The Sahaja Yoga sites have lots of information, we need to be selective and determine the appropriate level of relevance for an encyclopedic  article that will interest readers, since it will always link to the groups' website. --Dseer 03:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, that's much clearer. -Will Beback · † · 06:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to Article 

message: I plan on expanding the section, adding chakra charts of corresponding locations in the body - I have created a preliminary chart here and would like to hear what people think... The chart would come with a short descriptive text. Sfacets 14:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: a chart showing chakra locations in the head would be good - that information is unique to Sahaja Yoga as taught by Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi. Sahajhist 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any sources. Please don't add unsourcd material. -Will Beback · † · 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sahajhist: Yes a good idea, I plan on adding it as well...  [here] is a source. I'm sure there are others as well. Sfacets 09:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  also    Sahajhist 12:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of 'Sahaja Yoga meditation' section

message: In addition to the charts (almost done with the head one!) above, I would like to start expanding the 'Sahaja Yoga meditation' section to include detailed information on the chakras, Nadhis, treatments, etc. as well as a descriptive section on meditation describing what 'thoughtless awareness' is, and how the chakras inter-relate.
Any suggestions/feedback on this proposal? I have put down a few ideas at user:Sfacets/Chakras2 - feel free to add to them! Sfacets 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to sound like a broken record, but I don't see any sources included in that proposed material. -Will Beback · † · 07:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: all of the proposed material can be sourced, and I'm happy to do so when it appears on the main page. Sahajhist 09:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to wait. Let's build an article from the sources up. -Will Beback · † · 09:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, these are only a few disorganized concepts I laid down - I'm going to continue working on user:Sfacets/Chakras2 then, and provide sources here before moving it into the article. My fear is that the amount of content will be quite a lot in comparison to the rest of the sections - perhaps we should think about migrating the content to a new article...  Sfacets 10:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You moved it in without sources, that I can see. I'll remove it shortly if no sources are provided. There's no sources listed for the chakra chart either. This is a long standing complaint so I think it's reasonable to expect that sources be added to the specific assertions. -Will Beback · † · 00:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sahaja Yoga practices

message: I think that the removal of http://sahajacult.com/ was improper. What are the grounds? -Will Beback · † · 00:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A) We didn't agree that is distasteful. The text cited was very mild. B) What proof do we have that it's a personal webpage? -Will Beback · † · 00:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There was no such agreement, in fact, Sfacet's position was in the minority. It is necessary to balance the article which still reads like a recruitment vehicle rather than being encyclopedic. Sfacets supports an EL listed with the title "Official Response from Sahaja Yoga International to False Allegations" when the very title is suspect and libelous because it is only SY claiming these allegations are false, but objects to critical links by ex-members who are authoritative on the group. Research has not shown that responsible ex-followers are any less authoritative on their former organization than current members. --Dseer 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the choicer words used by the site to describe Nirmala Srivastava include "insane", "evil", "liar". Also please have a look at the descriptions used in the photo gallery of the website. Not very tasteful. It is a personal webpage - have a look at the front page under the last section, the webmaster signs his writing. 
Dseer, in the case of "Official Response from Sahaja Yoga International to False Allegations" - how is it libelous? Please explain. There wouldn't be a problem if the ex-members were able to create a website that didn't contain non-tasteful and libelous content - the guys at sahaja-yoga.org managed, the person at sahajacult didn't. Sfacets 01:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Liar", etc., are legitimate viewpoints. It's only distasteful to those who admire the person. We wouldn't keep out links to websites about George Bush just because they say he's a liar. The fact that there is a single webmaster doesn't mean it's a one-person site. Most websites have a single webmaster. It's clearly not a blog and clearly contains many viewpoints. It seems like a worthwhile external link. -Will Beback · † · 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It contains the viewpoints of the one author. There is nothing that proves that there are multiple viewpoints - the website is a personal collection of information and opinions by the webaster.  Have you read the titles used in the photo section? And you still contend that it isn't distasteful? Calling someone a liar is alright - downright mocking them is another. We wouldn't keep out links to websites critical of GWB, except if it were something like http://www.geocities.com/GWBblows/. The same applies here. Sfacets 04:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Distasteful to Sfacets only when the unflattering truth is reported about their guru. But, critics can be said by that group to be guilty of "false allegations" (i.e, liars), "immoral misconduct", "financial impropriety" (i.e., thieves), "used by fundamentalists", "keeping seekers from finding the truth", "evil spirited" (i.e., demon possessed), "the kind of people who tormented great souls, crucified Christ" (etc), "evil minded", "failed yogis who want to prevent others from achieving", etc., and that is perfectly fine. By now it should be apparent you can't reason with a true believer. Since the sahajists have set that vile, lowball standard in refering to critics, those far milder critical links are perfectly acceptable. I think it is time for arbitration. Sfacets is just trying to postpone the day an arbitration committee looks at this recruitment type of an article. Anyone who advocates that their guru emits "cosmic radiation" needs to go to arbitration and get a sanity check. --Dseer 06:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at all the phot caoptions and I don't see anything that is truly distateful. The worst I saw was probably one that says "Okay, I am crazy." Again, that's very mild and does not rise to the level of distastefullness that is meant by that guideline. Continued deletion of it for that reason appears to be POV pushing. -Will Beback · † · 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Continued re-insertion appears to be POV-pushing, I could answer. What is the "level of distastefulness" as meant by the guideline? Sfacets 00:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I beleive it is targeting sites like "goatse.com".  I haven't seen anything on that site more odffensive than a typical editorial cartoon. Certainly GW Bush has been called worse things than "crazy" or "liar". -Will Beback · † · 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, goatse is vulgar, and certainly not tasteful, however there is nothing to sugest that that is the type of website that is defined.  You will also note that there are no similar-type links (as compared to sahajcult) in the Bush article. I'm still awaiting your response on why you believe this website contains "many viewpoints" - and why, according to you, it is more than a personal website/blog containing the rants of it's webmaster? Sfacets 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editors here don't think it's any more distasteful than many acceptable sites. As for being a one -person website, is that the standard you want to apply to all sources, pro or con? -Will Beback · † · 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well that is your opinion. You can request an RFC if you want. It isn't about being a one-person website, it's about being someone's personal website. There is a difference. Sfacets 03:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain the difference between a one-person website and a personal website? The main  distinction I see in WP:RS is regarding the use of "self-published" material for secondary sources.  -Will Beback · † · 23:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, scanning over the material I don't thiink it is solely one person's views. It includes numeorus quotes from the leader, such as , . It has a fully referenced gloassary, which is reason enough to link to it. It has writings by a variety of people, such as in . While I don't know howmany webmasters it has, it certianly includes many different people's viewpoints. -Will Beback · † · 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it provides a collection of different viewpoints, which means it isn't just one guy's opinion, as you stated above. Where is there a better glossary? -Will Beback · † · 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The glossary is mostly sourced to a book written by a prominent SYer. I think you've run out of reasons to prohibit this link. -Will Beback · † · 01:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the selective listing is much more of a problem with the http://www.sahajvidya.org, if that is your concern. That site is entirely made up of quotes selectively taken out of their original context and placed into a new context, arranged and edited by an anonymous individual. -Will Beback · † · 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: http://sahajacult.com/

message: Why does http://www.sahaja-yoga.org/ keep being changed to http://freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga? When I visit the site I'm not forwarded to another URL. -Will Beback · † · 04:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you get that information? When I click on the link I get sent to www.sahaja-yoga.org, not to freewebtown. What's the necessity of changing the link?  -Will Beback · † · 04:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: freewebtown is the host. Sahaja-yoga.org is the Domain name. They use URL redirection. By linking directly to the host (where the files are stored), the connection is faster because it doesn't have to go through the process of redirecting fro the parked domain to the web host. Sfacets 04:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I don't see this when I visit the site. The speed difference isn't significant. You've redone this link many times. Please stop fooling with it.  -Will Beback · † · 14:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nonetheless there is a speed difference, especially for users not living in the U.S. Linking directly to the host also means that there is a degree of stability - if the domain should expire, the information will still be located at the host address. Sfacets 12:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a minor difference. It's hard to beleive that you are making this change in good faith. -Will Beback · † · 23:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: http://www.sahaja-yoga.org/

message: We don't have any author listed for this article. Therefore we can't judge their credentials, or even know whether they've graduated from college. Per the earlier standards followed by Sfacets, this shouldn't be allowed. -Will Beback · † · 04:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no more information available on that website either. -Will Beback · † · 14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is published by a major News source. Sfacets 12:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we know it's a major news source and not a tabloid? We don't even know it was really published by them, or that it isn't a copyright violation. Until you can show that it isn't a copyright violation, it'll have to come down. -Will Beback · † · 17:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Now you're just being petty. Sfacets 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm asking you to be consistent. Yo've removed other sources because you've claimed they aren'tmajor news sources, because the work was anonymous or the credentials of the authors were unknown or insufficeint, or  because you've asserted they have copyright violations. There's nothing here to indicate that the source is major, that it isn't a copyvio, or even who the reporter is. -Will Beback · † · 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ANSA is a cooperative of the main 36 Italian newspapers. . It isn't copyvio because it isn't reproduced in the original format or in full. If you want to contest copyvio, then the Rickross mirrors of the independent and the Evening Standard are also in question. Sfacets 23:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it wasn't actually written by/for ANSA, but instead it's an anonymous rewording of an inaccesible article by an unknown author? And you're comfortable with that as a standard? -Will Beback · † · 06:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, proven double standards. Not only that, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the article only says there are plans for SY to teach in the prisons. The article also says yoga made some prisoners worse in other countries. In short, it's just a puffery piece that adds no informational value to the article. The link does not meet Wikipedia standards and must be removed. Let Sfacets take it to arbitration. I'm going to be more assertive in getting rid of the puffery in this article. --Dseer 06:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: read Thirty-six of the largest Italian newspapers. Good point about the future thing though... Sfacets 14:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So who was the reporter who wrote it? What was the original text? -Will Beback · † · 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: http://www.newstarget.com/016026.html

message: I had requested a quotation for the "Doctor fined over yoga dispute" article, which was then reverted. The reason i was requesting it is because <blokquote>accusing him of befouling members of an Indian cult</blockquote> makes no conection between SY and the 'Indian cult' mentionned in the quote. Sfacets 03:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quoted portion is obvious and speaks for itself.  The "Indian cult" referred to is obviously "Sahaja Yoga", no other group is discussed in the article.  Smee 04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't refer directly to SY, for all we know it could refer to any group... Analysing it as meaning SY specifically is your own POV. Sfacets 05:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course I have read it, there is no connection made between SY and the undefined "Indian cult". It is not up to you or me to make that connection - if the article doesn't then we can't say there is. Sfacets 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is making the connection.  The article clearly states that this doctor pled guilty, that he was upset at someone who had "befouled" members of an "Indian cult", and then in the next sentence states that he was acting in this manner delivering a note with a group of other individuals from Sahaja Yoga, to this same man that he assaulted.  How much clearer could it be???  Smee 05:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem, you're welcome.  Smee 11:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotation requested

message: AAP General News (Australia), November 12, 2001, Doctor fined over yoga dispute 
Brisbane's District Court has been told a GP grabbed a man round the head and dragged him over a backyard fence -- accusing him of befouling members of an Indian cult.  The court was told Dr BOHDAN MYRON SHEHOVYCH was among a group delivering a letter to the man from the founder of the meditation religion, Sahaja Yoga.  The 52-year-old doctor from the New South Wales central coast today pleaded guilty to entering a house at Mount Ommaney in Brisbane' west and assaulting TERENCE RICHARD BLACKLEY on March 3 this year.  The court heard the group was delivering a letter to BLACKLEY from spiritual leader SHRI MATAJI NIRMALA DEVI, alleging spiritual and criminal wrongdoings.  Judge KERRY O'BRIEN today told the doctor that someone of his intelligence should have known better than to behave in that manner.  He's fined Dr SHEHOVYCH $1,500 but did not record a conviction.
More detailed version, (NOTE: - different article) :
AAP General News (Australia), November 12, 2001, Doctor fined over yoga dispute, By Ainsley Pavey 
A doctor grabbed a man around the head and dragged him over
a backyard fence, accusing him of "befouling" members of an Indian sect, a court was told
today.  Brisbane's District Court was told Dr Bohdan Myron Shehovych was among a group delivering a letter to the man from the founder of the meditation religion Sahaja Yoga.  The 52-year-old general practitioner from the NSW central coast pleaded guilty today to entering a house at Mount Ommaney in Brisbane's west and assaulting Terence Richard Blackley on March 3.  The court was told the group was delivering a letter to the 53-year-old Brisbane man from spiritual leader Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, alleging "spiritual and criminal wrongdoings".  The 78-year-old religious leader claimed Mr Blackley and his wife Meera had been evil and had befouled other members.  The religion was started in 1970 to bring "en masse" self-realisation.  The letter, which was torn up during the confrontation, had ordered the Blackleys to return a young member, Sarah Yoblo, to her father.  The court was told Dr Shehovych had gone to the house with the group, knocking on the door first and asking Mr Blackley to read the letter.  When Mr Blackley refused to read it, the doctor scaled a fence, entered the house's
kitchen and grabbed Mr Blackley around the head as police were being called.  The court heard Dr Shehovych slammed down the phone and put Mr Blackley in a head lock, then dragged him out of the kitchen and onto a verandah where he pushed him up against a rail.  Mr Blackley was then dragged into the backyard and pushed over a fence, suffering cuts and scratches to his scalp, and also losing some hair in the attack.  The court heard Mr Blackley was again told to read the letter but tore it up and told the visitors police were on the way before the group left in a car.  Judge Kerry O'Brien fined Dr Shehovych $1,500 but did not record a conviction.  Judge O'Brien criticised the doctor, saying he should have known better.  "You are 52, you are a general practitioner, one would expect someone of your intelligence would have known better than to behave in this manner," Judge O'Brien said.
So you see, it is the exact same group, that this doctor belongs to - which the AAP is calling an "Indian cult" in one piece, and a "sect" in the other...  Smee 10:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, you're welcome.  Smee 11:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Full quotation provided

message: Is it just me or is the image :Image:Nabhisimple.png not updating in the article? It's not a cache issue... Sfacets 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be the server caches. I was just reading that some pages have been days old, for mysterious reasons. -Will Beback · † · 07:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image:Nabisimple.png

message: Is this dispute still active?  Do you need another mediator?  --Ideogram 09:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that a similar dispute is in progress at International Sahaja Public School where a RfC has been posted on the talk page for that article.  The dispute also spilled over to New religious movement.  Having additional readers for all of these pages may help reduce conflict. Buddhipriya 19:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I need to know for my purposes is whether the participants in the dispute here still desire mediation from MedCabal.  To understand what MedCabal can and cannot do for you please read WP:MEDCAB.  It is possible to have a MedCabal mediator help with the wider dispute but it would require that all those other participants be willing to cooperate with the mediation as well, since mediation is purely voluntary.  --Ideogram 03:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation active? 

message: User Sethie is requested to explain his intentions re his text amendment of 22 May. If his intention is to differentiate Sahaja Yoga from Sahaj Marg, then please say so, and a mutually agreeable piece of text can be worked on. Sahajhist 09:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is really not Sethie's intention, at all. His intention is to provide an accurate summary of what Sahaja Yoga is, based on available sources. Sethie 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. Sahajhist 16:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but the text still needs work. The cool breeze manifests from the awakened Kundalini in the Sahasrara Chakra, and yes that first occurs with Self-Realisation. These states beyond thought are diffcult to describe adequately in words. Sahajhist 16:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beliefs