Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 9

Sahaja Meditation

This exchange between Makeitclearer and FreeLion is indicative of the emerging differences in approach between Sahaja Yoga as practised in India and many other countries, and the newer 'Sahaja Meditation' as practised in North America. This might need a new paragraph elsewhere in the article, or (possibly) even a new article, rather than in the opening paragraph. Yogiwallah (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources?   Will Beback  talk  03:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Not much yet in the way of sources as per wikipedia rules. Here's the Sahaja Meditation website: http://www.sahajameditation.org Yogiwallah (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that the site belongs to Vishwa Nirmala Dharma, the main SY group. The "About us" page seems to convey the basic history of SY. I don't see anything there that indicates a difference between SM and SY. Is it just a different name for the same thing?   Will Beback  talk  06:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is yes. However, once yoga as union with the Divine is removed (for whatever reason), then the term 'new religious movement' gets questioned. Hence the difference of approach above. But if it looks all the same to you as an observer looking on, then it probably will be the same for most readers... Yogiwallah (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Will, We are doing this meditation at local parks and libraries, all of us sit together and meditate. We are greatly benefited in health and everyday life, especially kids with ADHD are find it amazing when handling their everyday life. These words 'new religious movement' in the first line has no context to what we do at the park. This is why am saying it should be in the belief section and with 'in some countries'. What we do is simple meditation and heal ourselves. Moreover the reference provided is from wipo, how is that neutral?? The complete first paragraph is from Wipo, how is that neutral??? when the reference from a newspaper with 1.4 million viewership and 100,000 witness was considered not neutral? Especially when there are difference of opinion, then it should be under Belief section. Approaches and what it is exactly is different in different countries. Thus all I am expecting is some fairness, that the into line is some thing that makes sense for all from all countries. I am not saying to completely remove but put it under belief section, I think that's more appropriate. I don't understand why this has to be the first line?? if its not making sense for all who are currently doing it. I don't know where you live, I suggest you to join and see it you self what and how we do in the USA. We parents are not happy with those words in the first line. I am wishing Wiki stays fair for people living in all parts of the world. Makeitclearer (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Makeitclearer

Thanks for that explanation. As soon as Sahaja Meditation starts getting coverage, or when we find the coverage it's already getting, then we can add material about it to the article. It sounds like perhaps a section on it might be appropriate. Let's keep the discussion of "SM" separate from the NRM issue in these discussions.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The co-operation between Sahaja Meditation and Healthcorps would be worth mentioning:
http://www.healthcorps.net/node/130/blog/wonders-sahaja-meditation
http://www.ydig.us/tag/sahaja-meditation-in-us-high-schools Yogiwallah (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if we can find better sources for it. Blogs aren't usually allowed.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Will, Freelion and other editors, I can understand that you want sahaja meditation a separate para. We will have a separate para on sahaja meditation. All I am requesting is the word religion be removed from the first line. Infact VND (vishwa nirmala dharma) is considered as a religion as the word also suggest dharma means religion. This wiki page is about yoga, sahajayoga which means union/meditation word meaning. The founder started this new movement of self realization not like lets start a new religion. There is a reason for her to call it sahajayoga and not sahajadharma. We can have a separate para for sahaja as a religion all aspects and also add VND under that section. Unfortunately the word 'new religious movement' doesn't mean the same for everyone in all the countries. Calling it a religion will prohibit us from meditating in some of the Public parks and libraries, as there are so called new religious movements doing all kinds of harm to people not knowing their religion properly. we are doing sahajayoga (the word yoga was replaced with the word meditation though they means the same the western world once they see the word yoga, new comers where coming in their yoga suits with yoga mats. we had to clarify each time that its the sahaja yoga meditation. As the word yoga is meditation, it was obvious to remove the word yoga and replace it with meditation instead of calling it sahjayoga meditation). We do only meditation in these public places. Please understand the facts and agree to call it " sahaja a new movement found by Shri Mataji ..". a para on Sahaja Meditation(new wordings change) and another para as 'sahaja a religion'.

75.43.129.93 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Makeitclearer

WIPO complaint

Text on this has been reintroduced. Unless a secondary source can be produced, this seems undue weight based on primary materials. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, the text has not been "reintroduced", your deletion was merely reverted. It is up to you to explain how you believe this has undue weight. The fact that it is only supported by a primary source does not mean it has undue weight. The event is a relevant episode in the history of Sahaja Yoga. Freelion (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You're not addressing the point. It's undue because nobody has written about it. So why should Wikipedia? We should be mostly digesting what high-quality secondary sources have to say on a topic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually WP policy is that the WP:BURDEN is on the editor who seeks to include or restore content. The content is from a primary source, where is the secondary source that finds this relevant enough to publish material on it? See WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

MrBill, there is nothing in WP:BURDEN that puts the onus on me. This inclusion is backed up by a primary source. It's notable because an editor has seen fit to include it. It does not represent an extreme or minority point of view so it can't be removed due to to WP:UNDUE. Under WP:PRIMARY it states that primary sources can definitely be included. There is no interpretation of this primary source so I don't see a problem with including it. Thanks for the links. Freelion (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:DUE states, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." WP:NPOV (core policy) states, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Where are the sources? There is only one, primary source for this content. An editor seeing fit to include content does not establish it's notability. It clearly represents a minority point of view, other than one single primary source where is the other support for this point of view, one primary source only is pretty much the definition of a minority point of view. What establishes the significance of this view? A single primary source does not make a view significant, thus the proportional representation is not to include such an insignificant minority view. If information is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia it will be covered in reliable secondary sources. WP:RS (core policy) states, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC

The content reintroduced is half comprised of the opinion of an even tinier minority a member of the panel who disagreed with the decision of the panel. Has any third party reliable source found any of this important enough to publish information about it? Where does the due weight in an encyclopedic article come from, the minority opinion of a single WP editor? - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

MrBill, the inclusion of this primary source does not represent a viewpoint, it is merely the recording of an event which took place which is significant. Just because there is no secondary source which mentions it, does not mean it is not significant. Sahaja Yoga is a small movement which does not have a lot written about it. That is why the inclusion of primary sources are more important. There just isn't enough else written about it. The primary source does not represent anyone's point of view, it is just the recording of an event. The inclusion of this primary source does not further a point of view, let alone a minority one. May I point out that you are jumping from one policy to another to try and justify the deletion of this source. Freelion (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"an event which took place which is significant" ← says who? Why should Wikipedia contain content that no other publication on earth thinks is worth mentioning? That is not the purpose of this encyclopedic project. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Some editor discretion is allowed. I say the event is significant. Primary sources can be used when you are filling out details about a subject that has not been discussed in secondary sources. Freelion (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A single editor's view necessarily counts for very little. This content isn't "filling out" stuff from a secondary source, it's introducing distinct information. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Distinct information that is backed by a primary source which I say is significant. There happens to be no other source available to add support nor to contradict this event. If I say a primary source is significant, and you disagree, which policy specifies what to do in this situation? Freelion (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:DUE, WP:NPOV and WP:OR for starters. The common sense guideline is probably the most appropriate. Lets see, one WP editor considers it significant, that carries very little weight. Has the information been included in any top level reliable source? Has anyone with a weighty opinion (published expert) discussed it? Has it even been considered worthy of a newspaper story? What evidence is there to suggest in any way this information is significant? An encyclopedia certainly doesn't cover all WIPO cases, much less the opinions of dissenting panelists. What cases are of encyclopedic value? Those found significant by published experts in the field, those discussed in reliable sources. When would a level of detail such as a dissent within the panel be considered significant? Has this been the subject of scholarly discussion? Has it been considered interesting, important or significant enough to be covered by any reliable source? If not it certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Please take some time to read WP:NOT and consider what an encyclopedia is. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary, MEDRS, Advert tags

The article includes biomedical information without MEDRS sources ("effects include a dilation of the pupils and deep physical and mental relaxation", "an elaboration of the health aspects", "the parasympathetic nervous system, the Ida nadi with the left and the Pingala nadi with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system", " kundalini in the sacrum bone", " Most illnesses are said to be a result of damage to the chakras, and kundalini is said to repair them.", "mental and physical disease can be caused by "clogged chakras" or an overactivity of the left and right channels. If the chakras are not linked together by the flow of (kundalini) energy, there is no integrated personality.", "claims that it has cured diseases including mental illness and prevented them", "a precondition for being cured", " a liver diet claimed to promote better health. White cane sugar, white rice, yogurt, ginger, fruits and vegetables promote the "cooling" of the liver. Alcohol, fried foods, red meat, fish, cream and chocolate are among the foods that are said to be "heating" so harmful if taken in excess.") Even content labeled "claims", "teachings" etc. that contain biomedical information need support from WP:MEDRS level sources or need to be presented only as WP:FRINGE only as WP:DUE with the mainstream scientific view and accepted biomedical information presented more prominently as due.

This article relies almost entirely on WP:PRIMARY sources. Not only that these sources do not have the qualities of reliable sources. A collection of assertions from the websites of the organization promoting the subject of the article, press releases and the like are not quality reliable sources. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. Primary sources should be used carefully and only as a source for self descriptive statements. The majority of the sources in the article now are good for identifying what these groups "say" sahaja yoga is, however high quality independent secondary sources are needed to identify what sahaja yoga is understood to be by scholars in the field. Details of organization, claims of facilities, schools and other details are only important enough to be in an encyclopedia if secondary sources have found them important enough to report.

Much of the content in this article is subject to removal absent support from reliable, independent sources. All of the biomedical descriptions, claims etc. are subject to removal and if retained must be presented as due with respect to the mainstream scientific consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Many of the primary sources have now been tagged. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There are three editors who feel this article is written like an advert and one who does not share this opinion. The tag should remain until consensus is reached otherwise or the material has been rewritten. Repeatedly removing these tags is edit warring. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the article reading like an ad, you are only one editor; that is your opinion and you have not begun a topic on the talk page that specifically and constructively deals with this claim. I will therefore delete this tag from the article. Freelion (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the article using primary sources, this is perfectly acceptable when the movement is talking about itself and its beliefs and for which no other reliable sources are available. As long as the language is encyclopaedic and indicates this is what the movement says about itself. This is per WP:PRIMARY: As said before, primary sources are completely acceptable unless there is unreferenced interpretation of them (from WP:PRIMARY):

• "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source".
• "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.". Freelion (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the health aspects of the article, many of the instances you have mentioned are basic observations which should not be qualified as biomedical research. For example:

• "effects include a dilation of the pupils and deep physical and mental relaxation" is a basic observation which does not require an expert in medicine to verify. This also happens to have been made by a secondary source.
• "an elaboration of the health aspects", "the parasympathetic nervous system, the Ida nadi with the left and the Pingala nadi with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system" and " kundalini in the sacrum bone" are basic descriptive statements about what the founder has proposed and are made by a secondary source. I don't think there is any current medical source that can provide other information regarding the kundalini and balancing of the chakras so the reader can assume this is a claim made by the movement. However, if there is no other source of medical information regarding this topic that can contradict the claims, let them stand if they are reported in an encyclopaedic way.

The other instances that you have listed I agree that they can be labeled as biomedical information provided under the label of "teachings" and can be reviewed as per the policies. Freelion (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Advert tag

Two other editors feel the tag belongs on the article. Adam Cuerden diff and Alexbrn diff and myself feel this article is written like an advertisement. So far only one has disagreed.

So that makes 3 editors eager to discredit an article but unwilling to begin a discussion about its improvement. It is cheap slander to put this tag on an article. If you really believe this to be true, be more specific and offer some constructive suggestions. Freelion (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The problematic references have been tagged by MrBill3; removing them & everything based on them would be a good first step; if secondary sources exis, rebuilding could then start ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Having started to read what MrBill has said below, I take back what I said above. I will read carefully and work with the suggestions. In answer to Alexbrn, I think it unnecessary to remove the primary sources – there is scant enough information about the movement as it is. It would be more useful to rephrase the text which is using these sources to make them more neutral if you believe they are unfairly interpreting the primary source. Freelion (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for starting to read (sorry for the WP:TLDR but you asked for specific input). I believe I presented a very clear explanation some of the issues with the article. I think you will find with civil discussion none of the involved editors is "eager to discredit an article" but desirous of having quality encyclopedic content. It is unfortunate that this article was created with an inappropriate reliance on primary sources. It would be easier to work on if it was built from quality secondary sources with primary content added to a lesser extent. If you are willing to shoulder the heavy load, I think we can avoid the virtual WP:NUKE that might otherwise be necessary. Surely there is significant scholarly work on Sahaja Yoga beyond Cooney and Kakar. Some of the details of funding and activities are likely to be covered in the press. When I have some time for research I will post possible sources here or in the article. Until such time as a substantial rewrite has been done the advert tag belongs. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree MrBill because there is a good mix of primary sources which cover the claims of the movement, with secondary sources like Coney and Kakar who do not present the movement in a promotional way. If anything needs to be done, it would be to just rephrase the wording that is based on primary sources. But the way you have done it so far I believe is also quite POV. In your case, the POV of an unapologetic sceptic. For example, the overuse of the phrase "the movement claims..." indicates that the editor does not believe the content that follows. Freelion (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

...not asserting the movement's beliefs is a basic application of core policy. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is not asserting the movement's beliefs, it is reporting the movement's beliefs. If you find any language that you feel is making a case or asserting a belief, you are free to rephrase it appropriately. Just avoid trying to state your own case if you can. Freelion (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources overused and promotional

WP:PRIMARY states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." This article relies far to heavily (not to a "lesser extent") on primary sources. The reliability of these sources is questionable. If there are no other reliable sources for content it raises a serious question of WP:DUE weight.The content the primary sources are used to support go beyond "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" and many of these facts go beyond acceptable uses of primary sources.

For example, "Sahaja Yogis respect and accept people from all religions" they may say they do but a secondary source is needed to support the fact that they actually do. Another example, "Sahaja Yoga beliefs are seen as a re-discovered ancient knowledge" seen by whom only those holding the beliefs? The content doesn't say that, it says these beliefs are "seen as". The same sentence "which should be treated respectfully and scientifically, like an hypothesis" according to whom, only the authors of the primary source? These statements are clearly identified as beliefs or thoughts that are those of the primary source only. The same sentence, "and if found by experiments as truth, should be accepted." again no clear attribution of whom thinks they "should be accepted". Another example, "The technique itself is said to be already researched and does not require further development." said by whom, again only a primary source with no clear inline attribution. The next sentence, "It is believed..." by whom, what weight is due?

Following, "Students are encouraged to experience..." synthesis of content from primary source with no secondary reliable source that says this is actually so. When an organization makes an assertion the factuality of the assertion needs reliable secondary support.

Following, "is understood to have gained enough knowledge of their own subtle system through actual experience" knowledge is factual, where is the reliable secondary source that supports this factual knowledge, where is the phrasing that explicitly states this is only a belief and whose belief?

Later, "The vibrations sensed are believed to be an objective divine energy that can even be caught on camera." A primary source can provide this belief but its objectivity and ability to be caught on camera needs to be presented with due weight and compared to the mainstream scientific consensus on photography of "objective" divine energy.

Following, "Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self-Realization en masse" again said by whom? Is there any secondary source that supports this? Again, "is said to have opened the primordial Sahasrara" where is the inline attribution of who said this? Following, "held to be proof" held by whom?

All of these sorts of statements need direct inline attribution or quality secondary sourcing. What is due weight for this "saying" and "holding"? If reliable secondary sources haven't found it notable enough to discuss the due weight is small.

Following, "The incarnation of the Adi (Primordial) Shakti was prophesied in the Markandeya Purana and the Nadi Grantha 2000 years ago." surely there is more scholarly discussion of these two texts and their prophesies than an editorial in a newspaper. What do the scholarly sources say, have any of them applied interpretations to Srivastava or Sahaja Yoga? Again an issue of due weight. Following, "it is usually experienced" needs a qualifier.

Following, "experience of self-realization" in an encyclopedia the factual nature (or lack therof) of what is experienced needs to be explicitly stated.

"Meditation is..." according to whom? Surely there are multiple reliable secondary sources that discuss and describe meditation. A statement of fact needs that kind of support.

"It is suggested" by whom?

"According to a Canadian Sahaja Yoga website, puja is defined" what do quality secondary sources define puja as? From the same source, "notes that a Sahaja Yoga puja involves" to note a fact it must be substantiated as a fact by a reliable secondary source.

"but official statements boast high rates of success." due weight issue.

"The aim of the.." again inline attribution needed. Someone may say that is their aim but do secondary sources agree? It seems not, so clear attribution is needed.

In summary

I could go on but I think I have pointed out numerous examples of how primary sources are overused in an unqualified manner to present the subject in a promotional manner. The following sections that detail organization and activities contain a good deal of material presented as fact (not as attributed, unsupported claims of a primary source) which require reliable secondary sources to verify that the organization factually functions in a certain way and factually conducts specific activities. Anyone can self publish a website saying they do things if the content is presented as anything other than a self sourced claim factual support from reliable secondary sources is needed.

Concise policy

The article should be based on quality, reliable, independent sources study and analysis of the subjct and to a lesser extent on the descriptions, claims and assertions of involved, primary, poor quality sources.

Biomedical information

"Nirmala Srivastava equates the Sushumna nadi with the parasympathetic nervous system, the Ida nadi with the left and the Pingala nadi with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system." Where is the mainstream scientific consensus discussion of the validity of this "equating" which should have greater prominence.

"Kakar believes that this follows the theories of Vasant Rele." Where is the discussion of accepted biomedical theories on the subject?

"The chakras as understood" as understood implies that something factual is being understood. Where is the MEDRS support for chakras and this "understanding" of them?

"awakening the kundalini in the sacrum bone" if there is no MEDRS that describes and identifies the kundalini and its presence in the sacrum bone that needs to be stated or the content needs substantial qualification.

"Most illnesses are said to be a result of damage to the chakras, and kundalini is said to repair them." What is the mainstream scientific consensus on what illnesses are the result of? Where is that in the article? It should be more prominent than WP:FRINGE ideas.

"mental and physical disease can be caused by "clogged chakras" or an overactivity of the left and right channels." It's OK to say that Kakar wrote that but where is the prominent explanation of what mainstream medical science says causes disease or what mainstream science says about clogged chakras causing disease?

"If the chakras are not linked together by the flow of (kundalini) energy, there is no integrated personality." Where is the prominent explanation of the scientific consensus in psychology of problems with personality integration and the effects of chakra linking via kundalini on these problems?

"Sahaja Yoga makes unsupported claims that it has cured diseases including mental illness and prevented them." beyond unsupported what do the MEDRS sources say about Sahaja Yoga curing or preventing disease?

"followers of Nirmala Srivastava consider faith in her divinity to be a precondition for being cured." What are the facts about being cured? Is there any MEDRS source for that? If not where is the qualifier that says there is no evidence that anyone has been cured?

"a liver diet claimed to promote better health" where is the scientific consensus on whether this diet promotes better health? Is there any MEDRS that evaluates this diet? Without it the claim has to go.

Cleansing in general, what is the view of mainstream medical science on "cleansing"? and "heating" foods? There are surely quality sources that discuss both of these subjects they need to be present prominently.

Policy

Biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Response(s) to all of the above

MrBill, all the quotes you have provided above are in relation to what the movement states about itself or other people (secondary source(s)) have reported about what the movement claims. They present assertions from the movement, perhaps that needs to be made clearer in the wording. This is not an article which discusses the psychology of healing in the general sense or medical science as is known in mainstream sources - it doesn't need to be. This article is about the movement. Much of the information about the movement relies on primary sources, so be it, there is not much discussion of the details of the beliefs and claims elsewhere made in secondary sources.Freelion (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

... which would suggest it probably has no place on Wikipedia. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"assertions from the movement" need to be given only due weight and the mainstream scientific consensus needs to be present prominently in relation to any such assertions this is policy. When the movement's statements about the psychology of healing are presented, the scientific consensus regarding the content of such statements must be prominently included, again this is policy. When any biomedical information is presented (as belief, assertion or whatever), current medical information from high quality sources about that information must be included and predominant. There is no exception for belief based ideas read WP:MEDRS carefully.

"WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Primary, involved, self published sources are not significant, their content does not represent views published by reliable sources. Thus it is quite as Alexbrn said much of this content has no place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia NOT A SOAPBOX if there is not much discussion of the beliefs and claims of the movement in reliable sources it is not appropriate content. Read NPOV in full paying particular attention to the following sections: WP:DUE, WP:BALASPS, WP:VALID and Good research this is core policy. Then give careful consideration to WP:No original research particularly, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." and "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." When looking for exceptions to allow inclusion of primary sources make sure to read WP:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources and note WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD states, "While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher." The primary sources in the article fail upon such consideration. Read the section You are allowed to use primary sources... carefully note the clear limitations. Finally read WP:Identifying reliable sources with an eye to evaluating the reliability of sources. Note in particular WP:QUESTIONABLE specifically mentions "websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature" and WP:SELFSOURCE item 1 "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Clearly the self published websites of the movement fail miserably to qualify as reliable sources for the content in the article. WP:Verifiability section on self published sources states, "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Again coming around to Alexbrn's contention the content has no place in Wikipedia. I have gone to quite some effort and extent to explain and provide policy and examples. The advert tag belongs on the article. The article should be extensively cut down to due weight. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If we need to add the mainstream scientific consensus relating to claims made by the movement, that is extra research that needs to be done by an editor. That also means we can avoid removing material about the beliefs and assertions. We could tag these instances for future clarification with the mainstream scientific consensus while we search for this material.

By including claims made by the movement, if they are phrased appropriately, we do not turn this page into a soapbox. As editors we are only presenting the beliefs, we are not asserting them ourselves. People consult Wikipedia to find out about a subject so why remove material which provides detail about this movement's beliefs?

As stated above, I do not agree that the article is promotional. It has a good mix of primary sources which cover the claims of the movement, with secondary sources like Coney and Kakar who do not present the movement in a promotional way. Many of the claims by the movement deal with issues specific to it and these may not be covered by secondary sources. They are still of interest to the reader though, who may be consulting Wikipedia to find out about the movement. If you interpret particular phrases as promotional, it would be kinder to rephrase the wording, to be qualified and more neutral and tag the sections where qualifying MEDRS info is required. This would be preferable to removing material which is relevant to the reader.

Putting the advert tag at the beginning of the article is a quick way to publicly discredit the article. There is no time limit on the tag being there nor any guarantee that the editors responsible for the tag have any interest in working towards its removal. So I object. In the meantime I will be reading through all of the policies you have recommended above, and reviewing your changes. Freelion (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"If we need to add the mainstream scientific consensus relating to claims made by the movement, that is extra research that needs to be done by an editor. That also means we can avoid removing material about the beliefs and assertions." No what it means is that if the mainstream scientific consensus is not present proportionately and with due weight the claims and assertions should be removed. It is the fact that the article exists with content that is given undue weight and the mainstream academic/scientific position on this content that justifies the placement of the advert tag. As you understand the NPOV policy a little better you can see there are three options at this point 1)remove all content that is not a proportional representation of a significant published view with due representation of the mainstream published view 2)add content to provide a proportional representation of the mainstream academic/scientific view 3) place the advert tag and begin working on a blend of 1 and 2.

"a good mix of primary sources which cover the claims of the movement" As explained above the primary sources in the article at this time are not reliable sources. They fail to meet the criteria explained above on multiple points. The content these sources support has been challenged. This content is now subject to removal as it is not verifiable by a reliable source. They are grossly overused the article does not meet the standard of being " based on reliable, published secondary sources". The article fails, "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The content based on these unreliable, primary, involved sources goes beyond "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". Any assertion or statement of belief must clearly state that is an assertion of or belief of the person or organization making such an assertion or stating they hold such a belief. The assertions, claims and beliefs currently in the article have been challenged and may be removed.

"Many of the claims by the movement deal with issues specific to it and these may not be covered by secondary sources. They are still of interest to the reader though, who may be consulting Wikipedia to find out about the movement." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a soapbox. The way we decide if something is of significant interest is based on coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. If information does not receive coverage in such sources it is not of encyclopedic value. See the basis of an encyclopedia? A reader with an interest in the movement can go to the websites and publications that cover the movement. If the only coverage is from the movement itself this is clear evidence that the the information is not of interest to others. As above, " if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so" (see the ref too). When a reader consults Wikipedia to find out about something they are coming to an encyclopedia and expect to find scholarly and academic information about a subject, WP:NOT a presentation of the material used to promote the subject.

The placement of the advert tag does not create an obligation on those placing it. It does not discredit an article but it identifies a problem with the article. There is clear policy based support for the placement of the advert tag. There is support for the tag from clear majority of editors on the talk page. I will most likely restore the tag. I wish to notify you that removal of the tag again may constitute edit warring. It is quite likely that an editor will remove content that is undue, promotional or unreliably sourced. The WP:BURDEN of providing reliable sourcing for any content included or restored falls on the editor who wishes to include or restore the content.

It is my hope that this article can be improved through continued civil work towards policy adherence and consensus building. I extend my sincere thanks to Freelion for their contributions to WP and thoughtful and civil participation in this talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that until reliable secondary sources can be found, the advert tag should be reinstated, and primary sourced material should probably be pared away. This is in response to the repeated question from Freelion asking what is to be done. If the thing isn't notable enough to have generated some secondary sources, it isn't really notable enough to be included in the wikipedia.-Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

For a place for this content see the essay WP:Alternative outlets. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Freelion:, @Roxy the dog:, @MrBill3:: It's been 5 years, but these issues still remain. Heavy over-reliance on primary sources, reads like promotional, makes fringe claims. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Harizotah9, thanks for the discussion. To improve the article, please point out the specific instances of what you believe read like promotion or fringe claims and only backed up by primary sources. You recently deleted a section on meditation that was backed up by multiple independent sources. It should not have been in the introduction, I've reinstated it into a new meditation section. Freelion (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree fully with Bill and the other's critiques on this page. Either these issues were never solved, or they were temporarily solved, and then re-inserted. So I concur with everything above. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Notes

The extensive notes that had been included in the references have been split out into a notes section. Most of this material can be removed, that's what paraprased content is for and the support for the content can be found by reading the sources. Explanatory notes should be used only to provide clarity, if the content is supported by the source, the source need only be cited not quoted extensively to show it supports the content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

POV issues

Lots of rather buzzwordy claims, most presented uncritically, probably because of the heavy reliance on primary, likely biased, and potentially unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)

@Adam Cuerden:, I agree. Years later, and these issues still remain. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Time to trim primary sourced material and excess notes

Per the above discussions and comments it is time to trim the excess notes, the content sourced only from primary sources and from unverifiable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the 'puja' section, as it relied on primary sources - I note however that a lot of the content that is attributed to the movement through their websites has also been tagged: I think it's important to look at the context here - the claims are attributed and referenced accordingly. Zambelo; talk 01:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The entire article should be based primarily on secondary sources. How is Sahaja yoga discussed, analyzed, evaluated by secondary sources? The answer to this question should be the basis of the article, not a promotional peice describing SY based on primary sources. Some information about what is presented by the SY organizations is appropriate but it should be in the context of what secondary sources say about the subject. Per OR "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.", "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" and in particular, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." This article is clearly almost entirely based on primary sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A large portion of the article is undoubtedly based on primary sources - and claims based on these should be removed should no secondary sources be located, however primary sources do have their place in some contexts - for instance claims made by the organisation can be referenced through primary sources, if attribution is given. While the claim by itself is not verifiable, the fact that the followers 'make the claim', is. Further material should be removed if no further references are provided, however not all the tagged content should be removed. Furthermore, since it appears that a bulk of the published sources on the group are negative in nature, providing primary sources would provide a modicum of balance to the article. Zambelo; talk 03:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"A large portion" is a major understatement. So the article should not be based on primary sources. If the "bulk of the published sources on the group are negative in nature" the NPOV policy makes clear we should be "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The basis of the article should be the analysis, interpretation and evaluation presented in independent reliable sources. NPOV takes precedence over an editor's idea of a "modicum of balance". I do think some of the published material is not so negative as to create primarily negative article. If we stick to the facts and provide a simple, straightforward presentation of the SY philosophy, I think we can get this to a fairly decent encyclopedia article. Keep the concept of an encyclopedia at the forefront and you can see how this article is currently more like an ad or a tract. In my opinion the best way would be to cut all the primary, base an article on the secondary sources and then flesh out missing details, provide responses and include a few clear representative statements (kinda the way WP articles are supposed to be according to PAG). - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't particularly disagree on any point, and the article could do with some trimming - however perhaps cutting out all the identified/tagged content isn't the most productive way to go about it - we could start with general unsubstantiated claims and work down to the ones which relate to and are attributed to the organization Zambelo; talk 04:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The primary basis of the article must be what independent reliable published sources have to say about the subject not what proponents say. Just because statements are attributed to these proponents does not make them appropriate encyclopedic content and it is definitely against policy to have the article based primarily on such sources.

A medical study of yoga that had negative results is high quality MEDRS that is relevant to the subject, especially since SY has made claims of curing epilepsy (among other conditions/diseases). Negative studies are valid and provide information about a subject, that there was adequate material for a review indicates this is a subject of study. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. Regarding the epilepsy content - I removed it because it seemed rather out of place - it would work in conjunction with any claims made to the contrary, but it seems odd to have such content stand alone as an opening line to a section. Zambelo; talk 04:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge from International Sahaja Public School

The International Sahaja Public School doesn't appear to be notable on its own merits and relies heavily on primary sources - it could be downsized and incorporated into this article. Zambelo; talk 11:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe so, but no one appears to care and you are no longer around under this user name. Close: no consensus to merge. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Biomedical information in violation of WP:MEDRS

Per WP:MEDRS, "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." The following biomedical information is not in compliance with MEDRS:

"Nirmala Srivastava equates the Sushumna nadi with the parasympathetic nervous system, the Ida nadi with the left and the Pingala nadi with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system."

This must be presented as WP:FRINGE and the mainstream scientific consensus reflecting current medical knowledge must be present as WP:DUE. What do the MEDRS quality references say about nadis and the sympathetic nervous system?

There is a large chart that lists physical locations of chakras. What is the biomedical information about these chakras and human anatomy and physiology? Per due the current medical knowledge must be presented proportionally.

"Sahaja Yoga believes that the chakras can be balanced by awakening the kundalini in the sacrum bone, which is conceived of as a normally dormant 'mother' energy."

What is the biomedical evidence for the presence of kundalini in the sacrum bone and the presence of a 'mother' energy in the human body?

"As the kundalini rises through these centres, the qualities of the chakras are said to begin manifesting spontaneously."

Are there MEDRS sources that document this manifestation?

"Most illnesses are said to be a result of damage to the chakras, and kundalini is said to repair them."

This is a gross violation of MEDRS. Any statement about the causes of illness must be supported by quality MEDRS. What association has been found between "most illnessess" and damage to the chakras in quality MEDRS sources. "most illnesses" is also far to vague.

"According to Sahaja Yoga, once the sahasrara (topmost) chakra is pierced by the kundalini, a person will feel a cool breeze on top of their head and/or on their hands."

So this is what Sahaja Yoga says, per MEDRS and DUE WP must present what quality MEDRS sources say about such feelings occurrence and cause.

"The chakras and nadis are believed by Sahaja Yoga to have associated places on the hands."

Again what is the current medical knowledge about chakras and nadis and their association with human anatomy? Per due what SY believes must be presented as fringe with what quality MEDRS says presented as due.

"Sensations of heat or coolness in the hands, head and/or body are used to make purported diagnoses of imbalances in the different chakras and nadis."

Again how have these sensations been studied and interpreted by quality MEDRS? What is the current medical knowledge relating to imbalances in chakras and nadis? Is there any support for these diagnoses?

"According to Sudhir Kakar, Sahaja Yoga teaches that mental and physical disease can be caused by "clogged chakras" or an overactivity of the left and right channels. If the chakras are not linked together by the flow of (kundalini) energy, there is no integrated personality."

First teaches is problematic, it implies that something factual is taught. Although there is some balance provided by the statement that follows, there is still a lack of what MEDRS say about the causes of physical and mental disease. The current medical knowledge on the chakras and the causes of physical and mental diseases must be presented clearly and prominently, with the SY beliefs clearly presented as fringe. What is the current mainstream science view of unlinked chakras and kundalini energy and personality disorders/integration?

"Sahaja Yoga claims that it has cured diseases including mental illnesses and has prevented them from occurring."

This is a gross violation of MEDRS. Any claim of prevention or curing of mental illness must be supported by quality MEDRS. Anyone can claim to cure illnesses but WP does not publish any such claims without high quality MEDRS to back them up.

"Kakar has written that followers of Nirmala Srivastava consider faith in her divinity to be a precondition for being cured."

Again any statement that deals with cures must be supported by evaluation in high quality MEDRS.

"Relief from pain or tiredness are also noted."

Noted implies again factuality. Relief from pain and tiredness must be supported by evaluation in MEDRS sources.

"Manocha et al. used temperature readings to verify that coolness experienced on the palms of the hands resulted from the Sahaja Yoga meditation technique."

This source fails MEDRS, it is a primary publication in a fringe journal of a single study.

"A small (n=59) 2002 randomized controlled trial found limited beneficial effects for some measures of the impact of asthma."

Not very good MEDRS, a single, very small study from 12 years ago. What is the follow up? Replication, review and analysis should have occurred in 12 years if there is any significance. Also Steve Novella has pointed out that waiting to seek effective medical treatment for asthma due to attempting unproven treatments can be fatal.

"India is said to be free from harmful Western influences, and children benefit from what is considered to be a more favourable environment."

A statement that children benefit from a more favourable environment needs to be supported by quality MEDRS. Has this benefit been discussed and evaluated in scientific psychological literature? If not it needs to be presented as fringe. I think there has been extensive study on removing children from their parents to geographically isolated institutions, that would need to be presented as due.

Without appropriate MEDRS sources this material must be removed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think as long as the material constitutes teachings of the organisation, and are presented as such then they belong in the article - can they be cut down? Sure but if they are presented as teachings, then there isn't really any reason to remove them. ~

For instance,

"Nirmala Srivastava equates the Sushumna nadi with the parasympathetic nervous system, the Ida nadi with the left and the Pingala nadi with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system."

Is attributed to the author, and presented as opinion, not fact.

If it were written:

"The Sushumna nadi is equated with the parasympathetic nervous system, the Ida nadi with the left and the Pingala nadi with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system."

Then there would be an issue. I agree that there is an inordinate amount of material that relies on primary sources, and so it should definitely be cut down so that the article doesn't primarily rely on these sources, however removing all of the material would be counter-productive. Zambelo; talk 04:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

When any biomedical information is presented in WP it must reflect current medical knowledge. If you present what someone believes about biomedical information the scientific understanding of this biomedical information must be presented prominently as due. Just labeling something as an opinion or the teaching of an organization in no way changes that standard for the encyclopedia. When terms such as "teaches" or "notes" are used they must be clearly qualified. An uncontested fact can be noted or taught, if it is not an uncontested fact it must be clearly presented as a belief. If that belief involves biomedical information the mainstream scientific evaluation of the content of that belief must be presented prominently as due. The ideas of the relationship between chakras and illness is good content for the website of those who hold and promote such ideas, on WP if it deals with biomedical information appropriate content is that which complies with MEDRS. Removing content that does not comply with MEDRS is not only productive in terms of improving WP but necessary in maintaining its integrity as an encyclopedia.

BTW thanks for your work. I think in general you (Zambelo) have improved the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a mention of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Sahaja Yoga to get some additional input. If you think hearing from Project Religion please feel free to post a message there. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV and MEDRS tags

Thanks to Zambelo I think the NPOV and MEDRS tags can be removed from the top of this article. The problems that remain are fairly small and can be individually tagged, but I think over all the article is in pretty decent shape. After some time for objection I will remove the tags or another editor may do so boldly. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight

I've cleaned up the article quite a lot, however now more than before the critical content is unbalancing the article - I had tried to remove part of it, however this was reverted - what would be a good way to establish a balance per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight? Zambelo; talk 03:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As below. The majority of content should be from secondary sources. Due weight means including what has been published in reliable sources. Balance means including published views "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If the majority of what has been published in reliable secondary sources is critical that will be the majority of the content. Balance and neutrality are clearly and specifically defined in the context of WP.

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

The publications, websites etc of the movement are not reliable sources for anything but content such as "The movement states, "...". The viewpoint of the movement should only be presented in proportion to its representation in secondary sources.

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Consider "proportionately", "significant" and "reliable".

In considering reliable, "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." from another core policy Verifiability applies.

It is common to think balance means equal validity of two points, that is not what it means on WP, nor does it mean equal amounts of praise and criticism. It means reflecting the sources as due.

Short version: Content based on sources proportionate as due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sourced content should not be removed

Per NPOV, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." As this article contains mostly primary, non reliable sources which present promotional views. It is not appropriate to remove content based on what has been published in secondary sources. Again per NPOV, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The use of primary sources to the extent in this article violates the Verifiability policy "1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" and "5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

The content based on secondary sources should be what the article is primarily based on. Content based on secondary sources has a much greater due weight. The extensive self serving content needs to be removed. If the schools, and activities of the movement are notable (and the content is factual) it will be reported in secondary sources. Primary sources are only good for providing what is said by that source and that information must be presented as what is said by that source not as facts in WP's voice. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced content should not be added

I have removed a totally unsourced series of edits that were rather controversial, and should not be replaced unless properly sourced. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Why remove section of Alleged Surveillance and Persecution?

Why was this section removed!?

I have been tortured to due to my faith as a Yogi, with no thanks due to false leaders in that "religion". I will speak utterly openly and freely on the subject. There will be no dispute about the fact that this is Alleged and no dispute about who has said these things...

Please reinstate this section.

William Evans

edit: These Allegations of persecution, torture, kidnap and surveillance are not unsourced thank you very much. Their source is usually True Sahaja Yogis speaking openly and freely without hiding their identities. I am one such Yogi and my name is William Evans.

(Please note: this is not the person wikipedia page of either the "Leaders" of "Sahaja Yoga" or those who would persecute Yogis... and yes! There have been multiple alleged rapes among those so called "Leaders"... are this Allegation unsourced? Perhaps in this message, but the Allegations are well known to many including the police in multiple countries)

William Evans (a True Sahaja Yogi)

How about we just delete this article, and start again then? I could certainly help with spreading the Truth about Sahaja Yoga in a particularly balanced and level headed manner. With reference to Spirituality, Science, Philosophy, Psychology and Religion. Also, I can speak quite knowledgably about the Allegations of persecution and indiscretions among Allegedly false Yogi and the Alleged persecutors of Sahaja Yoga also.

Edit: Could we please reinstate the original version of this section, which totals about 55 words who's source is William Evans, which was written by William Evans. That is sufficient source for this and it contains no personal allegations. The only edit I would suggest would be to add a sourced quote from Shri Mataji Herself saying that Sahaja Yoga cannot be organized by anyone other than God Almighty (that was the phrase She used)

We wouldn't add controversial content without reliable sources. Have you got any? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me!? Who is We exactly? Who "runs" this Wikipedia page to grant or deny the privilege of editing it? I personally am a quite reliable source and am quite willing to speak openly and have the truth of my word put to the test (in an open court of law if necessary) If You are the one who manages this page, then please state your name so we can have an open discussion. My name is Willam Evans. A British citizen from London.

I am, however, particularly careful on public Wikipedia pages to make sure I level no personal or unsubstantiated allegations. Mentioning the well known existence of certain allegations against "Sahaja Yoga" is not controversial. It is just stating the facts. Similarly mentioningthe allegations of torture and persecution of Sahaja Yogis is not controversial, it is just stating a fact. I make no personal Allegations here against any individual or even Organization, though I think it would be fair to compare the teaching of Shri Mataji Herself withe the Behaviour of the Organizations and their Leaders. Also a study of the Law concerning professed faiths and the behaviour of Governments would also be fruitful in my opinion. William Evans (or Nishikala, as I like to be known)

"Who is We exactly?" Why at the moment, it is you and I. I've welcomed you and left some handy links on your Talk page. Come back here when you've read them. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 01:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

New Section Suggestion

How about an utterly honest section on Allegations and False Allegations?

Many Allegations against people who call themselves Yogi are utterly Truthful I believe. Many of them are utterly false.

It is very obviouse that no one likes to be portrayed as either a rapist or terrorist just because other people who profess the same faith as them are criminals.

This sounds like a reasonable addition to this page.

William Evans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.35.17 (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi William. We wouldn't add controversial content without reliable sources. Have you got any? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Open Discussion?

I have just created this Wikipedia account linked to a gmail account confirmed with my home phone, though of course I don't believe it to be a secure email. Now, may we have an open discussion concerning the facts and inconsistencies of this page and of Sahaja Yoga more generally?

William Evans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishikala Will Kalki Devata (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Promotional changes etc

A whole series of frankly promotional and non MEDRS changes have been made in the last few days by a WP:SPA account. I have changes them back wholesale to a version before any of those changes were introduced as trying to winkle out a tiny bit here and there was too hard for me. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the two images I removed as copyvio appear to be lifted from http://www.sahajayoga.org.in/ -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-free image

The use of the non-free picture is being discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Shri-Mataji-Nirmala-Devi-Lane-Cove-Sydney-Australia.JPG_on_Sahaja_Yoga.23History --damiens.rf 16:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sahaja Yoga. 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/20111119205947/http://www.sahajayoga.org:80/experienceitnow/ to http://www.sahajayoga.org/experienceitnow/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927011616/http://www.sikhreview.org/october2000/theology.htm to http://www.sikhreview.org/october2000/theology.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112124757/http://www.sahajayoga.org.au:80/2007/12/05/the-subtle-system-of-sahaja-yoga/ to http://www.sahajayoga.org.au/2007/12/05/the-subtle-system-of-sahaja-yoga/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111203161703/http://www.sahajayoga.org:80/divine_energy.asp to http://www.sahajayoga.org/divine_energy.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_526_2006.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_512_2006.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929231601/http://www.sahajayoga.org.in/NewsInDetail.asp?NID=61 to http://www.sahajayoga.org.in/NewsInDetail.asp?NID=61
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_666_2007.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_270_2004.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_577_2006.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_351_2005.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926011530/http://www.blossomtimes.org/site/pdf/BlossomTimes_issue3.pdf to http://www.blossomtimes.org/site/pdf/BlossomTimes_issue3.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_358_2005.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024115057/http://www.sahajahealthcentre.com:80/Researches.htm to http://www.sahajahealthcentre.com/Researches.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga similar to Siddha Yoga

As per sources presented in the aforementioned article; specifically (line 16) it presents us with 3 inline citations which proves fundamentally the similarities between both Yoga Techniques. so @TheRingess via your thesis which champions the postulation that they are different, can you be so kind as to enlighten us with sources to back up your claim? Keep in mind this guideline WP:NPOV. Celestina007 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ad and MEDRS

The article kind of reads a bit like an ad for the group. Likely because it was made by proponents. There's a big section of highly questionable medical claims too, which I removed. A lot of it is poorly sourced. I know one journal, journal of complimentary and alt med is pretty trash. Some of this info can be restored, but it has to be carefully analyzed first and have good sources that fit WP:MEDRS. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Freelion:, please explain the re-insertion of this section. The sources seem questionable at best, and it seems to violate WP:MEDRS. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Harizotoh9, which section do you mean? I can't see any reference to journal of complimentary and alt med. Freelion (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Journal fo alt med was one of the citations. And the section I'm refering to is the one on research which I removed, you returned, and has since been removed again. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:, was there any useful information in that section? Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn needs to discuss before removing 30 references. As for the Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, I did find it after a search. It is just one of SEVEN references that support the sentence "Other brain characteristics have also been found.". Do you take issue with that sentence and have you reviewed the other six references? In any case, please do not remove a whole well-referenced section without discussion. Freelion (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I suspect it violates WP:MEDRS, and Alexbrn outright says it does. He is a member of Wikiproject Medicine, so he might know more. For medical claims, the bar is set very high. The section has some bold claims, and I'm not sure if the studies really justify that. I fully invite others to chime in on this. I made a post on about this, and a user gives their skepticism why these claims might not pass MEDRS. See: * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Sahaja_Yoga Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the importance of not presenting medical information but I do not believe any bold or outrageous claims are made here. Please address them one by one. Happy to discuss. Freelion (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Any WP:Biomedical information needs to be sourced to WP:MEDRS. More generally we must avoid unreliable sources like blogs. There is still a lot of cruft in this article even after the removals being discussed. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A lot of it is not even biomedical, it's well referenced, plus you removed subsequent changes. For example, the sentence "In the meditation practice of the Sahaja movement the focus is on thoughts ceasing." This is not unreasonable or biomedical. However I think you are being unreasonable and high handed. Please discuss every sentence you wish to delete. Freelion (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That particular statement is indeed not biomedical, but it is sourced to sahajayogaportal.org. We need a decent source (reliable, ideally secondary, and WP:FRIND) to show this content is WP:DUE. You are at 3RR now. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If it's not biomedical and non controversial, it's fine to use a primary source. It's about the movement so you're not going to find that in a medical dictionary. Deleting the whole section is blunt and frankly, lazy and high handed on your part. Freelion (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't want a "medical dictionary" - that is a straw man. Just some source outside the universe of the movement, to show it is has WP:WEIGHT - that is required for neutrality. This page is not a brochure for your movement. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the buzzword and in-universe tone of the article comes from the heavy use of primary sources. Massively trimming them down would be a key step. There are several books on Sahaja by academics who study religion, and they're cited already in the article. These are good sources to expand the article with. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Sahaja Yoga gets a detailed description in

• Abgrall, Jean-Marie (2000). Soul Snatchers : The Mechanics of Cults. Algora Publishing.

Which is a decent source. If I have time I'll see if I can expand the article based on this. What we don't want is crappy blogs and self-serving material from within the movement itself. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not "my" movement but I have tried it and you should respect me as an expert in the field for that reason. The above comment indicates your own heavy bias. The achievement of meditation, that is thoughtless awareness, is Sahaja Yoga 1.01. And now the article doesn't even have a meditation section. So you are reducing the quality of the article by your hack and slash methods. There are a lot of good references among the 30 that you have deleted but you haven't reviewed them. You think because you've got a Barnstar, you are untouchable. Freelion (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"you should respect me as an expert in the field" is more classic WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. The article does have a "Meditation" section - you seem unaware of what we actually have. Reading up on this topic I see that part of this movement/cult's MO is to promote itself in a positive way. We need to avoid playing along with that. Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It was tongue in cheek comment, I was interested to see if you have a sense of humour. That being sorted now, thanks. I am not claiming special ownership of this article as per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. On the contrary, I am trying to make you abide by the rules of discussing edits before the wholesale deletion of 30 references. As I've said, there are many perfectly good references in there, as well as non contentious material but you have deleted the whole lot without review. Freelion (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid time wasting with "tongue in cheek" comments. You are wrong: I reviewed every source. Alexbrn (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A slash and burn approach is probably the best. It's a pretty crummy article with massive over-reliance on primary sources, which means it reads like an ad. Then after that, build it back up with better sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Harizotoh9, your comment indicates to me that you are not really interested in the quality of the article. In the absence of third party sources, Wikipedia says it is quite acceptable to use primary sources. People want to know the basic outline of what this subject is about. Alexbrn, if you've reviewed all the references, what did you find objectionable with the Journal of Neuroscience reference for example? Freelion (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm highly interested in the quality of the article. But right now it reads like a Sahaja yoga web-page, because it's mostly cited to them. There's at least several books that cover Sahaja yoga beliefs and practices (which I've listed below) which would make a far better starting point for the article than what we have currently. And I'm sure there's other print and newspaper sources too, but I haven't yet searched that hard. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Freelion: If by "the Journal of Neuroscience reference" you mean PMID 29275207, then this is a primary source and so is not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There's also another section in the research on meditation article about SY research. Is it valid?

• Research_on_meditation#Sahaja_yoga_and_mental_silence

Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Apocalypse?

Is it true there's an apocalypse in this? Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources:

• Sahaja Yoga: Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement - Judith Coney, Psychology Press, 1999
• Children in New Religions - Susan J. Palmer, Charlotte Hardman, Rutgers University Press, 1999
• Barrett, David V. (2001). The New Believers. Cassell.
• Kakar, Sudhir (1984). Shamans, Mystics and Doctors: A Psychological Inquiry into India and Its Healing Traditions. University of Chicago Press.

I'm making a short list of sources to check out that can be used to expand the article. These books are already cited, but they should be cited much more in the article. As for "Jean-Marie Abgrall's book Soul Snatchers, I'm a bit wary of that one. It's not published by an academic press, and that's the highest quality of books typically, and for a controversial subject like this I'd prefer to rely upon sociologists of religion who give a more neutral appraisal of the religion, rather than those who are working against it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The Abgrall book is useful because it gives a rundown of the core texts used by the movement with some commentary. This is a way to get the basics covered here without resorting to primary sources. In the light of what I am reading, this article looks like a great big whitewash! Alexbrn (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Judith Coney's book is an overview of the entire religion, so it covers a lot of that stuff too. Also covers their theological and metaphysical beliefs, and including stuff like apocalypse and such. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Cool - this raises the sourcing level into another sphere beyond what we had. I have posted at WP:FT/N to see if we can get more help - there is strong WP:FRINGE element to a lot of this stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Much of the book can be previewed on google. It's pretty interesting stuff so far. It covers the history and theology in its entirety up to 1999. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, if you base your understanding of Sahaja Yoga on Abgrall's book, you will get a very slanted idea indeed.

According to WP:SELFSOURCE, there are occasions when it is acceptable to have references to primary sources. This applies to this article in respect to what the movement believes and practices for example, chakras, meditation and self realisation. I don't think you will find any "mainstream" sources for these. These are not self-serving or exceptional claims. This comment relates to those two templates which are such efficient ways to discredit an article. There needs to be an agreement about a reasonable percentage of primary sources used, for the reason stated above – there is no mainstream view of some things and they are not covered elsewhere.

In relation to fringe theories, can you please point these out in the article, and refer me to the mainstream view of these theories? Same goes for any content that reads like an advertisement, please point out the specific instances. Freelion (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The book is not self-published so WP:SELFSOURCE does not apply. Articles should be based on secondary sources per policy, so I'd start with an assumption that 0% primary sources is good. If, on a case-by-case basis, there's an argument for using them to flesh out point that are otherwise unclear, then that is worth discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The primary sources should be almost entirely removed from the article, and then build it up with secondary. That means someone, possibly me, is gonna have to read through Judith Coney's book. It's only cited a handful of times, and it's an entire 300 page book so it would have way more info. That would be a good starting point. I have tracked down a copy of the book thankfully. But I don't have time to read it right now. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Abrgall is a psychiatrist and criminologist with the perspective of somebody specializing in cults; Coney is a sociologist of religions coming at the topic with "socializing processes" in mind. Between them, these two sources have plenty of knowledge to make the basis of a reasonable article. I don't see any need to use primary sources currently. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph at the beginning of 'cult allegations'. A POV editor has made a bad attempt at summarising a chapter from JeanMarie Abgrall's book. It's just an excuse for slander. I agree with Harizotoh9 that Abgrall is not a reliable source on which to base an article about any new religious movement. He has an obvious conflict of interest, has been discredited and is not peer reviewed. Or I should say his work has been reviewed very poorly by his peers. Freelion (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a useful source. Nobody is saying it is unreliable. Please WP:FOC - your attempts to focus on editors is getting disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I would like to comment on the validity of the statement "Sahaja Yoga has sometimes been characterized as a cult.[9]" based on the source "Abgrall, Jean-Marie (2000). Soul Snatchers: The Mechanics of Cults. Algora Publishing. pp. 139–144." The source is also listed as a reference for other statements under "Cult Allegations". In the source, the quotations used by the author are not referenced and the author misquotes the "leader" by providing a quote from the "desciple". This source is full of unsupported quotes and unreliable evidence. Yes it's a published book but it starts to fail the "No original research" cause and also such a bold statement should be supported by a source that is stating facts and not here-say. The source is making up quotations and does not provide a solid primary source. It clearly fails the Wikipedia definition of a secondary source (It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.) as stated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. This book is referenced few times throughout the article based on 4 pages written by the author. Out of the 4 pages, half of them are non referenced quotes and mis interpretations. This is clearly an unreliable source. Dailywriter007 (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Abgrall is a cult specialist, so his view - as published in RS - is obviously WP:DUE. Alexbrn (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alexbrn, thank you for the prompt response. Firstly, I don't see any references to Abgrall being a cult "specialist", only a cult "consultant". Minor difference but still different :) Pardon my wiki knowledge but what do you mean by RS? Also, I agree that he is a cult consultant and hence his views must be valid. But, it is clear that the text that he basis his views on is unreliable. I agree with his points on what "defines" as a cult as he brings those up in between pages 139-144 but his supporting quotes are not referenced and and seem very unreliable. For example, page 140. Point #4: Members are kept in permanent state of suggestibility through various forms of deprivation: loss of intimacy, sleep deprivation, diets, etc. And the quote he references is "You must practice meditation every day from 4 to 6 o'clock in the morning, this is vital. Most important is group meditation... You should not eat too much. You should eat enough only form time to time. You should not have memories of food. You should not remember when nor how you slept." This looks like a very cherry picked quote and seems to fit his own view specifically. It almost sounds made up! I am new to wiki/contributing to wiki, but are we not allowed to question the primary source of the secondary source? Since he is an consultant, are we just to take his word for it when it comes to referencing his own work? Dailywriter007 (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

RS means reliable source. Abgrall is a published expert, so his view is WP:DUE. If you want your view included, get it published and then it can be considered. Alexbrn (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alex, that is a bit of a snarky comment at the end there, please stay civil as I have been throughout my communication with you. There seems to a bit of an "Ownership" trait that you are portraying here. There's been a few instances of questioning this source within this Talk page but you seem to stay put about your opinion and not let others edit it. (I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all. (misapplying WP:AINTBROKE). You have started a discussion on my personal talk page, claiming that I somehow have a conflict of interest, discouraging me from adding an edit to the article, (An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the subject necessary to edit the article). Please try to be a bit open minded. I am not sure what the WIKI rules are, but your behaviour of wanting to own this article and own a certain portrayal of Sahaja Yoga is sounding biased and limitting. You keep claiming that he is an expert, but not even once have you replied to my detailed observation that the "expert" uses no primary source in his book. He uses "here-say" quotes. What are your thoughts about that? I have brought this up about 4 times now, you don't seem to want to have a discussion but simply keep stating that he is an expert so its valid. It clearly states in "Reliable Sources" page of Wiki that Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.. If we apply our common sense here, we can see that the original source doesn't even exist. Have you read the source? Could you kindly discuss on this point? In the way that statement "Sahaja Yoga has sometimes been characterized as a cult.[9]" exists in the second paragraph, can we not change it to "According to Belgium courts, Sahaja Yoga has been wrongly labelled as a cult"[33][34][35]. If you believe that the former is a better portrayal of the article, you are clearly showing OWNERSHIP traits and not letting actual recent events and facts dictate the article. Dailywriter007 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, for a new user you've caught on to Wikipedia jargon quickly! Your proposed change would be obvious POV, so it won't happen. You would be well advised to review the Talk page archives here, where similar discussions have been had (at length) before. You should also pay attention to the fact that a horribly disruptive POV-pusher here was banned[1] for continually trying to whitewash the content. Don't copy that. Since this is a WP:FRINGE subject if you want further input I suggest posting to WP:FT/N, where this subject has come up before and many editors are somewhat familiar with it. If you have complaints about behaviour (e.g. WP:OWN behaviour, take it to an appropriate noticeboard like WP:AIN; raising complaints here is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Alex, as suggested before, please observe civility, your tone is getting worse and worse, your first sentence seems quite sarcastic and uninviting to new members like me. Perhaps, I am reading too much into it and the tone is hard to tell via text, so kindly correct me if I'm wrong :). If the initial addition itself is POV (you are isolating facts about cult allegations from one source instead of deriving facts from a legal authority (of Belgium)), how does that work? That is the reason I wanted to remove the statement in the first place and not change it. I am not trying to whitewash anything. I have stated facts and trying to have a discussion. I have made one edit that you reverted and here I am trying to discuss it but you really don't want to discuss it! The other two edits I have made on the wiki article are valid and supported. This is my fifth time asking for your input on invalid quotes used by Abgrall, you still haven't answered or discussed the source and its contents. You are the one who has blamed other users of OWNERSHIP traits in this talk page, so I assumed this was the right place to do so. My apologies. I will not discuss that here any longer and will go to the right places to discuss so. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction about Fringe. I will research further and post in the appropriate locations as necessary. I would very much appreciate it if you could actually begin the discussion on the topic that I initially stated, which is, what are your thoughts on the fact that Abgrall uses here-say quotes, his views are definitely good, but he doesn't cite his quotes, and he doesn't actually have a valid primary source listed for the quotes. It feels like I am hitting my head against a wall here, again, have you read the source? Have you seen that the quotes he uses have no source? What is your opinion on that? Why are we not discussing the issue? Is there a wiki rule to not question/discuss such things? Would appreciate your thoughts. Despite the tone (again correct me if I'm mistaken), I do appreciate that you are promptly replying and providing the help you can, but I would appreciate even more if we could have a real discussion about the source. You mentioned this source being referred in various parts of this Talk page, but nowhere has it been discussed in the context of invalid quotes/primary source. Dailywriter007 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

See the section on this page #Cult allegations. My view and the views of others are expressed there, on the question of this source. Alexbrn (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I read that section and all of the sections very thoroughly. The section is a back and forth between you and someone else and starts to get very uncivil unfortunately. I have also read the related FTN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_65). I would not like to waste any more of your time or tire you out. But, it still doesn’t answer my question or begin to discuss my specific detail that I would like to focus on. Let’s stop wasting each other’s time, can you please just clearly state your view on the fact that Abrgall doesn’t provide a source for the quotes that he uses for the 16 points that he makes. He is potentially using here-say quotes that may not even exist! This is a very simple discussion point, and here I am, asking you for the sixth time, what your thoughts are about that. You have made it clear multiple times that the source is reliable and valid and that he’s an expert. I agree that he likely has a good amount of knowledge on the topic of cults but the 4 pages that are referenced include quotes that are presumably presented out of thin air. Do you not see anything wrong with that? Are we just to take his word for it? Are we not to look for a reference of where he gets these quotes from? If you think that he doesn’t need to provide any source for the quotes, then let me know. Let me know clearly your view on that. Why is it that I have to repeatedly ask you for your input and you are not providing it, how is this a discussion? Maybe my comprehensive skills are really bad and you have somehow answered my very specific question before, could you at least repeat the answer for me? Dailywriter007 (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Read a bit more thoroughly and you'll see a solid consensus of editors on the matter. Your questions are irrelevant, so it's still a waste of everybody's time pursuing them. Books don't need to "cite sources" in the way you seem to want, to be WP:RS and valuable for our purposes. Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Alex, for finally answering the question. I don't see how I could have inferred that "Books don't need to "cite sources" in the way you seem to want" from all the previous discussions or wiki topics. I don't think I completely agree with that, but for now I will take your word for it and acknowledge that for Wikipedia's purposes, books don't have to cite their sources. Thank you for finally clarifying. I also don't understand how my questions are irrelevant, you could have simply stated the same statement the first time I asked in this discussion topic, we both could have saved our precious holiday season time :). Dailywriter007 (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

On the note of reliable sources, there are many references to Judith Coney who is an author who has only ever published 2 books. How can we claim her to be a "sociologist". There are 0 sources available that prove what the author has studied. She seems to have self proclaimed herself throughout the book as a sociologist. But is there any real proof? How can this be a reliable source? Just because it is published by a press? Also, the book is 20 years old. This wiki article seems to be mostly based on this one book which in turn is stating third party invalid and completely biased experiences. Of course, if the author interviews mostly ex-members who did not have a good experience or hold a grudge, it will result in a book full of negative experiences. The article should be about the facts of Sahaja Yoga and not what some ex-practitioners who seem to have a grudge have stated as their personal experience of Sahaja Yoga. Yes, we should talk about the practitioners and their experiences, but we should not paint a picture of Sahaja Yoga based on ONLY the negative experiences by the practitioners as is being done currently by quoting Judith Coney and her "interviews". The section "Beliefs and practices" reads very biased and solely based on Judith Coney.

Should we not at least consider this point? What are your thoughts? Dailywriter007 (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The book is reputably published. It's by some margin the best source we have, unless you know others? Alexbrn (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for the prompt reply. Ok, again as mentioned, new to wiki, didn't realize, it being "reputably" published is good enough for it to be the basis of many claims in this article. What does "reputably published" even mean? Good point indeed about other sources, I will dig into this deeper and report back but quick search on Amazon, reveals a few authors who might be good sources as well, I see "Meditation: The Gentle Power of Sahaja Yoga" written by Nigel Powell who is a columnist and feature writer for 'The Sunday Times' newspaper in London and also an author of the 'Sunday Times Book of Computer Answers' published by Harper Collins. Another good source could be "SAHAJA YOGA: An Integration of the Subtle Energy System Within" by Saraswati Raman who has an MD in Alternative Medicine. There's quite a few books by the founder herself, perhaps they won't be a good source though, since that would be considered a primary source? I have read other discussion topics about the article converting into basically a replica of the Sahaja Yoga website and these sources probably provide similar content, but, there's a few pieces of information that could be valuable and added to the wiki article. I will do more research and suggest edits as I find them. There's also quite a lot of news articles that have tons of information, will report back once I find some good ones. Apologies for being unprepared with a better answer, but thanks for your input! Dailywriter007 (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

New Religious Movement:

Multiple editors try to remove the designation of Sahaja Yoga as a New Religious Movement. This info is pretty well sourced. NRM is a fairly neutral term, so I don't see any controversy calling it that. And it's well supported by high quality sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Terms are neutral if they reflect the literature. NRM is fine, but we also need to mention the cult characterisation, since this is prominent in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I suspect these users are trying to white-wash the article, because SY likes to advertise as just free meditation, and doesn't reveal that it's a full blown religion until much later. For "cult" I don't consider that a neutral term, rather one that is highly subjective, and prone to a lot of issues. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOV requires that we reflect RS, not editors' tastes. Of course cult is a term with many meanings, but so is NRM, or even "religion". The fact that SY has alleged to be a "cult" is a key aspect of it in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

"Cult" will never, ever, ever, be a neutral term, and will always be a highly opinionated term, that at best should be framed as the opinion of a particular person. Cult has never been that coherently defined (which is why sociologists made the NRM term), and it's often thrown around as an insult or for a religion people don't like. NRM and Religion are at least fairly coherent terms with definitions that sociologists discuss and study. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the use of the word "cult" does not conform to the high standards of Wikipedia and current language used by professionals who study NRMs. It is a pejorative word so easily and cheaply used to smear any non standard religion. If the word is to be used in this article, it needs to be given the context it deserves. It has been used by a small number of ex members and reported in the press in that respect. It is also used by writers who make a living pandering to peoples' fears about new religious movements. I don't believe the reference to Jean-Marie Abgrall is reliable since he himself has been discredited. Freelion (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not our place to censor the use of words that feature prominently in reliable sources. There is no mandate for Wikipedia editors to decide what constitutes "conforming to high standards" or to speculate about the "current language used by professionals". A word may be pejorative in your eyes, but that is not how we judge whether the use of a particular word falls within our WP:DUE policy: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If you have a reliable source that states "It has been used by a small number of ex members and reported in the press in that respect", then please produce the source. If it's your own opinion, then that will fail our original research policy. --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

"Cult" is more of a subjective criticism and conclusion than a descriptive term. Since many sources call it a cult, it should be part of the article, but it should listed along with the controversy and criticism, rather than using the neutral Wikipedia tone. ie psychologist x says it's a cult because y, or "many call it a cult". rather than saying "Sahaja Yoga is a cult". Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:ASF. If the sources use "cult", we use "cult". If there are sources saying "It's a cult" and no sources saying "It's not a cult", then we assert the simple fact in Wikipedia's voice. Attribution is for disputed sources. By "disputed sources", I don't mean disputed by a Wikipedia editor, I mean disputed by other, equally reliable sources. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a "fact" people call it a cult. You can never say that it's a cult as a fact. There's a big difference between these two things. As I have stated and explained above, "cult" is a highly questionable and problematic term, which is why academics don't use it and instead use NRM. Cult carries with it a lot of baggage and pejorative nature, plus it's often poorly defined. Other pages like Providence (religious movement) refer to the religions as NRM, and place "cult" accusations as the opinion of others. This is pretty standard for WP. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not your decision to make, as I've tried to explain to you. Wikipedia's content is determined by reliable sources, not editors' opinions and original research. --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

If we're talking RS, then the most weight should be given to the highest quality sources. Those being the academic books published by university presses. Those books call it a New Religious Movement. That's where the weight should be. And as I've tried to explain, Cult is not an objective term, more of a loose, unscientific term wrought with opinion and subjectivity. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Sexual inequality

That's a pretty bold claim. I'm not sure if there's enough WP:WEIGHT for that kind of claim and language right now. Its stated in pretty blunt wikipedia language. At the very least, it should be toned down to what someone may have said, so it's their opinion.

I don't want this article to be a dogpile of trying to find bad parts of Sahaja yoga and tryign to make it look bad. Right now the page reads a bit like a SY web-page, but I don't want to go the other direction either. That's going too far. Pages on controversial new religious movements are difficult to find balance on.

Now, the meta reason is because if these pages sound biased, then people will not believe what's on them. I want these pages to be properly neutral, and fair, but also to include all relevant information. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The underlying claim is from Nirmala Srivastava. What we don't want to be doing is suppressing stuff: we want neither a dogpile of good nor a dogpile of bad. Alexbrn (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Harizotoh9 for at least trying to be reasonable here. I am relieved that even though you have said you believe it is a load of whoey, you are not actually trying to be malicious. I am forced to assume good faith in Alexbrn but to honest, it's pretty hard. It looks like his interest in cleaning up the bio medical claims in articles is really a front for a meanness of spirit. But I digress and will appeal to his better nature.

This section is transparently a smear in the same way as the introduction of the word "cult" in the intro. It is totally uncalled for. Firstly the words of the founder are taken out of context, secondly the quote from the secondary source is taken out of context and thirdly, the way it is written is to express the worst conclusion possible, that being the heavy POV of the editor. There is only a single source for this sentence and this does not give it the significance of having its own section. Lastly, the quality of the source is extremely dubious, given that the author is a renowned self styled "cult buster" who himself has been accused of using pseudo science. Freelion (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Issues:

• 1: WP:WEIGHT - Is this something that many people point out, or just one? So far there's one critic of the religion who said this. This would probably fit more under cult allegations. There's a lot of weight for sources calling it a cult, so that should stand, but one person saying it might hold those views on gender.
• 2: WP:NPOV - This shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia langauge, but as the POV of a critic. Also, Is this is fundamentally anything different that Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc teach? Should it even be pointed out as something outrageous or strange?
• 4. WP:OR and Cherry picking. The founder has probably said a lot of things, so is this just some off-hand comment somewhere or is this a major policy platform? Is this extrapolating from what the founder said? This gets into original research territory.

Conclusion: I'm a little wary of this, and I'm learning towards removing this for now. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You are confusing the base neutral point of view (which is the policy that decides the extent to which views are represented in an article) and asserting facts. NPOV requires that if a statement is found prominently in reliable sources, then it should be mentioned in the article. In this context Wikipedia considers facts to be statements of reliable sources that are not contradicted by other, equally reliable sources. It is only when sources disagree that we treat the conflicting statements as opinions and therefore attribute them. We do not "tone down" statements (for example, by attributing them) that have no sources that contradict them even if we personally disagree with them – that is editorialising, at best, and more often tantamount to whitewashing. --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

So there's two sources so that seems to have more WP:Weight. However, the title of the section as "Sexual inequality" is 100% editorializing. A better section title would be "gender" or something. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is there even a section on "Role of Women"? Because it's been toned down from "Sexual inequality" which is the POV of an editor who cherry picked a quote from a career anti cultist. If the article needs to talk about the role of women, why not call it the role of men and women? Freelion (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

POV of an editor who cherry picked a quote from a career anti cultist I can't say I verified if the source is usable yet, but it is preferable to use secondary sources than interpreting ourselves the primary sources. This means that statements by cult experts, anthropologists who wrote about it, etc, are considered valid and even preferable to using quotes from the primary sources alone. —PaleoNeonate – 14:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Understood Neonate, but in this case the source (anti cultist) has merely included the quote under heading with no other interpretation given. Another Wikipedia editor had chosen to not include the whole quote but rather added his own interpretation. I should add that this particular source, apart from being a career anti cultist, has been roundly discredited. Freelion (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I tracked down a copy of Coney's "Socializing Processes..." book and have found that it has been misquoted in the article. The inflammatory quote "women are... 'dangerous' creatures prone to succumbing to temptation" is partly the creation of a Wiki editor; the word 'creatures' was never mentioned. Secondly, this is from a summary of "The Code of Manu" which is referred to by many sociologists studying NRMs. Coney believes this is what Nirmala Srivastava draws upon. So this is very indirect, I found some much better points in that chapter which are from what the founder has actually said. Also, the quote that starts with "If you are a dominating man..." is given much better context in this source. Freelion (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have restored my version after Alexbrn's reversion and left an invitation on his talk page to discuss the article here before changing again. Alexbrn left one word explanation "gobbledygook" on his reversion. I do not believe he has properly considered the value of my changes and he definitely needs to respond to my reasoning above. Freelion (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Try not to edit war. We don't use poor primary sources or engage in misrepresenting sources with nonsensical stuff like "although the range of role interpretation varies" (which is your original research, no?) Alexbrn (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Alex, I have not added any primary sources, I'm using the same ones as before. There is a primary source in the last paragraph but this was not added by me in the last revision. Coney's source has not been misrepresented, see page 120 "Moreover, the range of role interpretation, in some areas, is increasing amongst the women". Considering the relative nature of this statement in terms of where it was observed and when, I thought it sufficient to summarise this as "the range of interpretation varies". Alex, if this is your only issue, please do not revert again, discuss first. Freelion (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I see. But Coney's point there concerns they way women view their roles themselves. Your use of it to "although" the primacy of men within Sahaja Yoga is dishonest WP:SYNTHESIS. You've now also started removing well-sourced material, along with adding primary material. In sum, this looks like WP:PROFRINGE whitewashing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation but since you don't like the wording, I've adapted it. Please stop reverting all the time. The article is a collaborative effort, not your way or the highway. Freelion (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Edits have to be in line with the WP:PAGs. That is basic. You are deleting well-sourced content and this skews the POV of the article. NPOV is a non-negotiable pillar of Wikipedia. Also, putting Coney's text verbatim in Wikipedia's voice is WP:CLOP which is very very bad. Alexbrn (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you are either not paying attention or being purposely obstructive. I have not deleted any sourced content, in fact I have added sourced content. Furthermore, the quote that had no context has now been given context from the Coney source. I have added the quote marks as per policy. Please try to be reasonable now and discuss before reverting again. Freelion (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm obviously paying enough attention to notice your copyright violations and deletions (e.g. of the Lakshmi content). You additions are poor, or unreliable (a long quotation from the founder). What exactly are you trying to achieve here? Alexbrn (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've expanded this section with the relevant parts of Coney's chapter,

• Without glossing over the weird bits (e.g. demons)
• Using Coney's analysis rather than copy-pasting long inscrutable quotations from Sri Mataji (we are meant to base our articles on secondary, not primary, material)
• Taking care to avoid WP:CLOP - because Coney's views are being represented we need to attribute heavily.

See what you all think! Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Not bad Alexbrn, I hope you don't mind if I make a few tweaks. Having access to the same text, I've tidied up some of the wording in one paragraph relating to the Coney reference. I thought saying "the supposed qualities of Laxmi" was a bit strange since nobody is casting doubt on the traditional qualities of this particular goddess. I replaced it with "ideal wifely qualities"; these words are used in the source, I trust this does not infringe WP:CLOP. Secondly, I thought it was not exactly clear where the three traditional attitudes towards women came from since Coney says that a book called "The Code of Manu" sums these up. It's important to distance these points from the beliefs of Sahaja Yoga since this is only Coney making the link between Sahaja Yoga and this book. It's otherwise quite misleading to try to say the founder of Sahaja Yoga ever said anything to the effect of "Women are dangerous and prone to temptation".Freelion (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Second update: the words "women are subordinate to men" was never printed in Abgrall's book. He said that some parents of English Sahaja Yogis had studied the remarks of the founder of Sahaja Yoga. The title of their point 12 is that "Women play a subordinate role". This is not the same as women being subordinate.Freelion (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Third update: I moved the quote about the role of men and women after what Coney said about Srivastava disapproving of western feminism, since this was the context of this quote. It did not come from "the texts of Sahaja Yoga". Freelion (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Fourth update: I added some more info from Coney's chapter into the fourth paragraph. The idea that the sexes are complementary. Coney has written that Shri Mataji's advice was not consistent towards women but I am not able to work out her point. She used two quotes from Shri Mataji in making her point. One was about the sexes being complementary, the other was why she did not agree with feminism since it makes women more masculine. But I see that as fairly consistent. I took the quote marks off from "respect" for women – no need for them. Freelion (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You left the sentence sourced to Abgrall as a meaningless little stub. I've restored that to sense. "Playing a subordinate role" and "being subordinate" within a movement, are synonymous. Coney's point was the SM was inconsistent and while at times she maintained the sexes were complementary, overall she ascribed women a submissive domestic role. Whatever her particular views, in Sahaja Yoga itself woman are effectively inferior per Abgrall. Alexbrn (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The Abgrall chapter said that the parents of a Sahaja Yogi, through analysing the remarks of Shri Mataji, had observed that "women play a subordinate role". You say that this is the same as "being subordinate" in the movement but this is demonstrably not true. For example, women may play a subordinate role in terms of administration and management; but they are given a higher status in terms of being a central figure in the household. Coney says this and includes a quote by Shri Mataji that women may not be the head of the family but are the heart, to which she gives more importance.

Abgrall never said that women are effectively inferior. "Playing a subordinate role" and "Being inferior" are not the same at all. More context needs to be provided on this point from the Coney source. Freelion (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I've had to delete the first two sentences from this section as they are patently false summaries. As discussed above, please address the points I have made above before going forward. Coney never made such a simplistic summary; she made at least 2 points, that women may be subordinate in terms of management but they are attributed much higher status within the family than men. It's a balanced point. Abgrall's chapter also never made such a summary – see points made above. The quote used in the Abrgall source should properly be included with Coney's point since it is used in her chapter; but she also includes a second quote about the higher status of women in the family (the heart as opposed to the head of the family). If you would like to include the first quote, we should also include the second as it is part of Coney's point about the role of women. Otherwise you might be accused of cherrypicking. Freelion (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The Abgrall text is fine and is long-standing. Trying to edit-war it away will likely get you sanctioned. As to Coney, you need to read her chapter more carefully, particularly her summarizing paragraphs (beginning "Whilst Sri Mataji, then ..."). I think we should mirror what Coney writes in summary. Trying to "balance" Coney against Abgrall is a kind of synthesis which should be avoided. When citing Coney, our "balance" must mirror hers; so when she writes "However, this single reference only partially counterbalances the otherwise seamless vision of feminine domesticity and compliance [my bold] she has extended to women in her movement" this helps orient us. @Freelion: - note the word "seamless". I am doubtful of your edits because they seem to be striving to arrive at a different picture of Sahaja Yoha to the one described in our sources. Alexbrn (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Long standing, you mean since April? It's all your additions Alexbrn, you've been bold I'll give you that. I deleted those sentences because they are patently false and biased. Why do you think you are exempt from the Bold revert discuss cycle?
2. You're cherrypicking from the Coney source and not including all her points. I've said it many times that the quote in the Abgrall source is given absolutely no context. The same quote is given context however, by Coney who counterbalances it with another quote where Shri Mataji talks about the high status of women. Does it "suit your purposes" to obscure this point? I am reading the source carefully and I encourage other editors to do the same. This chapter can be read here: [[2]].
3. It is wrong to say that "The texts of Nirmala Srivastava say that...". This is one quote from a talk, not something repeated in multiple texts.
4. Nowhere in Coney's chapter does it say "this was an informing influence on Sri Mataji's views on women". The text says "Sri Mataji draws upon wider Hindu attitudes as well for the image of womanhood she proposes for her female followers. Such views are summed up by the Code of Manu...". Coney never says that Sri Mataji ever read this book or was influence by it. She is only saying this book provides a useful source on the wider Hindu attitudes that Sri Mataji draws upon. I've tweaked this sentence to reflect this.
5. I trimmed the "attributable to demons" text as this is irrelevant to the point. The founder's view on demons is another subject, perhaps worthy of its own section and appropriate scholarly context. To include it here is only to create controversy. As Alexbrn said, he want's to include "the weird stuff". Not cool Alexbrn, providing things out of context is the practice of muckraking newspapers – don't you hold yourself to a higher standard?
6. Abgrall's book does not say "Sahaja Yoga holds that women are subordinate to men". This is plainly false and should be removed or reworded. It would be fairer to say "The parents of Sahaja 'yogists', analyzing Mataji’s remarks, noted that women play a subordinate role". As pointed out before, it is an error to equate "playing a subordinate role" with "being subordinate". Alexbrn, you have previously extrapolated on this error to declare that "women are inferior to men". This highlights your POV and I seriously question your motivations in editing this article.

Freelion (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I've re-added the quote supplied by Coney which forms part of her point about Shri Mataji giving a number of messages about the role of women. I believe Coney is saying it is inconsistent that on the one hand Shri Mataji says "the woman is the heart of the family" (giving her high status) when on the other she disapproved of Western feminism since it requires women to "deviate from their true nature". Freelion (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The original talk that contains the quote used by Coney with regard to Western feminism can be listened to here: [[3]] Of course, this is a primary source and only for reference for those interested.

Having read the transcript I have found that Coney's representation of the source is accurate whereas the representation of the quote by Abgrall is incorrect – the words "docile" and "domestic" do not appear in that transcript. Therefore I repeat my request that we prefer Coney's version since it is also used in scholarly context as part of her point about the various messages given by Shri Mataji about the role of women. This quote should be used in that context in the current last paragraph of this section. There is also much more material in that transcript if you wanted to get more context. Freelion (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I find the whole article very maliciously written with references largely attributed to mainly one person, Judith. To get a balanced view of any movement, you have to give equal bandwidth to the practitioners who are very settled, balanced and successful in their lives. I speak from experience. I found Sahaj yoga through Meet up a few years ago in London. I am so glad we found this meditation which is based on one’s own experiences achieved through meditation. My husband and I practice it with our three children now. Our children are going through the Uk education system and have found meditating daily for a few minutes has helped them through stressful exam times and anxiety while navigating their paths during adolescence . They are confident, polite kids who also have a secular view of spirituality, thanks to Sahaja yoga. We regularly use affirmations and prayers from many religions such as Lord’s Prayer from Christianity, chants from Buddhism, references to the primordial masters from Taoism, Islam, mantras from Hinduism in our daily meditation, depending on what feels right for healing a chakra (which I find very refreshing). I have met couples who have been matched through Sahaja marriages and they are happily married after years, with grown up children in successful careers, so I don’t understand the bit about recruitment of children. We have heard numerous talks of the founder, Shri Mataji. If one is in a vibrationally clear state (which can be felt by one self when the inner system is balanced), there are very intelligible nuggets of knowledge to be absorbed. If I could, I would shout out to the whole world about how much practicing Sahaja yoga has liberated me, made me open-minded and trusting of my qualities and potential. I am glad I have had the chance to experience the benefits of Sahaja yoga, without being tainted by these highly damaging claims made here. Yolal (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Your expereience counts for nothing without reliable sources, which is what the article is built upon. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 07:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Healing:

"More pragmatically, Sahaja Yogis say that the practices of the movement can cure all manner of physical and psychological diseases." - Judith Coney, Sahaja Yoga, page 47

Also she started as a faith healer. How should we handle this? WE have sources saying they can do this, but nothing saying that there's no proof of this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't want to state or imply anything biomedical without WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Public facade?

Sources talk about how the group has a public facade and hide their real beliefs. What does this mean exactly? Are the real beliefs that they worship Shri Mataji as a messianic jesus like figure? The current text in the article doesn't make this clear. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi protection

I've semi-protected the article for a couple of weeks to see if we can persuade the drive-by IPs to engage on the talk page, rather than making the same edits, which are then reverted. --RexxS (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Cult allegations

The first paragraph: "Cult expert Jean-Marie Abgrall has written that Sahaja Yoga exhibits the classic characteristics of a cult in the way it conditions its members. These include having a god-like leader, disrupting existing relationships, and promising security and specific benefits while demanding loyalty and financial support. The true activities of the cult are hidden behind the projection of a positive image and an explicit statement that "Sahaja yoga is not a cult"."

This is a summary from the Abgrall the cult buster's book.

1. He didn't say that "Sahaja Yoga exhibits the classic characteristics of a cult in the way it conditions its members". He said "The parents of Sahaja yogists, analyzing Mataji’s remarks, noted the dialectical elements of conditioning. By extrapolation, they then used the same methodology to identify how cult groups talk." Have fun unpicking that quote. He is representing the findings of some non professional sleuths whose son or daughter has joined the movement.
2. The sentence "The true activities of the cult are hidden behind the projection of a positive image and an explicit statement that 'Sahaja yoga is not a cult'" is very insinuating. Nobody is saying that "the true activities of the movement are hidden", nor that the positive image is somehow a dishonest projection. He never said that "The true activities are hidden behind... an explicit statement that 'Sahaja yoga is not a cult'. This is just nonsense.
3. The fact that he indiscriminately refers to the movement as a "cult" is just typical of how sloppy and unreliable a source this is. Anyone with any self respect who studies this area uses the term "new religious movement". Abgrall has been discredited and poorly reviewed by his peers and we should not be using him as a reliable source. Freelion (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You obviously don't like the source, but it's fine for our purposes (as others have said above - now sure why we need yet another section on this). We're not going to whitewash this stuff over. Abgrall offers 16 points of analysis including the need to "offer a good public image" while having a goal of physically and psychologically conditioning members. Overall I would support expansion using the Abgrall source, if you don't think we bring its detail out enough. Incidentally, Coney refers to SY frequently as a "sect", not a NRM. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The contentious topic in relation to Abgrall was brainwashing. As long as we don't focus on that, his notable work is valuable. If we do approach claims of brainwashing, then we could attribute that as his opinion and balance it with another sentence about it not having consensus. —PaleoNeonate – 17:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Some other sources:

• Bromley, David G.; Melton, J. Gordon, eds. (2002). Cults, Religion, and Violence. Cambridge University Press. p. 115. ISBN 9780521668989. - Sahaja Yoga listed as "dangerous" by gov't commission: France 1996, Belgium 1997
• Arweck, Elisabeth (2004). Researching New Religious Movements: Responses and Redefinitions. Routledge. pp. 258–259. ISBN 9781134472468. - Mentioned along some other movements on which einquiries were popular
• Lewis, James R. (1998). The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions. Prometheus Books. p. 415. ISBN 9781573922227.

—PaleoNeonate – 17:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I can merge this section with "Reliable Sources" if required. Can we at least change Abgrall's title from "Cult expert" to "Anti-cultist"? This would be more accurate since "cult expert" is itself an oxymoron. An expert would use the term "new religious movement". An anti-cultist uses the word "cult" because that is his stock-in-trade.

To separate conditioning from brain washing is splitting hairs in my opinion. So please go ahead and qualify this text as this source has been discredited. Also relevant is that this is not his own work – he's reporting on the work of some non professional sleuths who are the parents of a member of the movement. They probably sent him their grievances as some people send stories to sensationalist news shows, that is, to get a beat-up.

It's not about me not liking the source. I like reliable sources but this source is simply not reliable. Another editor above has questioned the use of this non-scholarly source.

As an anti cultist, he has a conflict of interest in providing a balanced report. Furthermore, the source has been badly summarised as I have pointed out above in detail. Freelion (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You cannot rule a source unuseable because you dont like it!! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 06:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Freelion: We can't rule a source out just because you don't like it. You have provided no evidence at all to call this source into question. It's not as if we are spoilt for sources on this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Guys, it's not about me "not liking the source", it's about its reliability being questionable. I know you like it though because as you say, it "suits your purposes". Yes I'm sure it does, since it's clear all you're interested in doing is attacking the movement and creating an unbalanced article. Please respond to the following points by number.

1. Abgrall is properly known as an anticultist. It says so on his wiki article so there's no need to try to elevate his status here by calling him a "cult expert". As mentioned, this term is an oxymoron. If his work is to be included, it should be given context it deserves.
2. As an anticultist he has a conflict of interest and is therefore not a reliable source.
3. This source has been badly summarised by POV editors. Please address the points I made when I started this section.
4. He's been poorly reviewed by his peers, particularly on his theories about brainwashing. Don't try to split hairs between brainwashing and conditioning!

Freelion (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The source is fine for our purposes, as already discussed at length. I notice you've been trying to skew the Abgrall article too, but other editors have resisted the POV-skew. Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you have not discussed it at length – you keep repeating the same assertion: "fine for our purposes". Who are you talking about, you and Richard Dawkins? It's not fine for reliability as other editors have challenged. Plus the summary of it is inaccurate. Hey, can you address the numbered points above? Freelion (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

You are making increasingly personal comments. Stop it. Nobody has said this is an unreliable source. Our "purpose" can be found by starting at WP:5P. Alexbrn (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I'll confine my comments on your behaviour to your talk page in future. I had a look at WP:5P and noticed the second point is "neutrality". I think this is the real bone of contention here. The Abgrall source is not reliable because of its single-minded non-neutral approach to discussing new religious movements, or rather – categorising them all as cults because he is afterall, an anti-cultist. Secondly, this source, as bad as it is, has been inaccurately summarised to be even more slanted and misleading. I've numbered my original points at the beginning of this discussion to make it easier to reference. Freelion (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Abgrall is obviously reliable for his view. Sources do not need to be neutral (the best ones often are not). Our job is to be neutral by representing sources accurately and fairly. Alexbrn (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to address my numbered points? Freelion (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:CPUSH much? If you must know the responses are "so what", "wrong", "wrong" and "irrelevant". Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

No Alexbrn, those are not acceptable answers. Are you being facetious now or are you trying to avoid a sensible discussion? It is clear you are making POV edits and then not engaging in proper debate, instead accusing me of POV discussion and even of wasting your time! Come on mate. Engage. Freelion (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

When you address the above 4 points properly Alexbrn, don't forget to answer the first 3 points that I mentioned at the top of this section as they have not been acknowledged either. Freelion (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed your points, you don't like the answers, I'm not playing into a WP:CPUSH waste-of-time. You have now removed this content again. Coming of a block for edit-warring, this seems reckless. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Again with the threats? It's plain to see Alexbrn that you have NOT answered my points. There are 7 of them, all numbered. Having not received any proper feedback in this discussion, I have removed one highly contentious and inaccurate paragraph from the article. I have explained above all the problems with this paragraph and these points need to be reviewed in detail. To refuse to do so is making a mockery of the process. Freelion (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

In my view this content is reliably-sourced, fairly summarized and WP:DUE. In these circumstances, it simply does not matter what you think, as for reasons of neutrality this content has to appear in order for our article to be in line with core policy. In order to widen consensus a noticeboard discussion has been opened, which is a step to resolving any dispute in this matter. If you disagree, argue there (though my recommendation is that you drop the WP:STICK to avoid further waste of your, and everybody's, time). Repeatedly deleting the content without consensus is edit-warring and - yes - will lead to a sanction. Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Family

An editor has found a new source relating to family (and the right of children to religious freedom) in Sahaja Yoga. It can be read here: [[4]]. The paragraph relating to the movement is as follows:

"Sahaja Yoga also has a distinctive image and model of childhood. The vast majority of the children, including babies, are integrally involved in the daily ritual practices of the group that take place in the home. through relationships with family members, parents or other members of the movement, the children learn informally many of the beliefs of the movement, such as the status of the leader. There are also a number of rituals, which include meditation, feet-soaking, ritual postures, and devotional songs."

The writer does not describe this as specifically unusual. I think a better summary would be:

"Children in Sahaja Yoga are integrally involved and informally learn about the beliefs and practices, taking part in meditation/postures, feet-soaking, and devotional songs." Freelion (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

You missed out the bit where it does describe the family confidguration in SY as "unusual". WP:STICKTOSOURCE is what I say. Alexbrn (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

You're up early today I see. The source uses the term "unusual" in reference to two NRMs. More specifically, he refers to SY using the words "distinctive". Does "unusual" suit your purposes better? Freelion (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It was good before. WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It was "good". Is that your reasoning? It was "good"! Good because it shows a slanted view eh? I've used more of the sourceand it's more accurate than the original.

Good because it reflected the source properly. You justified your edit by writing "The writer does not describe this as specifically unusual". This is untrue. Alexbrn (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have restored the wording in light of the mistake above. Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Demons

@Freelion:Why did you remove this content about demons?[5] This is explicit in the source, and in fact there is quite a lot in Coney about demons (a point we need to expand on). This looks like more whitewashing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

So put it in its own section then, with proper context. The only reason you want it here is because you are trying to highlight "the weird stuff". As pointed out, the reference to demons in this section is irrelevant to the point and only serves to scandalise. Freelion (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

We follow Coney's work, not your preference. How are demons irrelevant is this is explicitly a path to "damnation" within this NRM? We must reflect what the sources say, not whitewash topics. Coney writes a lot about how increased demonic activity is a strand of thought within SY. Alexbrn (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

You keep saying whitewashing but what do you think you're doing – blackwashing? You are only highlighting the cherry picked "weird" points (your choice of words). You are providing quotes out of context with no scholarly discussion. And when I say we should include another quote used in the source that provides commentary, you say this is whitewashing? It's providing a balanced article.

The wording about demons is not relevant to the point that the founder is making about women keeping to their nature. You only want to include it because it sounds "weird" (out of context). How about we include that other quote in there that emphasises the high status of women? Freelion (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at WP:FT/N about this. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, are you able to provide some mainstream views on demons and the apocalypse? I'm thinking we should strive towards removing the fringe theories warning at the top of the beginning of the article. Freelion (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The mainstream view of demons is that they are fictional creatures that feature in many religious world views. Does this really need to be said? It's surely common knowledge. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, according to the template, all non mainstream views must be counterbalanced by their mainstream ones. What about apocalypse, does that have a mainstream interpretation? If you think I'm being facetious, you are only partly correct. I'm interested in knowing how you intend to counterbalance all the other supposed non mainstream views in this article with their mainstream ones. Indeed, what will be your criteria for allowing that template to be removed? Freelion (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't sprinkle articles on Harry Potter with caveats that magic isn't real - your facetious point is not helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you're a wizard at missing the point! Please check my comment that facetiousness was only a small element of my intention. Please address the second part of my comment. Since you're on the subject though, we also do not sprinkle these templates on Harry Potter articles either! You would argue that Harry Potter is a work of the imagination of the author (but children may take it seriously). The understanding is that it is common knowledge that the magic is part of the story. I would also argue that any "non mainstream ideas" reported on this article are unique to the beliefs of the movement. Therefore, you have brought up a good example with which to compare. Now please, could you address the second part of my last comment? Freelion (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense. The view we have of demons in Sahaja yoga is not disputed, and so is mainstream (unless you can produce sources saying that Coney's view is a fringe one). A fringe view would be that Sahaja Yoga proposed the existence of unicorns (or something, that was regarded as fringe). Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I've looked at WP:FRINGE and I think I'm with you. So, as I understand, you are saying this is not the expression of a fringe idea since it is encapsulated in a report by a reliable source about another party. In other words, the "idea" in this case is not that demons exist in the real world but that this belief has been expressed by Shri Mataji. If this is the case, are there any other fringe ideas stated about a mainstream idea in this article? I'm interested in removing those templates from the top of the article. Secondly, do you agree the article now does not rely too much on primary sources? Freelion (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, just in case the above comment was WP:TLDR, do you now agree that we can remove the two templates (about primary sources and fringe theories) from the top of the article? If not, please list the instances of primary sources (that you feel infringe WP:PRIMARYCARE) and any expressions of fringe theories. Freelion (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I think now the fringe medical material has gone and we have the Abgrall content, together with more extensive secondary coverage, these templates can be removed. Alexbrn (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)