Talk:Sahaja Yoga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Hinduism / Swaminarayan / Shaktism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as High-importance).
 

Self published references[edit]

Greetings all. I would like to include information from some of the official Sahaja Yoga publications in order to 'round out' the existing paragraphs and improve the structure to be more informative. I will stay objective by attributing statements to the sources. Must I put an inline citation next to every new sentence or can I simply put the publications into a new Bibliography section? At the moment this article is defensively tagged with references which make the reading a bit stilted. I've noticed other articles are written in a freer style with less inline citations and they use a bibliography. Freelion (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
There are at least two kinds of self-published info. Simple facts are usually uncontroversial. If this were a biography, we might used self published sources for birthdate, parental backgrounds, schools attended, periods of employment: basic CV stuff. For a college we'd use them for the size of the faculty, student body, and campus, the basic facts of the history, programs offered, etc. On a topic like this, the uncontroversial facts are fewer. WP:SPS Another type of information would be information about the beliefs, teachings, etc. Obviously, self-published sources are suitable for that kind of material, but it is considered primary source material. It's best to use primary sources for illustrations or detail of a topic already covered in secondary sources. If secondary sources don't discuss it, maybe it's not important. WP:PSTS
As far as citing every line, I don't think doing so makes the article any more or less stilted. I think it's best to keep them and add more as necessary. In the long run, it makes the article more stable. If there is stilted language, perhaps we can fix it while keeping the citations. WP:V   Will Beback  talk  06:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the links and the advice Will Beback. I'm sure that the material I have in mind fits into the "information about beliefs, teachings etc" category (WP:ABOUTSELF). I will not be interpreting the primary sources but merely using them to flesh out the subjects already covered by secondary sources. I agree with your comments about the writing style (it's our job to make it more readable) and that citations make the article more stable. Freelion (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

most people's thought[edit]

Dear Everyone,

Suggesting new wording for the first line, wording are taken from an article published in India's one of the most renowned news papers, more current compared to existing notes/wordings. The Hindu newspaper is considered to be very reliable source and these wording were said before several thousand people, many politicians, civil servants and people from different walks of life from different parts of the world where witnessing. Thus these wording definitely reflect many people's thought, the current wordings are just one man's view in a book, could have been just a blog if it was more recent.

However I am not removing current wordings but adding more appropriate and thousands of common peoples thoughts front.

If everyone agrees I would also like the wording changed as new spiritual movement instead of new religious movement, these wordings can also be found in several articles and also said by Deputy Prime Minister of India (he was in this role when he made this comment), L.K.Advani,who represents much larger mass expressed before lakhs of people.

link where you can find the wordings: http://www.hinduonnet.com/mp/2003/04/07/stories/2003040700860400.htm

Suggestion: Sahaja Yoga is a methodology on self -transformation and creating consciousness that leads to a happy and blissful life according to many [1] and few call it new religious movement "

Makeitclearer (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Makeitclearer

Thanks for your suggestion. However I don't think that would be a neutral or well-supported change. The Hindunet piece is an unsigned tribute to Shri Mataji. If we could find a better source for it we could add the Advani quote to her biography.   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Will Beback, Thanks so much for your feedback . I will see if i can find more articles. Please help me understand what kind of articles are are better for wiki? This article was published and was written by the hindu new paper journalist, also the words currently in the wikipage is from a book, single mans view. I can understand the just name of the website thehindunet, might not give the right expression who doesnt know the newspaper, Hind refers all people who are from the Hindus vally civilization. I totally understand, the name might confuse.


The hindu newspaper is in circulation since 1878 (under the same name since then and journalist from the hindu are given very high respect in India, 1.49 million readers and they are known for their fairness and righteousness, read by all community of people. The name The hindunet is their official website, they are online since 1995, first Indian newspaper online. Online since 1995, is a prof of their popularity around the globe, as reading online is more recent in India. The article was about an event that happened witnessed by 100,000 people(its the actual number not a guess).

Please advise, Will this be more neutral, (am not removing the current wordings but adding more peoples view in to it as the current wordings are driving it in one direction which is not true according to many many common people. The bellow suggestion will also be more neutral for the readers of the east part of the world and the west part of the world :). The current suggestion will give both type of views and refection of actual number of people, the proportion who thinks so,more of the truth. Please advise, if you think any particular words can be changed to neutralize it better. Suggestion: Sahaja Yoga is a methodology on self -transformation and creating consciousness that leads to a happy and blissful life according to many and few call it new religious movement "

I am sorry! I am making you read very long paras, I will try to confine it from next time.

75.44.13.108 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Makeitclearer

need more clarity![edit]

Hi Will Beback, Thanks so much for your feedback . I will see if I can find more articles. Please help me understand what kind of articles are are better for wiki? This article was published and was written by the hindu new paper journalist, also the words currently in the wikipage is from a book, single mans view. I can understand the just name of the website thehindunet, might not give the right expression who doesnt know the newspaper, Hind refers all people who are from the Hindus vally civilization. I totally understand, the name might confuse.

The hindu newspaper is in circulation since 1878 (under the same name since then and journalist from the hindu are given very high respect in India, 1.49 million readers and they are known for their fairness and righteousness, read by all community of people. The name The hindunet is their official website, they are online since 1995, first Indian newspaper online. Online since 1995, is a prof of their popularity around the globe, as reading online is more recent in India. The article was about an event that happened witnessed by 100,000 people(its the actual number not a guess). Please advise, Will this be more neutral, (am not removing the current wordings but adding more peoples view in to it as the current wordings are driving it in one direction which is not true according to many many common people. The bellow suggestion will also be more neutral for the readers of the east part of the world and the west part of the world :). The current suggestion will give both type of views and refection of actual number of people, the proportion who thinks so,more of the truth. Please advise, if you think any particular words can be changed to neutralize it better. Suggestion: Sahaja Yoga is a methodology on self -transformation and creating consciousness that leads to a happy and blissful life according to many and few call it new religious movement " I am sorry! I am making you read very long paras, I will try to confine it from next time. Makeitclearer (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Makeitclearer

Hi Makeitclearer, if you want to say that only "few call it new religious movement", you have to find a reference that actually says that. Otherwise it is only your own words. At the moment we have a good quality reference which calls it a "new religious movement".
You have provided a reference which reports that Sahaja Yoga have been called "a methodology on self transformation and creating consciousness that leads to a happy and blissful life". This is fine and can be included in the article somewhere if you like, but don't remove "new religious movement" from the introduction because it is well referenced and concise.
See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more details about the rules on Wikipedia. Freelion (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Freelion, What you think should be in the belief section since its your belief. I will agree to be in the first line only if its what is considered in all the 100 countries. Your references or not according to wikis priority of references. What you are showing is a book written by someone what he believes in. Thus I will agree that it can be in the belief. You cannot define what you think in the intro section unless and until you have evidences that its true in all the 100 countries who are doing the sahajayoga. Thus if you think its what it is then it should be in the beleif section and please discuss before if you are intending to put it back on the intro line and put it back only if you have evidences from all 100 countries. Makeitclearer (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Makeitclearer
That's an impossible standard and not the one which Wikipedia uses. We don't have sources for 100 countries agreeing on anything about this subject so if we followed that standard we'd have no article at all. The Wikipedia standard is to use the best available sources. WP:V In this case, that would be scholars. I haven't seen any who say that SY is regarded as a new religious movement (NRM) in some countries but not in others. The lead of an article should include the basic facts, such describing the essential nature of the subject. WP:LEAD Freelion's edit was consistent with Wikipedia policies and procedures.   Will Beback  talk  19:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sahaja Meditation[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Notes[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

Time to trim primary sourced material and excess notes[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

  1. ^ – The Hindu A message for one and all... Monday, Apr 07, 2003 viewed 6 November 2006