Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 7

Origin of the term

There are some notes about the origin of the term Sahaja currently in the article but I found more references that are earlier in time:

• Shashibhusan Dasgupta (1946) Obscure Religious Cults as Background of Bengali Literature University of Calcutta pp.53 + 501
  • in that the author (on page 90) explains that the term "sahaja" corresponding in meaning to sahajayana in earlier Buddhist and Hindu writing. It refers to "real nature" of man or the cosmos as opposed to their more obvious elements. I guess "essential nature" might be the idea, and he suggests it means the "Buddha within the body" or a buddha nature kind of idea. Alternatively, he describes it in terms of path as being the "natural path" to "mahasukha" by involvement with the senses instead of a path of asceticism. This is quite similar to other tantric buddhist language about path (p.59), which describe mahasukha (great bliss) as the fruition instead of cessation of suffering.
• Datta, Rajeshwari (1978) The Religious Aspect of the Baul Songs of Bengal The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 37, No. 3 (May, 1978), pp. 445-455
  • also about the period between 8th and 12th century when Bengali kings ruled, we find the definition of "sahaja" as meaning more the "spontaneous" form of realization of the ultimate mahasukha, the union of prajna and upaya. very tantric as well. and it involved physical practices and the inner subtle body.

I think from these it's fair to say the term "Sahaja" and sahaja yoga is much older than the current article describes and was a fairly important term to buddhist and vaishnava hindu tantra before the 12th century. Any thoughts on this? Otherwise I can propose a specific edit to request a change. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The section in this article is on the origin of the term 'Sahaja Yoga'. The origins of the term 'Sahaja' are discussed in the Sahaja article. --Simon D M (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, missed that. At least I found a couple citations for the other article. In this article, we allude briefly to that with The word 'Sahaja' in Sanskrit has two components: saha meaning 'with' and ja meaning 'born'.[4] Sahaja means natural, simple or innate[5] and Yoga means union or yoking and refers to a spiritual path or a state of spiritual absorption. My thought would be to add another sentence that connects not just the sanskrit meaning but also that earlier yogic usage. This provides some etymology but not that it was also in use as a term in tantric traditions after the 8th century. So it has a longer history. If people click through on sahaja they'll get that, but a sentence here would do the trick. how about this: The term Sahaja was used beginning in the 8th century CE in northern India in early tantric hindu and buddhist yoga traditions. Then change the next sentence from "the term 'sahaja yoga' goes back" to "The compound 'sahaja yoga' goes back" to follow that? - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Owlmonkey... I am sure that we don't have to define the changing historical meaning of the words in the name of the society. That society has a birth date and is registered. We can start from that date and the meaning given by the founder of the Society in question: Sahaja Yoga. Defining the meaning and the reason for the choice of the words is the bailliewick of the PR department of the Society, not the Wiki editors. We are only to report on the words as they are meant by the society and others, and not get into "original research", which is a "no-no" on Wiki...

-))

4d-don--don (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research? Hey I didn't start the subsection titled "The term", but I did notice that it is incomplete and implies that it originated in the 15th century which is not quite right. My proposed addition is already documented in the sahaja article, i'm just suggesting we summarize that briefly here as well. The "term" section already has historical points about the origin of the term albeit incomplete points. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles like Siddha Yoga and Raja Yoga also have sections on the name or term. In all 3 cases there is an older general term that has been adopted by a particular organisation for itself and the practice it promotes. The alternative would be to have these pages as disambiguation pages. Currently this page is about the term and the new religious movement. This movement claims that Sahaja Yoga is a living process rather than an organisation, and sometimes promotes itself as a meditation system or form of natural stress relief. The movement includes the organisation, the beliefs and the practices. While the organisation has trademarked the term Sahaja Yoga, exclusive right to the use of the term has not been accepted by WIPO. I am not aware of uses of the term 'Sahaja Yoga' before the 15th C and I don't see any problem with brief reference to prior use of the term 'Sahaja'. --Simon D M (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more practical to simply state that the term has been used previously in other spiritual practices without reference to any of them specifically as there are too many occurrences to list them all. Listing only one or two might imply similarity in practice where there is none. Auzlaw (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Prophesis Removed

Hi, I thougt I'd remove the following since I can't see how it relates to the article/lady, unless there is a quote from a Sahaja Yoga source saying this is further indication of her divinity. "Shri Markandeya Purana has prophesied the incarnation of the Adi Shakti for the salvation of human beings... Indian Jyotisha Acharya Kaka Bhujandar Tatvacharya noted in his renowned Nadi Grantha, some 2,000 years ago, that a great yogi will appear on the earth and this yogi will have all the powers (shaktis) of the Adi Shakti."</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.51.55 (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's relevant because it sheds background on the term Adi Shakti and it's what Sahaja Yogis believe. Freelion (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Belgian court ruling

Can you please change the following text in the opening paragraph:

"Several newspapers and a French report have referred to the movement as a cult, a branding that has been disputed in a Belgium court."

to

"A recent court case in Brussels has ruled that Sahaja Yoga has been wrongly labeled as a cult and awarded the group compensation."

as the former does not indicate that a ruling has taken place which is a very significant moment for Sahaja Yoga, nor that fact that compensation has been awarded.

An English reference for this can be found here: http://hrwf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113%3Abelgium-2008&Itemid=54#_Toc202982585

(I see there is only a French reference at the moment, further down) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windinthetrees (talk • contribs) 05:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC) - 122.109.27.54 - Windinthetrees (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the need for that change to the introduction and agree that the wording needs to be more specific on the ruling. I suggest the following version: "A 2008 court case in Brussels has ruled that Sahaja Yoga had been wrongly labeled as a cult by a Belgian state authority and awarded the group compensation. The implementation of this decision is subject to an appeal by the Belgian state."

Journalistic sense tells me not to make too much of a deal about "reports in the press", as another editor, 4d-don, has mentioned. I don't have a problem with removing the part about the French report because the French government has been criticised by the UN about this sort of thing. I have another reference which expands on this and I suggest the following be added to the end of the cult allegations section.

France and Belgium have been repeatedly criticized at the U.N. and at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for fostering religious intolerance and discrimination through state entities and state-funded private entities. Willy Fautré, the Director of Human Rights Without Frontiers (Brussels) writes that up to now, the negative image of Sahaja Yoga has been mainly conveyed by “antisect” organizations and “state sect observatories” without any serious control of the rumors concerning this movement as the Belgian court decisions clearly show.

Freelion (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought we could leave out the reference to the appeal as that is covered later down in the article and this is a summary area. So I would prefer "A 2008 court case in Brussels has ruled that Sahaja Yoga had been wrongly labeled as a cult by a Belgian state authority and awarded the group compensation."

The quote by Willy Fautré is relevant and should be included in my opinion. - Windinthetrees (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Freelion (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem is - how to get the page changed when it is locked? 122.109.27.54 (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Once there's a consensus for the edit I, or any admin, can make the change. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For me, there is a consensus... let's go --Ag (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We have consensus. Freelion (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• OK< I've made the change to the intro. I don't see a discussion about the longer text proposed for the body of the article, so I haven't touched that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone got any objection to the longer text (new reference - see above) being added to the end of the "Cult allegations" section? Freelion (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, except can we change "Human Rights without frontiers" into a wikipedia hyperlink as there is a wikipedia article on this organisation already in wikipedia. Also, can we add the following to provide some context:

"Human Rights Without Frontiers has contributed to the report of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights on the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 62/154 of 18 December 2007 on Defamation of Religions by sending its report on the situation in Belgium." The reference for this is: "http://hrwf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113%3Abelgium-2008&Itemid=54" - Windinthetrees (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the same reference as the one I'm using. I think that extra bit of information clouds the issue a bit. How about we just let the readers go to the article on HRWF? I've implemented your suggestion about linking. Here is my suggested text:

France and Belgium have been repeatedly criticized at the U.N. and at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for fostering religious intolerance and discrimination through state entities and state-funded private entities. Willy Fautré, the Director of Human Rights Without Frontiers writes that up to now, the negative image of Sahaja Yoga has been mainly conveyed by “antisect” organizations and “state sect observatories” without any serious control of the rumors concerning this movement as the Belgian court decisions clearly show. Freelion (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, happy to go with that. - Windinthetrees (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Would an administrator kindly insert the above paragraph into the end of the "Cult allegations" section of the article. It has consensus. Freelion (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As these legal responses to cult allegations are highly significant, can we take the last two paragraphs which currently fall under "cult allegations" and put these into a separate section under "Criticisms", following the "Cult allegations" sub-section, and call it "Sahaja Yoga wins compensation for wrongfully being labelled as a cult". - Windinthetrees (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Three instances of original research

WP:PRIMARY states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.".

The third paragraph under "The term", which is about copyrighting of the term, WIPO court case and subsequent expenditure uses only primary sources and is therefore WP:OR. It should be removed in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

Furthermore, under the "medical research" section, the following is original research making an allegation of conflict of interest, which has never been published anywhere:
"It should be noted that the (senior) researcher of all the above studies is a Sahaja Yogi and attends to Nirmala Srivastava's personal medical needs. [6]

and

"It should be noted that one of the authors of the latter study was a Sahaja Yogi and was appointed by Nirmala Srivastava as the first director of the International SahajaYoga Research and Health Center.[7]".

In accordance with Wikipedia policies, these should also be removed. Freelion (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's obvious, fully agree with Freelion --Ag (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the WP:PRIMARY policy, however, details exactly how to use primary sources. The paragraph in question, which currently begins "In 2000 the term 'Sahaja Yoga' was trademarked in the United States by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma.[13] In 2001 a complaint by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma to the World Intellectual Property Organization regarding the use of a domain name using the term was rejected" is reasonable to include if the facts are clearly established by the primary source. If the primary sources support those statements and they are not interpretative then they are ok. But interpretative statements, such as how the paragraph ends current with, "There has recently been 'significant' expenditure by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma to legally protect the term in Europe.[15]" is WP:OR and an opinion. Who believes the expenditure was 'significant' exactly? That source details how much money was spent to protect the term in Europe, it would be supported by the source to list exactly how much money was spent and leave it up to the reader to decide if that was significant or not, but to state that it is significant is not ok. So I disagree that the whole paragraph should be removed merely because you excise a specific portion of the WP:PRIMARY policy and ignore the rest of it. If you'd like to discuss, however, how the statements of those facts are not using them with 'care' or cause a POV push then we should talk about that separately from a policy discussion.

As for the medical research point, it's quite relevant if Dr. Manocha is related to Sahaja Yoga and might not have been the most unbiased researcher. But the claim should not go further than what is established. In the source it reads, "I am deeply grateful to Australia and Australian Sahaja Yogis, your collective, for having provided the medical team which has looked after your Mother, and I want to express my very, very deep gratitude to Dr. Bohdan and Dr. Ramesh Manocha, and the nurses, sisters who are here." So I agree the current statement goes too far but it's important that the association of the researcher be stated so the reader can decide. Perhaps stating that Dr. Manocha was thanked by ___ for medical care for ___ ..." or similar. Since that's all that is established by that source. Similarly for the second line. I think you can remove any assumptions added but still include the point that's being made — in the name of neutrality and full disclosure — but only use what's established in the sources. So in summary, I disagree that they should all be struck because of the primary policy. The policy does not go that far. If we interpreted that policy so strictly everywhere we'd be removing too much material all across wikipedia as a result. The sources do establish something that relates to the material, the statements just need to be edited so that they are strictly supported by the sources. - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Owlmonkey, glad to know you're still watching. I would rewrite the third paragraph under the term as follows:
In 2000 the term 'Sahaja Yoga' was trademarked in the United States by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma. In 2001 a complaint by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma to the World Intellectual Property Organization regarding the use of the term was rejected (despite the dissenting opinion of the presiding panelist), in part due to the determination that the words 'Sahaja' and 'Yoga' are descriptive Sanskrit words heard in Buddhism, used by saint Kabir and also referred to by Guru Nanak in Sikhism
We could add that during the year ending 30 June 2004 there were trademark costs of GBP 16,590 recorded by Life Eternal Trust, UK, but this seems like just an ordinary fact to me. Freelion (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The two sentences referred to in the medical section are only relevant in relation to the assertion of conflict of interest. This assertion has not been published anywhere and by making it here, we are challenging the objectivity of the research. As editors, it is not our place to do that. So I believe these sentences should be removed, there is no other way to make them relevant. Freelion (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Coming off wikibreak. Your third paragraph edit looks great to me. I agree the GBP 16,590 seems trivial by itself and not encyclopedic. I think I hear your point on the conflict of interest (COI) question and those researchers, but it does seem to be common practice to at least note associations when qualifying attributions. For example, when a source is cited or quoted on a contentious political issue, it seems common to cite the source's political party affiliation be it the authors or the magazines. Yes, that implies a COI in some sense, but it also seems important to avoid making the source appear neutral if they are coming from a particular bias or potential COI. In terms of scholars and scientists, I can think of other ways to qualify affiliation so it's clearer what point of view they're coming from. But the point you're making is that we may be implying a COI when it's not clearly established by secondary sources; which is to say that other scholars have not critiqued the studies as being of poor quality and suspicious as occurring under conflict of interest. Ideally this could be settled by secondary sources generally citing the original studies and critiquing them and their methods as good quality. That would be best I bet. Can we find any studies that cite the original ones? For unusual research there might not be anyone citing them unfortunately, then you're left with making it clear to the reader that the scientists had an affiliation of some kind and letting the readers decide about the quality of the research. Perhaps include more details about the methods of the study, was it double blind and include features to avoid bias, was it peer reviewed, etc. So you're providing all of the detail and not drawing a conclusion, but also not hiding the fact that scientists affiliated with the group did the research - which is not surprising since they'd be the most interested in and inspired to study the practices. Probably not uncommon for original science to occur that way. I'm sure most of the transcendental meditation studies were done by TM practitioners, originally. The meditation studies done at University of Washington in recent past were interesting to me because they were really third parties doing the research and not practitioners. But it's all such a new thing, to have this kind of research on meditation. So exciting. - Owlmonkey (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, we have consensus on the rewritten third paragraph of "the Term", would an administrator kindly swap it with the following:
In 2000 the term 'Sahaja Yoga' was trademarked in the United States by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma. In 2001 a complaint by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma to the World Intellectual Property Organization regarding the use of the term was rejected (despite the dissenting opinion of the presiding panelist), in part due to the determination that the words 'Sahaja' and 'Yoga' are descriptive Sanskrit words heard in Buddhism, used by saint Kabir and also referred to by Guru Nanak in Sikhism
Freelion (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Medical section

Hi Owlmonkey, you have succinctly defined my issue with the medical section and eloquently explained your point. Thankyou for being so lucid. I agree with you that it's perfectly fair to note the associations when qualifying contributions. I've rewritten the medical section as follows:

Some studies have suggested that Sahaja Yoga meditation may have some effect in addressing some medical ailments. One study reports results with asthma patients. Sahaja Yoga practitioners were asked to assist in the trials and one of the researchers was a practising Sahaja Yogi. Short-term effects on asthma were noticed, by both objective and subjective measures. According to an article in the Medical Observer Weekly, Sahaja Yoga meditation was found to be "significantly more effective than a generic form of meditation in reducing stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms".

A pilot study (N = 14, no control group) on the effect of Sahaja Yoga meditation conducted by Dr Ramesh Manocha of the Royal Hospital for Women in Sydney, Dr. Barbara Semmar of the department of Psychology at Bond University and Dr. Deborah Black of the Faculty of Medicine at the School of Community Medicine of the University of New South Wales on menopausal symptoms showed that "Changes in vasomotor symptoms, especially hot flashes, were most prominent as a significant decrease of 67% at post-treatment and 57% at follow-up" Dr. Ramesh Manocha, was thanked by Nirmala Srivastava's husband for assisting in his wife's medical team in Australia in 2006.[8]

A news report on a preliminary study suggested that Sahaja Yoga meditation "may be the most effective form of treatment for occupational stress".

A case study showed that test subjects who were practising Sahaja Yoga meditation had "significant improvement in VCS (Visual Contrast Sensitivity)", and that meditation appeared to bring about changes in some of the electrophysiological responses studied in epileptic patients. Another study indicated that Sahaja Yoga meditation results in fewer and less acute epileptic seizures A review of the studies determined that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the efficacy of Sahaja Yoga meditation in treating epilepsy and that further studies were needed. One of the authors of this study, Dr U.C Rai, former head of the Physiology Department of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, and professor in various medical colleges in Delhi, was appointed by Nirmala Srivastava as the first director of the International SahajaYoga Research and Health Center in 1996.[9]

Mishra reported that Sahaja Yoga meditation resulted in a "significant increase" in beta-endorphins between control and meditating subjects. The endogeneous opiates, b-endorphins, are known to have a role in body homeostasis. They strengthen the immune system, and are involved in the maintenance of a healthy psychological functioning. They can even combat cancer cells, which could explain so-called 'miraculous cures' in cancer patients after the practice of Yoga meditation..
Freelion (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. -Owlmonkey (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Changes to the medical section have been agreed to by consensus. New code is above (remove green highlighting). Freelion (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection reduced. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Marriage section misquote

From the article:"Judith Coney has written that partnerships have been broken up by Nirmala Srivastava on the basis of being destructive, and that while breakdown of relationships arranged by Nirmala Srivastava is officially unknown, unofficially it is known to occur".

The above information actually comes from the article in "Growing Up As Mother's Children: Socializing a Second Generation in Sahaja Yoga" by Judith Coney in Children in New Religions Susan J. Palmer, Charlotte Hardman, Rutgers University Press (July 1999), page 121. However, it's been misquoted. The quote is as follows: "Divorce, for example, or the breakdown of relationships arranged by Sri Mataji, is officially unknown in Sahaja Yoga but unofficially fairly common.". This is not about Shri Mataji breaking up relationships, it's about the marriages arranged by Shri Mataji not always working.

I suggest we remove that sentence and replace it with "Judith Coney has written that marriages arranged by Shri Mataji are not always successful." Freelion (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Freelion that this is a more accurate statement. - Windinthetrees (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. -Owlmonkey (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}In the marriage section, please remove the following:

Judith Coney has written that partnerships have been broken up by Nirmala Srivastava on the basis of being destructive, and that while breakdown of relationships arranged by Nirmala Srivastava is officially unknown, unofficially it is known to occur".

and replace it with:

Judith Coney has written that marriages arranged by Shri Mataji are not always successful.

as per consensus. Freelion (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection reduced. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The term Sahaja Yoga ≠ SIddha Yoga

According to the source used to imply that Sahaja Yoga was used as a synonym for Siddha Yoga, Siddha Yoga differentiates itself from Sahaja Yoga. "there are two radically different direct approaches to awakening kundalini. One approach requires initiation by a guru and relies upon a technique called shaktipat, or ``descent of shakti. It is variously called: Siddha Mahayoga, Kundalini Mahayoga or Sahaja Yoga (Spontaneous Yoga). "

The paragraph previously used to justify the synonym refered to the Kriyas.

Removing edits

I note thast both in this article and the one on Nirmala Srivastava edits have been reverted without reason by willbebak - is there any explanation for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.19.110 (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When you make changes to an article, you must provide a description of what you did and why, in the Edit Summary section. You have deleted an edit which was referenced but to a deleted website. The reference could probably be found elsewhere, and fixed. The other thing is that you should get yourself a username. Otherwise it's possible you would get mistaken for a vandal. Freelion (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

From the criticisms section

Coney also reported the allegation that "when Swiss parents protested to Sri Mataji about their children going away from the age of three, thinking that the command to send their offspring came from the national leader rather than her, she personally reinforced his orders and, moreover, ordered them to have no contact with their children for at least a year."[96]

This comes from page 159 of Judith Coney's book and is in the context of the extent to which parents choose to send their offspring to a Sahaja Yoga school differing between countries in Europe. She wrote that in Switzerland most of the children are educated in Sahaja schools. The story is repeated as an allegation but not necessarily as a criticism. I think you could interpret this story critically or otherwise, depending on which side of the fence you sit. It seems irrelevant to include anywhere else in the article so I suggest it be removed. Freelion (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The material appears to be used in this article in the context of complaints about the way children are dealt with in the group. I can get the book from the library to check what you're saying, but the allegation that parent's aren't allowed to see their small children for a year is almost certainly critical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In the context of complaints about the way children are dealt with in SY, it does seem relevant. But actually this allegation came from within the movement itself and does not necessarily indicate a complaint. It could have been narrated with a sense of awe, for example. Shri Mataji's orders, as we know, are treated with absolute respect and she has encouraged parents to be less attached to their children. Practicing Sahaja Yogis would be aware of this. So what I'm saying is that the inclusion of this story in the criticisms section is more of a value judgement by an editor; if it really is a criticism, who is the criticiser? Freelion (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to move it to a section on children or educaiton I don't think that would be a problem. To delete sourced material outright would not be so good. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just on that, when is it OK to delete sourced material? I mean, there's a lot of sourced material out there that editors can choose from but I would argue that some of the material in this article has been chosen specifically to fit with some editor's agenda. How can we determine whether or not a certain cherry picked reference is really relevant?

For example, this reference I have shown is not relevant to a section on criticisms unless you look at it from the editor's point of view. So now we have this reference which is no longer relevant for the section it has been sourced for. Do we we really have to find a new place for it? Freelion (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We should summarize what reliable sources say about the subject. The point isn't to fill out a set of arbitrary sections. As for when it's appropriate to remove sourced material, the main reason would be excess weight. There really aren't that many sources that discuss the subject in depth, so we should be careful about deleting what we do have. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms section - Inform link

Hi all, I've been in touch with Inform to get more info on Sahaja Yoga. They have told me that the link referred to in this article "...was not published by Inform and the leaflet used in the Wikipedia article dates from around 2002 and is no longer circulated by Inform." If this is the case, should Wikipedia be using this link? Freelion (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to this PDF: [10]? It contains information as if it were issued by INFORM. I'm not sure I understand how it is that they never published it, and "no longer " circulate it? Did they circulate it without having published it, and with their name on it? As for the date, that's a help because we didn't have an exact date on it. As far as references go, that's pretty recent so it's certainly not too old to use, if this other matter can be clarified. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It means that they are not the ones hosting that PDF online since it is no longer circulated by the organisation. Someone else has posted it at that URL. The leaflet may not have ever been published as such, only made available from their office or posted to people who make enquiries. They are currently preparing an updated version, they told me. Freelion (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that link is to the student support department at a university. I'm not sure what the hosting has to do with an anything, unless they're claiming a copyright violation. Are there any specific assertions sourced from it that you challenge? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I just thought that if the organisation that created the leaflet has withdrawn it from circulation, that means they no longer stand behind what it says. What if we just wait until they finish the new one? Freelion (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Sfacets made repeated effort to remove this source, though I don't recall if he had any actual objections to the assertions in the article. Do you have any objections to what we have in the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Inform as well, and the research officer replied that it was an Inform Pamphlet written in 2001, and that it has not been disavowed. The officer also wrote: "We would by no means 'disavow' the document, but we are no longer circulating it as we consider it to be out-of-date. As you have a copy, you are welcome to reference it. But preferably also put the date on the reference." I think that, given this response, this is an appropriate source and if you want to add that it is "out of date" that'd be OK too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the information pending some other resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I would like to integrate some of the points from this section into other sections or new sections of the article. As mentioned further above, it's my opinion that some of these criticisms have never been made and that they are only criticisms from a previous editor of the article. Some of the points could do with some context. I've got some more sources which I hope can add light to the subject. Freelion (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss major changes before making them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Critical sites

WP:EL recommends avoiding external links to sites that "mislead the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."

The authors of the two sites listed under "Critical sites" make many unsupported allegations. Interpretations are made of the movement using the assumption that it is somehow destructive, however, this assumption itself is unsubstantiated by any of the information presented.

I would describe the sites as opinion pieces. By linking to them we are giving them undue free publicity. They do not represent accurate research and are no more valid than any other personal website whether critical or not. Freelion (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

External links

Trimmed down External links section, and added {{No more links}}. There were way too many links. Cirt (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

Currently there is dissension in the Sahaja Yoga movement regarding the role of the husband and one of the daughters of the founding teacher. In the context of this dissension, the World Council was abolished in a Letter under Shri Mataji's signature, but rather obviously written by the husband (Sir C.P.Srivastava), circulated in mid January 2010. How should this be incorporated into the wikipedia article? ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogiwallah (talk • contribs) 01:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi YW, the first rule of Wikipedia is that content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. Personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions cannot be used. So the first job is to find a place where the information you are referring to has been published. Freelion (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Barker

• Eileen Barker from Inform advises that the media is the most influential source of information about New Religious Movements and that the majority of that information is of a negative nature. The media have an interest in attracting and keeping readers, most of whom are likely to be attracted by sensational stories. Suppliers of information may well have an agenda that leads them to adjust their product to meet a perceived demand.

What does this text have to do with Sahaja Yoga? If it's not directly related to SY then it should go into an article about Barker or media coverage of new religious movements.   Will Beback  talk  04:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It serves to provide a background to criticisms of new religious movements when they are published in the press. This criticisms section has already been marked as being non-neutral and I believe that is because previous editors have used these press criticisms to bolster their own opinions, when they are also the ones who made the claims to the press in the first place. I think inclusion of this point is warranted because it serves as a disclaimer about the authority of such criticisms in the press. We've already used Inform as a reference for claims against the movement so it's only fair to also use Inform to provide a bit of background. Freelion (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't on new religious movements, it's on Sahaja Yoga. Nothing that isn't about Sahaja Yoga should be included. Editors on every new religious movement could propose to add this same text to those articles. If we start adding information on topics that are tangentially related then there's no limit on how long this article would grow. We now have an article about INFORM, so let's add the text there and link to it instead.   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's good.   Will Beback  talk  10:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Copying

We cannot copy material from other website and paste it here.

• Some Sahaja Yogis, but not all, prefer the practice of arranged marriages as is still common in more traditional countries.
• With respect to marriages, some sahaja yogis, but not all, prefer the practice of arranged marriages as is still common in more traditional countries.

I'd request the editor who added these to correct the copying,. Otherwise I'll revert the recent changes, as I don't want to have to go through these one by one and doing the work myself.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Further, any material based on SY websites should be clearly attributed to the source. Their assertions should not be presented as the truth, but rather as another POV.   Will Beback  talk  04:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Willbeback, what do you mean by correcting the copying? Is it OK if I paraphrase it instead of copying it, making sure to clearly attribute the source? Freelion (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean.   Will Beback  talk  06:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is what I've just done enough? The rest of it uses different sources and they've been mashed together. Freelion (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you copied, so without a lengthy investigation I can't tell if you've fixed it. But if I find out later that there is more copied material I'll be disappointed. Please be more careful in the future. Plagiarism is no more appropriate here than in an academic setting.   Will Beback  talk  07:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's understood. In my case it could be a case of monkey-see monkey-do. I'm sure there are other sections of the article where sentences are pasted in from references. I've had a look at WP:PLAG and I'll take care to correct any instances as I uncover them. Freelion (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)