Jump to content

Talk:Sahaja Yoga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr Birchwood (talk | contribs) at 15:49, 13 January 2023 (→‎Source misrepresentation?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Experience of apostates

In this edit[1] I removed what seemed like a total misrepresentation of the cited source (Coney p. 214); but on further examination the second cited source (Coney p. 184) did indeed say that ex-members could find some nice things to say about the movement. I have accordingly restored this text in a new "Apostasy" section and expanded per Coney – the idea that these "positive" comments were the only reaction of ex-members was cherry-picking to the point of misrepresentation. Separately, I have made the citation markup more consistent throughout the article to make it easy to see what sources are supporting which text. Alexbrn (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cult case in Belgium

According to the Dutch Wikipedia[2], the Belgian court case (which we currently report as being found in favour of the Sahaja Yoga Belgium), was overturned on appeal and, in a final ruling, found instead for the State. Does anybody have the language skills to verify? It's important we get this right. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) S'okay. I found an English source and updated this. Phew! that's quite important as Wikipedia was being seriously misleading on this case, which ended 9 years ago! Alexbrn (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

Please Change: "Sahaja Yoga has sometimes been characterized as a cult" to "Sahaja Yoga has sometimes been confused as a cult" Please remove all comments related to "Judith Coney", she seems to be obsessed to disapprove Sahaja yoga and thus preparing various EVIDENCES. The article is supposed to be neutral and people must be free to judge by practicing it rather then judging by words of some person who is making evidences on basis of her personal beliefs. Millions of people are accepting Sahaja Yoga as way of life after following it as a practice and it has some disciplined ways which are only understood once we practice it. No one is forced in any way to accept and stay, people enter end exit as their will. Deepika Sahal (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Coney is an academic sociologist publishing academic material on the group, which is exactly the kind of source articles on religious groups should be using. Unless there is some kind of extraordinary proof of some kind of reason not to use her as a source, I can't see why we wouldn't. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there — I am 100% in agreement with Deepika Sahal (noting that this was closed a few months ago, but I'd like to "reopen" it). This article reads like a WP version of a summary of Coney's book. Judging by the talk history it seems like it may have used to read like a "propaganda poster" for Sahaja Yoga, but just because an article appears biased in one direction to some viewers should NOT mean that we have to fix this by biasing it in the opposite direction! Nor does a neutral approach mean a generally skeptical and negative approach to something like this. Why can't we have an article that neutrally explains the facts about Sahaja Yoga instead of trying to impress one POV on the reader? Just to make sure, the reason you want to use Judith Coney's book so extensively throughout is because (i) there aren't really any other "academically reputable" sources on Sahaja Yoga and (ii) everything else is either from Shri Mataji's speeches Herself or from practicers of Sahaja Yoga whose books are academically unverified/not allowed to have credit because they may be biased? If this is so, would an academically verified book published on SY but written by a practicioner of SY count as a reputable source for this page? Also, on the subject of biases, is it necessary to have the description of SY as a cult (which is completely unfair and baseless as Deepika Sahal outlined above) so prominent throughout the page?? On Nirmala Srivastava, the first sentence literally classifies Sahaja Yoga as a cult — I feel like this is very unnecessary, especially given that the argument that "WP is being factual and totally unbiased" is just wrong: the word cult IS pejorative and negative however it is used, and in this case it is very much untrue — compare the description of a cult with SY. If you don't agree with my individual assessment I can provide further explanation to back this up. Thanks in advance. Vibrations1008 (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge on topics as published in good sources. Such sources are typically independent, secondary and reputably-published. Scholarly sources are particularly prized. This article does not "literally classify Sahaja Yoga as a cult", and neither does Nirmala Srivastava. However, SY has notably sometimes been classified by reputable authorities as a cult, and neutrality requires us to mention that. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

remark on judith coney

since when wikipedia started publishing thoughts of an individual in it's articles. in all of the article only thing can be read is Judith Coney said this, remarked this, found this. looks like a biased ideology have been published about Sahaja Yoga by wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.196.36 (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Role of women

I feel this section is heavily skewed towards a negative interpretation of this chapter in Judith Coney's book. I would like to restore the balance and context that I have found in the original text. The main message is that men and women's roles in SY are different but complementary. Preferably I would rename this section "Gender roles".

The full chapter of the book can be read here:
and a summarised version of the relevant parts is here.

Let me know what you think. Budgewoi (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should delete both those pages at once as copyright violations. see WP:COPYVIO - Roxy the dog 16:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FT/N

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

Is this line from the lead appropriate for wikivoice?

During meditation, seekers of truth experience a state of self-realization produced by kundalini awakening

Seems pretty silly for us to be using wikivoice to state this when its pretty out there and clearly pseudoscientific. Maybe rephrase to Practioners believe that during meditation seekers of truth they experience a state of self-realization produced by kundalini awakening --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's pure woo. Bon courage (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and took it out of wikivoice. --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 'In Scientific Research' Section

To whom it may concern,

I noticed that upon my support of a new member in our community – @J.R.Hutcherson – unprovoked, I received backlash from the user @Bon courage, who decided to single-handedly rollback all my edits on this article. With the off-hand comments:

"Nothing reliable here" and "dump of junk resources".

The section, as you may see in previous iterations of the page, is fully within the remit of the guidelines of wikipedia, citing legitimate and long-standing academic journals in their relevant fields. In consideration to any medical claims, this section repeatedly underlines the fact any medical treatments were adopted as either an adjuvant or adjunct to standard medical practice. Moreover, the neurological findings in the field in the realm of fMRI findings are considered significant in their scope and possible applications in further clinical studies.

The section quotes nearly 42 individual, peer-reviewed and approved studies. May I ask with what accolades does @Bon courage deem to have the authority to prevent the simple elucidation of facts and information; break the 3R rule; and, most importantly, undermine credibility in the ethos of users working under 'good faith.'

Without further indication of specific parts within the section that trespass wikipedia guidelines, rather than a wrangle of wikipedia jargon, I will forthwith reinstate the section. Mr Birchwood (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MEDRS for WP:Biomedical information. We need secondary sources, and not in fringey altmed journals. Your sources did not meet those criteria. Bon courage (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Birchwood, you're not using very high quality sources and they're very likely to be judged as not reliable. When a source claims something so far out of line with the mainstream preponderance of scientific and academic thought giving it prominence is a violation of WP:FRINGE. --(loopback) ping/whereis 13:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give you a few pointers, large amounts of it are source to primary sources (papers in journals). These are specifically called out as a WP:PRIMARY source as an example: a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. It likewise tells us to be extremely careful using primary sources: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. The entire first segment of that section is cited to primary sources, and they are the overwhelming majority of citations in all subheaders of that section. Additionally, even in the sections you do cite to secondary sources as the project asks, I'm only seeing one that unquestionably passes WP:MEDRS. --(loopback) ping/whereis 13:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source misrepresentation?

The Belgian legal description of SY as a cult has been the subject of deceptive editing in the past. I am concerned that on 10 Nov 2022 Mr Birchwood altered[3] the text FROM

In 2005 the Belgian State organisation IACSSO (Informatie- en Adviescentrum inzake de Schadelijke Sektarische Organisaties) issued an advisory against Sahaja Yoga.

TO

In 2005 the Belgian State organisation IACSSO (Informatie- en Adviescentrum inzake de Schadelijke Sektarische Organisaties) issued an advisory against Sahaja Yoga, which has since been rescinded.

but the (hard to check) source,

  • Torfs R, Vrielink J (2019). "State and Church in Belgium". In Robbers G (ed.). State and Church in the European Union (3rd ed.). Nomos Verlag. p. 24. doi:10.5771/9783845296265-11. ISBN 978-3-84-529626-5. S2CID 204603665.

has no such information on page 24 as cited. What is the explanation?

Note the diff also includes several apparently POV re-wordings and a blatant BLP violation in labelling Jean-Marie Abgrall as "discredited" in wikivoice with no sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you underlined this!
To the best of my knowledge you can find that 'the court of appeal ruled in favor of Sahaja Yoga' (pp.11-50) for the 2005 IACSSO statement that has been referenced, and therefore they have been urged to remove their statement from their main website.
On Abgrall, as you can see on his wiki, the current take on his character is dubious. There was a reference to the following source (at some point 147, now 37)?
Anthony, Dick (1 December 1999). "Pseudoscience and Minority Religions: An Evaluation of the Brainwashing Theories of Jean-Marie Abgrall". Social Justice Research. 12 (4): 421–456. doi:10.1023/A:1022081411463. ISSN 1573-6725. S2CID 140454555.
Hope this satiates your incessant search for a smoking gun ;) Mr Birchwood (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sahaja_Yoga&oldid=1133396491"