This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it even Yoga? I attended a class several years ago in Boulder, Colorado, and was not able to discern any "yoga" in their teachings at all. Calling what they do "yoga" gives it an air of respectability and a presumed connection to ancient Hindu philosophy. I suppose the word "yoga" is not copyrighted, and anyone can call what they do yoga... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.237.88 ( talk) 13:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
CULT
Here's a web page that collects various articles on the cult aspects of Dahn Yoga: http://www.rickross.com/groups/dti.html
They seem to rely on tactics similar to Scientology, convincing people that they have "blockages" within their body that need to be healed through Dahn Yoga. Naturally, this will cost several thousand dollars. I'm not sure what the proper Wiki way would be to have NPOV between Dahn Yoga as a cult and Dahn Yoga as it is presented in the advertising blurb here.
Wiki needs to get its stuff together. This people are genuine criminals and this info relays none of that to the unsuspecting public. Get a real page wikipedia! Don't coddle a genuine cult!
Dahn is some strange combo of exercises sold as yoga. It's a weird group of fanatics who are taought to fear the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.88.57.70 ( talk) 16:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
According to Jimbo Wales:
" No original research is a fundamental bedrock policy on Wikipedia. This means: unless you can confirm a controversial fact with a cite to an independent mainstream publication, you must leave it out of the article."
-- Fire Star 火星 18:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems that according to the majority of reliable sources the organization is most notable for being accused of cult status, rather than as a simple instructional group. I think the separate controversy section (which is discouraged by WP:NPOV anyway) should be removed, and the info integrated with the intro and history sections. As the majority of sources only deal with the accusations of cult-hood, this should be part of the basic introduction to the topic. VanTucky Talk 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have completed a basic restructuring. VanTucky Talk 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not clear about accepted community policy concerning use of LTE as source material for articles. VanTucky, I agree that letters are not as reliable as published articles in the same publications, due to minimal editorial oversight. What is not clear to me, even after reading WP:RS and WP:V again, is whether they are accepted as sources in limited contexts, as in this article. From what I've read, there is no prohibition against them. Please point me to specific guidelines or directions, so I can fully understand your objections. If the letter were used as source for something presented as fact, I would agree with you. However, it seems reasonable to use a published letter from the spokesperson as a source describing the spokesperson's stated position, especially since the letter is a reply to a previously accepted source used in the same paragraph. Can you clarify either the accepted Wiki guidelines or your personal opinion in this specific case? Thank you! Forestgarden 00:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
September 2007 (UTC)
Van Tucky, I was wondering if you could leave a comment about the photo, given your depth of experience as a Wikipedian. I have two questions about the photograph of the Korean ad. First, there is no discussion of Dahn Yoga ad campaigns, so it seems like an odd choice and it doesn't seem to add anything of substance to the entry. The entry seems to be about Dahn yoga as it exists in the United States, with no mention of its current status in Korea. Would it be better to replace the photo with something that is more descriptive of the practice itself, if a non-copyrighted choice can be found? Secondly, this is English Wikipedia, not Korean Wikipedia. I have read that foreign language sources should be avoided if English language equivalents exist. Does the same sort of thing apply to photographs? Also, I think you added it so maybe you can explain your rationale. Nicola Cola 05:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
VanTucky, please point me to the specific statement in the reference you mentioned in your removal of my request for citation. The reason I noted the lack of citation is that none of the articles referenced in that paragraph have any direct claim regarding the efficacy of the practice. There are many other criticisms but I cannot find any regarding this specific claim. Thanks. Forestgarden 05:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
For NPOV and accuracy, I removed the claim of 1 million practitioners. First off, the policy page of NPOV as well as WP:WTA advises against following facts with immediate refutations that begin with phrases like "despite this" or "however". Second, there was no reliable, independent citation for such a number. Third, and most importantly, citing the number of practitioners is not a comment that refutes any claim about the characteristic of Dahn training. VanTucky Talk 19:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
They smell fishy. Are they forgeries? How come no one ever heard of these religious scholars before? They weren't on the Dahn page in the past, where did Timelyheart dig them up?
Matthew Laffert ( talk) 10:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article is a terrible read and it needs lots of work. I will now proceed to make changes for a better, more suitable article. Matthew Laffert ( talk) 13:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
RE: March 4, 2008 removal by NicolaCola of some my contribution with comment: "Removed non-NPOV material. EVERY study is limited and academic articles always make suggestion for further study. Bogus attempt to cast doubt on positive results of the study.)"
I believe that personal attacks and presumption of mal intent are frowned upon by Wiki policy. (FYI, one of the limitiations discussed by the authors would have resulted in more positive results, not negative.)
Just as it is commendable, balancing, and neutral for study authors to discuss potential for intervening bias and other study limitations and offer suggestions, it should be so for a Wikipedia article too. It's non-NPOV to imply that a study showed causality and benefits without balancing it with the study's limitations. With this study, I can see potential for bias in that at least one of the researchers was a Dahn practitioner, now high ranking in the organization. The subjects weren't "blinded" to the instructors - Dahn instructors could have influenced subjects' self-image before taking both the pre and post tests. The subjects were not representational of the general adult population, mostly middle age educated women, making it questionable to generalize the results to all adults. They didn't compare the effects to other mind-body practices or other programs or treatments, limiting the specific conclusions you can make about Dahn yoga. In fact, they found the benefits of the Dahn training were not dose-dependent, meaning that those who took zero to few Dahn classes improved as much as those who took 100 classes. And as the study authors said, the results shouldn't be extended to a patient population without randomization.
Any studies mentioned on Wikipedia in support of a practice, especially a practice that sometimes makes extraordinary claims about cures and supernatural abilities, and is sometimes controversial, should be scrutinized and balanced or left out.-- Timelyheart ( talk) 21:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
BUT its not the cult and bogus... Its a helpful one for the every man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I NO ENGLSIH, MY DAUGTHER ENGLISHI ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
'Dahn's leader is a documented sexual predator who preys on brainwashed victims.
Mr. Lee is a very humble, Ph.d educated, poverty level, abstinent, handsome, multilingual, and thin individual. He is a greater man than Jesus or Davinci.'
Please provide a reference, unreferenced material may be challenged or removed. petiatil »speak 06:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Requesting comment on handling of controversy related to Dahn yoga. 15:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I visited the Dahn Yoga page to learn about the well-known controversies, but the article appears to have been thoroughly whitewashed by its members. All revisions since December, and many before then, seem to have been entered with the intent to bury any reference to controversy, either by creating a dismissive introduction, deleting reference entirely, and burying them behind a bunch of specifically positive but questionably relevant articles. I don't know enough about Dahn nor about Wikipedia policies to tackle this. - Lciaccio ( talk) 20:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Moved the above from WP:RFC/BOARD Coastside ( talk) 15:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I have done a little bit more work today. I think the article is decently balanced at this point. If no one has any objections in the next week or so, I'll probably remove the POV tag. —
Torchiest
talk
edits
15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with NPOV standards to know which changes are appropriate, so feedback would be great. However, as an attorney I am happy to help anyone parse out which procedural matters are key, which are official, etc.-
Lciaccio (
talk)
02:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey Wiki-ers. Reading the line "published in the US National Library of Medicine" in the Brain Wave Vibration section triggered a slew of red flags for me, so I dug up the original articles. I corrected the citations, replacing the aggregators with the original journal titles, authors and DOIs.
At the same time, I decided to clarify what the articles actually said, as I don't think whoever input it originally totally got what was going on there.
Then I decided to move the CNN-investigative stuff together into the first paragraph, since Gupta's comments didn't have anything to do with what was examined in the journal articles.
When I was there I figured I should remove the quote from the youtube video since it was pretty much was a restatement of the official line with some additional unsubstantiatable claims.
This whole article needs to be re-examined. There's still a lot of reads-like-an-advertisement stuff in here.
Reve ( talk) 01:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Dahn Yoga recently renamed themselves to Body & Brain. I would like to change the name of the page to Brain and Body and make the according changes to the article; If there are no objections I will do so in 3 days. Cran32 ( talk) 02:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Any and all opposition to this should be voiced here within the next two days. Cran32 ( talk) 23:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
FINAL: I will move this article to Body & Brain in 24 hours if no opposition is voiced. Cran32 ( talk) 01:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it even Yoga? I attended a class several years ago in Boulder, Colorado, and was not able to discern any "yoga" in their teachings at all. Calling what they do "yoga" gives it an air of respectability and a presumed connection to ancient Hindu philosophy. I suppose the word "yoga" is not copyrighted, and anyone can call what they do yoga... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.237.88 ( talk) 13:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
CULT
Here's a web page that collects various articles on the cult aspects of Dahn Yoga: http://www.rickross.com/groups/dti.html
They seem to rely on tactics similar to Scientology, convincing people that they have "blockages" within their body that need to be healed through Dahn Yoga. Naturally, this will cost several thousand dollars. I'm not sure what the proper Wiki way would be to have NPOV between Dahn Yoga as a cult and Dahn Yoga as it is presented in the advertising blurb here.
Wiki needs to get its stuff together. This people are genuine criminals and this info relays none of that to the unsuspecting public. Get a real page wikipedia! Don't coddle a genuine cult!
Dahn is some strange combo of exercises sold as yoga. It's a weird group of fanatics who are taought to fear the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.88.57.70 ( talk) 16:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
According to Jimbo Wales:
" No original research is a fundamental bedrock policy on Wikipedia. This means: unless you can confirm a controversial fact with a cite to an independent mainstream publication, you must leave it out of the article."
-- Fire Star 火星 18:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems that according to the majority of reliable sources the organization is most notable for being accused of cult status, rather than as a simple instructional group. I think the separate controversy section (which is discouraged by WP:NPOV anyway) should be removed, and the info integrated with the intro and history sections. As the majority of sources only deal with the accusations of cult-hood, this should be part of the basic introduction to the topic. VanTucky Talk 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have completed a basic restructuring. VanTucky Talk 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not clear about accepted community policy concerning use of LTE as source material for articles. VanTucky, I agree that letters are not as reliable as published articles in the same publications, due to minimal editorial oversight. What is not clear to me, even after reading WP:RS and WP:V again, is whether they are accepted as sources in limited contexts, as in this article. From what I've read, there is no prohibition against them. Please point me to specific guidelines or directions, so I can fully understand your objections. If the letter were used as source for something presented as fact, I would agree with you. However, it seems reasonable to use a published letter from the spokesperson as a source describing the spokesperson's stated position, especially since the letter is a reply to a previously accepted source used in the same paragraph. Can you clarify either the accepted Wiki guidelines or your personal opinion in this specific case? Thank you! Forestgarden 00:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
September 2007 (UTC)
Van Tucky, I was wondering if you could leave a comment about the photo, given your depth of experience as a Wikipedian. I have two questions about the photograph of the Korean ad. First, there is no discussion of Dahn Yoga ad campaigns, so it seems like an odd choice and it doesn't seem to add anything of substance to the entry. The entry seems to be about Dahn yoga as it exists in the United States, with no mention of its current status in Korea. Would it be better to replace the photo with something that is more descriptive of the practice itself, if a non-copyrighted choice can be found? Secondly, this is English Wikipedia, not Korean Wikipedia. I have read that foreign language sources should be avoided if English language equivalents exist. Does the same sort of thing apply to photographs? Also, I think you added it so maybe you can explain your rationale. Nicola Cola 05:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
VanTucky, please point me to the specific statement in the reference you mentioned in your removal of my request for citation. The reason I noted the lack of citation is that none of the articles referenced in that paragraph have any direct claim regarding the efficacy of the practice. There are many other criticisms but I cannot find any regarding this specific claim. Thanks. Forestgarden 05:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
For NPOV and accuracy, I removed the claim of 1 million practitioners. First off, the policy page of NPOV as well as WP:WTA advises against following facts with immediate refutations that begin with phrases like "despite this" or "however". Second, there was no reliable, independent citation for such a number. Third, and most importantly, citing the number of practitioners is not a comment that refutes any claim about the characteristic of Dahn training. VanTucky Talk 19:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
They smell fishy. Are they forgeries? How come no one ever heard of these religious scholars before? They weren't on the Dahn page in the past, where did Timelyheart dig them up?
Matthew Laffert ( talk) 10:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article is a terrible read and it needs lots of work. I will now proceed to make changes for a better, more suitable article. Matthew Laffert ( talk) 13:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
RE: March 4, 2008 removal by NicolaCola of some my contribution with comment: "Removed non-NPOV material. EVERY study is limited and academic articles always make suggestion for further study. Bogus attempt to cast doubt on positive results of the study.)"
I believe that personal attacks and presumption of mal intent are frowned upon by Wiki policy. (FYI, one of the limitiations discussed by the authors would have resulted in more positive results, not negative.)
Just as it is commendable, balancing, and neutral for study authors to discuss potential for intervening bias and other study limitations and offer suggestions, it should be so for a Wikipedia article too. It's non-NPOV to imply that a study showed causality and benefits without balancing it with the study's limitations. With this study, I can see potential for bias in that at least one of the researchers was a Dahn practitioner, now high ranking in the organization. The subjects weren't "blinded" to the instructors - Dahn instructors could have influenced subjects' self-image before taking both the pre and post tests. The subjects were not representational of the general adult population, mostly middle age educated women, making it questionable to generalize the results to all adults. They didn't compare the effects to other mind-body practices or other programs or treatments, limiting the specific conclusions you can make about Dahn yoga. In fact, they found the benefits of the Dahn training were not dose-dependent, meaning that those who took zero to few Dahn classes improved as much as those who took 100 classes. And as the study authors said, the results shouldn't be extended to a patient population without randomization.
Any studies mentioned on Wikipedia in support of a practice, especially a practice that sometimes makes extraordinary claims about cures and supernatural abilities, and is sometimes controversial, should be scrutinized and balanced or left out.-- Timelyheart ( talk) 21:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
BUT its not the cult and bogus... Its a helpful one for the every man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I NO ENGLSIH, MY DAUGTHER ENGLISHI ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
'Dahn's leader is a documented sexual predator who preys on brainwashed victims.
Mr. Lee is a very humble, Ph.d educated, poverty level, abstinent, handsome, multilingual, and thin individual. He is a greater man than Jesus or Davinci.'
Please provide a reference, unreferenced material may be challenged or removed. petiatil »speak 06:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Requesting comment on handling of controversy related to Dahn yoga. 15:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I visited the Dahn Yoga page to learn about the well-known controversies, but the article appears to have been thoroughly whitewashed by its members. All revisions since December, and many before then, seem to have been entered with the intent to bury any reference to controversy, either by creating a dismissive introduction, deleting reference entirely, and burying them behind a bunch of specifically positive but questionably relevant articles. I don't know enough about Dahn nor about Wikipedia policies to tackle this. - Lciaccio ( talk) 20:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Moved the above from WP:RFC/BOARD Coastside ( talk) 15:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I have done a little bit more work today. I think the article is decently balanced at this point. If no one has any objections in the next week or so, I'll probably remove the POV tag. —
Torchiest
talk
edits
15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with NPOV standards to know which changes are appropriate, so feedback would be great. However, as an attorney I am happy to help anyone parse out which procedural matters are key, which are official, etc.-
Lciaccio (
talk)
02:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey Wiki-ers. Reading the line "published in the US National Library of Medicine" in the Brain Wave Vibration section triggered a slew of red flags for me, so I dug up the original articles. I corrected the citations, replacing the aggregators with the original journal titles, authors and DOIs.
At the same time, I decided to clarify what the articles actually said, as I don't think whoever input it originally totally got what was going on there.
Then I decided to move the CNN-investigative stuff together into the first paragraph, since Gupta's comments didn't have anything to do with what was examined in the journal articles.
When I was there I figured I should remove the quote from the youtube video since it was pretty much was a restatement of the official line with some additional unsubstantiatable claims.
This whole article needs to be re-examined. There's still a lot of reads-like-an-advertisement stuff in here.
Reve ( talk) 01:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Dahn Yoga recently renamed themselves to Body & Brain. I would like to change the name of the page to Brain and Body and make the according changes to the article; If there are no objections I will do so in 3 days. Cran32 ( talk) 02:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Any and all opposition to this should be voiced here within the next two days. Cran32 ( talk) 23:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
FINAL: I will move this article to Body & Brain in 24 hours if no opposition is voiced. Cran32 ( talk) 01:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)