This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Tothe anonymous editors, please read the archived discussion(s) to seewhat has been previously discussed before adding content... and feelfree to talk about ways to improve the article. Sfacets 19:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Iagree with Sfacets. The medical section has been continually vandalisedin recent weeks for no apparent reason. Also, discussion should besigned.
sahajhist 7:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This article does not follow WP:NPOV policy. It has bias towards Sahaja Yoga. It is necessary that sites critical of Sahaja Yoga be included in the external links to meet the WP:NPOV policy. -- Thomaskmfdm 08:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The article is carefully written in neutral language, and assertions are referenced. sahajhist 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Iagree the article is written in neutral language and that assertionsare referenced, My objection is that the article in its current formdoes not discuss criticisms of sahaja yoga at all. Links to the pagesof critics are also omitted even though the official response to theirallegations is included.-- Thomaskmfdm 08:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thearticle concerning Sahaja Yoga is outdated (2000), and is not areliable source, since it states as fact hearsay from other websites.There is no information on the author of the document, we do not knowif Tamara L. Clark is in fact a specialist on the subject or just afirst year student. Sfacets 06:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Sfacets regarding this student-authored page. In response to Will Beback'squestion, much has changed and is continuing to change within theSahaja Yoga movement. This is not however the place to discuss thosechanges. Sahajhist 18.05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter howwell researched the RM page seems, if the author isn't a specialist onthe subject, then it cannot be admited as a valid source... Sfacets 13:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sfacets 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
From WP:Reliable sources: "Beware false authority
Sfacets 00:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thisis ridiculous! Academic articles from the medical literature given inthe References section, are of permanent use and need to be treateddifferently from links to webpages based on outdated information andhearsay. Please understand the difference. sahajhist 15.49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Message to Sfacets: please clean up the citation numbering in the Medicine section. Thanks. sahajhist 15.57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
As for the changes,
“ | Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). | ” |
Sfacets 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Howcan you be sure it did in fact pass through review? It could be nothingmore than a collection of freshmen assignments, noted individualy. Oranything. You're just assuming that it went through a review process. Sfacets 01:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The page in question was prepared as a course assignment by an undergraduate student at the University of Virginia in 2000:
Created by Tamara L. Clark For Sociology 257: New Religious Movements Fall Term, 2000
Thiswas compiled as a student assignment being based on web resourcesavailable to the student in 2000. It was never intended to be anauthoritative summary. If it gets replaced by a newer survey sometimein the future we can revisit the issue. Until then it should not, in myview, be linked to. Sahajhist 13.05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It would greatly help the editing process if editors such as Will Bebackwould understand the difference between peer-reviewed articles from themedical literature, and an undergraduate student essay. Sahajhist 20.05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The particular article, regardless of who wrote it is an apparently official assessment by the Religious Movements Homepage Project. So are Sfacets and Sahajhist attacking the credentials of the project? From the homepage about the project.
Paul foord 14:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This is NOT in any way an 'official assessment' as Paul foordasserts - what a ridiculous notion! What we are assessing here is anundergraduate student project from the year 2000. One of many producedon that course at that time. Thats all. And btw, there have been norevisions to the site since mid 2005, probably due to the fact thatAssoc Prof. Cowan has moved from Missouri to Canada. The site remainsprimarily one based on undergraduate student research from the period1995-2001. Sahajhist 07.53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sfacets 01:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sfacets 03:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes,it was removed again, sice we still haven't established the credentialsof the Author. The other links do not draw conclusions (we have alreadybeen through this) about the subject and do not claim authority on thesubject. They are informational links. Other links link to medicalarticles published by medical journals. Sfacets 02:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
We have (thanks the hard work of many good editors) two separate articles, Sahaja Yoga and Sahaja Yoga International.One covers a practice or belief system and the other covers anorganization. Most of the external links, whether "official" or"critical", pertain more to the organization than the practice.Therefore, I propose we move them to Sahaja Yoga International, leaving only the medical research papers and anything else excluvely relevant to meditation and yoga. - Will Beback 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
As an editor who has worked extensively on both Sahaja Yoga and Sahaja Yoga International I wish to record my disagreement with this unnecessary proposal. Sahajhist 22.32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Idisagree with the comment about 'commercial intent'. The other commentshave merit, and I have therefor trimmed the links section, excludingnon-English sites, and limiting English sites to major ones only. Sahajhist 11:56, 10 October (UTC)
Someonehas been going around and creating multiple articles about SahajaYoga-related activities, but I do not believe that each of these isdeserving of separate articles, so I recommend that they all be mergedinto Sahaja Yoga. Specifically:
Does anyone have an opinion on the matter, or know of additional articles which should be included? -- NovaSTL 10:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thatsomeone was probably me. They all deserve independant mention,Yuvashakti (as a stub) still needs information on the Rajiv-Yuvashaktiprogramme
[2](of which I know nothing about, so cannot add). Vishwa Nirmala Prem, asan NGO deserves mention (it is a newly created stub, sources and moreinfo are forthcoming). International Sahaja Public School, has been thesubject of many articles and sources, and SYI (see afd debate).
Sfacets 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sfacets 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
No,that isn't the point, because (as is mentionned on the SYI article) SYIcoordinates different projects such as a hospital, NGO etc. Sfacets 05:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yuvashaktiis an term used internally within Sahaja Yoga, not externally. So Iagree with deletion. The other three entries have merit as independententities.
Sahajhist 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yuvashakti is a term being used more and more frequently, and not just in Sahaja Yoga, but also in India. Do a search. Sfacets 05:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Ihave moved the reference that "Sahaja Yoga is manipulative and hasbroken up families" which is one editor'stake on the broadcast to thelink section to avoid influencing the reader. Sfacets 21:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback ( talk • contribs)
Anyoneknow what happened to the text of this entry? If the cryptofascists onthe Wikipedia board want to delete a long-standing entry there'snothing mere mortals can do (obviously) but the text should have beenmerged into the Sahaja Yoga entry BEFORE deletion. Anyone know the official complaints procedure? Maybe a WikipediaWatch blog should be started... Sahajhist 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't a personal attack, notice the plural form of "cryptofascist". Sfacets
Enjoy your games guys - I'm returning to the real world. Sahajhist 00:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Its a beautiful day. Dont let it slip away... JoeldeM 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Iremoved unaacked content/content backed by invalid sources, includingthe link discussed in detail above, as well as links to websites that1) Didn't back the claim and 2)Are biased sources. Sfacets 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
In this edit [3] 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)
According to the Dutch Wikipedia [4], 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)
(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)
This
edit request to
Sahaja Yoga has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
◢ Ganbaruby! (
Say hi!) 00:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)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)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Tothe anonymous editors, please read the archived discussion(s) to seewhat has been previously discussed before adding content... and feelfree to talk about ways to improve the article. Sfacets 19:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Iagree with Sfacets. The medical section has been continually vandalisedin recent weeks for no apparent reason. Also, discussion should besigned.
sahajhist 7:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This article does not follow WP:NPOV policy. It has bias towards Sahaja Yoga. It is necessary that sites critical of Sahaja Yoga be included in the external links to meet the WP:NPOV policy. -- Thomaskmfdm 08:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The article is carefully written in neutral language, and assertions are referenced. sahajhist 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Iagree the article is written in neutral language and that assertionsare referenced, My objection is that the article in its current formdoes not discuss criticisms of sahaja yoga at all. Links to the pagesof critics are also omitted even though the official response to theirallegations is included.-- Thomaskmfdm 08:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thearticle concerning Sahaja Yoga is outdated (2000), and is not areliable source, since it states as fact hearsay from other websites.There is no information on the author of the document, we do not knowif Tamara L. Clark is in fact a specialist on the subject or just afirst year student. Sfacets 06:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Sfacets regarding this student-authored page. In response to Will Beback'squestion, much has changed and is continuing to change within theSahaja Yoga movement. This is not however the place to discuss thosechanges. Sahajhist 18.05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter howwell researched the RM page seems, if the author isn't a specialist onthe subject, then it cannot be admited as a valid source... Sfacets 13:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sfacets 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
From WP:Reliable sources: "Beware false authority
Sfacets 00:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thisis ridiculous! Academic articles from the medical literature given inthe References section, are of permanent use and need to be treateddifferently from links to webpages based on outdated information andhearsay. Please understand the difference. sahajhist 15.49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Message to Sfacets: please clean up the citation numbering in the Medicine section. Thanks. sahajhist 15.57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
As for the changes,
“ | Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). | ” |
Sfacets 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Howcan you be sure it did in fact pass through review? It could be nothingmore than a collection of freshmen assignments, noted individualy. Oranything. You're just assuming that it went through a review process. Sfacets 01:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The page in question was prepared as a course assignment by an undergraduate student at the University of Virginia in 2000:
Created by Tamara L. Clark For Sociology 257: New Religious Movements Fall Term, 2000
Thiswas compiled as a student assignment being based on web resourcesavailable to the student in 2000. It was never intended to be anauthoritative summary. If it gets replaced by a newer survey sometimein the future we can revisit the issue. Until then it should not, in myview, be linked to. Sahajhist 13.05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It would greatly help the editing process if editors such as Will Bebackwould understand the difference between peer-reviewed articles from themedical literature, and an undergraduate student essay. Sahajhist 20.05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The particular article, regardless of who wrote it is an apparently official assessment by the Religious Movements Homepage Project. So are Sfacets and Sahajhist attacking the credentials of the project? From the homepage about the project.
Paul foord 14:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This is NOT in any way an 'official assessment' as Paul foordasserts - what a ridiculous notion! What we are assessing here is anundergraduate student project from the year 2000. One of many producedon that course at that time. Thats all. And btw, there have been norevisions to the site since mid 2005, probably due to the fact thatAssoc Prof. Cowan has moved from Missouri to Canada. The site remainsprimarily one based on undergraduate student research from the period1995-2001. Sahajhist 07.53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sfacets 01:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sfacets 03:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes,it was removed again, sice we still haven't established the credentialsof the Author. The other links do not draw conclusions (we have alreadybeen through this) about the subject and do not claim authority on thesubject. They are informational links. Other links link to medicalarticles published by medical journals. Sfacets 02:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
We have (thanks the hard work of many good editors) two separate articles, Sahaja Yoga and Sahaja Yoga International.One covers a practice or belief system and the other covers anorganization. Most of the external links, whether "official" or"critical", pertain more to the organization than the practice.Therefore, I propose we move them to Sahaja Yoga International, leaving only the medical research papers and anything else excluvely relevant to meditation and yoga. - Will Beback 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
As an editor who has worked extensively on both Sahaja Yoga and Sahaja Yoga International I wish to record my disagreement with this unnecessary proposal. Sahajhist 22.32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Idisagree with the comment about 'commercial intent'. The other commentshave merit, and I have therefor trimmed the links section, excludingnon-English sites, and limiting English sites to major ones only. Sahajhist 11:56, 10 October (UTC)
Someonehas been going around and creating multiple articles about SahajaYoga-related activities, but I do not believe that each of these isdeserving of separate articles, so I recommend that they all be mergedinto Sahaja Yoga. Specifically:
Does anyone have an opinion on the matter, or know of additional articles which should be included? -- NovaSTL 10:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thatsomeone was probably me. They all deserve independant mention,Yuvashakti (as a stub) still needs information on the Rajiv-Yuvashaktiprogramme
[2](of which I know nothing about, so cannot add). Vishwa Nirmala Prem, asan NGO deserves mention (it is a newly created stub, sources and moreinfo are forthcoming). International Sahaja Public School, has been thesubject of many articles and sources, and SYI (see afd debate).
Sfacets 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sfacets 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
No,that isn't the point, because (as is mentionned on the SYI article) SYIcoordinates different projects such as a hospital, NGO etc. Sfacets 05:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yuvashaktiis an term used internally within Sahaja Yoga, not externally. So Iagree with deletion. The other three entries have merit as independententities.
Sahajhist 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yuvashakti is a term being used more and more frequently, and not just in Sahaja Yoga, but also in India. Do a search. Sfacets 05:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Ihave moved the reference that "Sahaja Yoga is manipulative and hasbroken up families" which is one editor'stake on the broadcast to thelink section to avoid influencing the reader. Sfacets 21:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback ( talk • contribs)
Anyoneknow what happened to the text of this entry? If the cryptofascists onthe Wikipedia board want to delete a long-standing entry there'snothing mere mortals can do (obviously) but the text should have beenmerged into the Sahaja Yoga entry BEFORE deletion. Anyone know the official complaints procedure? Maybe a WikipediaWatch blog should be started... Sahajhist 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't a personal attack, notice the plural form of "cryptofascist". Sfacets
Enjoy your games guys - I'm returning to the real world. Sahajhist 00:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Its a beautiful day. Dont let it slip away... JoeldeM 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Iremoved unaacked content/content backed by invalid sources, includingthe link discussed in detail above, as well as links to websites that1) Didn't back the claim and 2)Are biased sources. Sfacets 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
In this edit [3] 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)
According to the Dutch Wikipedia [4], 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)
(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)
This
edit request to
Sahaja Yoga has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
◢ Ganbaruby! (
Say hi!) 00:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)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)
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)