Talk:Sahaja Yoga

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)

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)

Seems like a faithful summary. Interesting that it is not Shri Mataji being quoted about the Code of Manu but rather Judith Coney's proposition. To say "woman should be honoured and adorned but kept dependent on men in the family. Women are also described... as 'dangerous' and needing to be guarded from temptation." does not represent Sahaja Yoga in theory or practice. I've never heard Shri Mataji say anything like that. In her talks she always talked about the feminine power that women have, and responsibility for the family. Hire power (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

FT/N

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

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)

No, it's pure woo. Bon courage (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Went ahead and took it out of wikivoice. --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of 'In Scientific Research' Section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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[1] 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)

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)

Right, so you did misrepresent the source, which in fact says the appeal court upheld the IACSSO position. And furthermore, adding unsourced negative material about living people on Wikipedia is likely to get you sanctioned. Bon courage (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

For your former claim, no, it represents the current standing of the situation. For the latter, as proven, the source has been provided.

In sum, any claim of misrepresentation is an invalid point. Mr Birchwood (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy WP:V which means things need to be backed by sources, not by your imagination. You misrepresented what the source says and were caught red handed. Simple as that. Bon courage (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• All these changes were just from sockpuppets. Their contributions needs cleaning up. Bon courage (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word 'cult'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The word 'cult' is a slur and all religions have at some time or another been accused of being one by someone or the other. There is no need to use this word in 'wiki voice' in the introduction of the article. In the section dealing with these allegations it is clear the people making these claims have their own reasons. (Some) Ex members, Jean-Marie Abgrall who is a self styled "cult buster" whose methods have been criticised as being pseudo scientific, and a Belgian state department which has also been criticised by Human Rights Watch of persecuting new religious movements. The word 'cult' is a non specific slur and has no place in the intro, or in the lexicon of 'wiki voice'. Budgewoi (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It's necessary for NPOV to mention this. That at expert in cults said so and an organization specializing in cults make it so. Bon courage (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

But as mentioned, the word is pejorative and unscientific. It has no place in wiki voice. My point is actually that the word is by definition POV. Budgewoi (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it does, as it's what relevant expert sources say. We have a constant problem with SY fans wanting to remove it (who were equally keen to say SY was "not a cult" when they thought the Belgian organisation were saying that). Bon courage (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bon courage,

I just saw now that you've taken out the 'controversial' in front of 'cult-expert Jean-Marie Abgrall', and I see your point that the word 'controversial' doesn't reflect a NPOV. However I can't help feeling the fact that he is referred to even on his own page as a 'cult-expert' only in inverted commas is because it is a contested claim, and this is something which the general wiki reader should be alerted to in some way.

Just for the sake of clarity, and not wanting to provide such a NPOV on Sahaja yoga that we risk going over to the other side in a 'methinks thou doth protest too much' (excuse the misquote!) direction, should we not somehow indicate the status of Abgrall? For example, also using inverted commas to describe him as a cult-expert, in line with his own wiki page? And incidentally more in line with Judith Coney. Or even taking that para out as there already seems a good chunk on cult allegations?

What do you think? Thanks! Bookish14 (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It's fine as is. As you observe its insertion violates NPOV, so that's the end of the discussion. Bon courage (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick reply. Yes I agree on not using the word 'controversial'. Could you kindly re-read my reply above as I suggested a couple of other options in dealing with the discrepancy?

Thanks again Bookish14 (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Any further thoughts/consensus on this? Bookish14 (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

To repeat: it's fine as is. If in doubt, a return to WP:FT/N could be in order. Bon courage (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I also think it's fine as is. If any articles need adjusting, it's probably, Jean-Marie Abgrall, which is heavily weighted toward criticism of Abgrall. I say that without knowing how much of the body of RS is dedicated to such criticism, but maybe those with more experience should take a look. The state of that article shouldn't really affect this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. IME, Abgrall is controversial about deprogramming but not otherwise, In any event, this article is not the place to get into it and of course WP:BLP prevents slinging around negative adjectives as is being suggested. Bon courage (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really 'slinging around', merely suggesting in the spirit of discussion, and as already said, agree that it's not appropriate :)

Yes might be worth looking at Abgrall; at the moment he's appearing rather fringe, and as Coney uses the same Anthony and Robbins who discredit Abgrall to uphold her views that SY is not a cult, rather a NRM, it seems a bit contradictory to use them both in the 'Cult' section. Bookish14 (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The 'relevant expert' (singular) has himself been criticised. Furthermore he makes a living from 'cult busting'. This doesn't change the non specific (POV), prejorative and unscientific nature of the word. It is not scientific and doesn't belong in wiki voice even if it does suit your own preconceptions.Budgewoi (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, just wanted to explain a fairly minor update to this paragraph as it seems to be quite a hot topic! I’ve added ‘controversial’ in front of ‘cult expert Jean-Marie Abgrall’, as after following the link to his Wikipedia page it does seem that his status as a cult expert has been marred by allegations of his pseudoscientific line of reasoning, especially in regards to brainwashing. Interestingly, this view is put forward by that same Robbins positively referenced by Judith Coney in her book on sahaja yoga as an authority on why NRMs are wrongly classified as brainwashing their members. As Coney has been quite extensively referenced in the Wiki article on SY, it seems almost contradictory not to point out the controversial nature of Abgrall’s findings.

Also (not sure whether to put this here - I'm still quite new so please let me know if I'm stepping out of Wiki protocol!), I took out the sentence: 'Coney has reported facing a challenge in getting behind what she called "the public facade" of Sahaja Yoga' in the 'Beliefs and Practices' section, as it is later again stated in the 'Cult Allegation' section, and thought it best to avoid repetition. Bookish14 (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biasness

This article clearly is influenced by the views of a single party. Rampant biasness. Needs major adjustments. &#8213;<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px">&nbsp;[[User:Falcon with appendix|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;color:#C00">Falcon with appendix</span>]]&#124;[[User talk:Falcon with a (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Not just a religion

In a previous version of the article we had this sentence in the intro:

Sahaja Yoga is not only the name of the movement, but also the technique the movement teaches and the state of awareness achieved by the technique.

This states quite accurately the three meanings of 'Sahaja Yoga'. It is a religion, a meditation technique and also the state of consciousness achieved by the technique. The reference seems OK and I'm sure anyone who knows anything about it would not disagree. Hire power (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I would agree, seems a sensible and accurate way to describe the movement. Bookish14 (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

References

The subtle system

Currently the sentence "Chakras do not physically exist" sounds a bit blunt. I checked the source it was based upon and it didn't put it exactly like that and was not so dismissive. So I've expanded it to say:

There is no proven relationship between chakras and the anatomy or physiology of the human body. Chakras have never been physically detected using modern instruments.Hire power (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That's worse, as it implies they exist (which the source does not). Bon courage (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

But these words are more consistent with the source as it doesn’t say they don’t exist, only that no physical proof has been found. Hire power (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Family section

Hi all, I would like to flag a change I want to make to the 'Family' section.

The emphasis given to the word 'unusual' seems misplaced, as Langlaude is here using it more generally in order to link Sahaja Yoga with another NRM, in this case the Osho movement. It would be more contextually accurate to pull the quote that refers specifically to Sahaja Yoga, which is that it has 'a distinctive image and model of childhood', and then include the examples already given in the Family section, but also add for further contextualisation at the end: 'This is in line with the other religions Langlaude examined, who has concluded that "almost all traditions include informal nurturing within the family and slightly more formal nurturing within a religious community", and that children "are also initiated by their parents to a number of initiation rituals and to ceremonies and festivals" (p.34).

Contextualising in this way will add more weight to this section. Bookish14 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Cult allegations section reference to page 214 of Coney's book

The paragraph on page 214 is as follows:

"Finally, throughout the study I faced the challenge of getting Sahaja Yogis to let me get behind the public facade. This was achieved with varying degrees of success. On one fortunate occasion, for instance, I attended a national puja, after which there was an extremely frank and revealing discussion of why Sahaja Yoga had been seen as a cult in a particular press article and of the level of secrecy in the group. There I listened to a number of speakers talk about the ways in which they disguised some of their beliefs when in contact with non-members."

I've tried to paraphrase it as accurately as possible. There is important context here, not just that Sahaja Yogis "disguise their beliefs" but the fact that they are concerned about how much they do it. Hire power (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing there about "concerns". Focussing on incidental trivia while omitting the main point being made looks like blatant whitewashing. And you are edit-warring. If you think there is something undue here, raise a query at WP:FTN where Sahaja Yoga has been discussed on multiple occasions, and multiple editors can comment. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There was no elimination of information, only the insertion of context. The fact a meeting was called to discuss the level of secrecy and a recent press report indicates concern. Coney also described the meeting as frank and revealing, which can be interpreted as good faith and honesty.

By simply saying "Judith Coney has written that members 'disguised some of their beliefs' from the outside world" is an inaccurate and misleading summary.

The correct place to discuss the article is here of course and there is no edit war as you claim, the WP:BRD recommendation is being followed. Hire power (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It's BRD, not BRR. Your "indicated" and "interpreted as" show you are engaging in WP:Original research which is prohibited by policy. Bon courage (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in WP:Original research since I am not introducing anything new that I have thought of. Adding context is quite reasonable. What's wrong with allowing the reader to make their own interpretation of an accurate summary of a reliable source?

For the record my suggestion is: During her research, Judith Coney attended a meeting of Sahaja Yoga members where they discussed why Sahaja Yoga had been seen as a cult in a particular press article and of the level of secrecy in the group. She described it as an extremely frank and revealing discussion.

Instead of simply Judith Coney has written that members "disguised some of their beliefs" from the outside world.

As you can see, I have not removed any of the material, only added context which surely is an improvement. Hire power (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes it's quite obvious what you are doing: removing material about how adherents disguise their beliefs, and putting in your own original research conjured up from unimportant incidentals in the text. Wikipedia is meant to convey accepted knowledge, not hint in vague directions and "allow the reader to make their own interpretation". I suggest we are now done. Bon courage (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I agree with Hire power that (s)he is not engaging in original research, but giving more context. Also the phrasing "from the outside world" clearly paints the group in a negative light, isolated from the rest of society, whereas Coney's book highlighted the range of views held within the organisation, because the members were integrated within the wider world. Coney is also clear in calling it an NRM throughout, rather than a cult.

All to say that as it stands at the moment, it has a less neutral tone than the change Hire power is suggesting. Bookish14 (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

We are not going to be whitewashing away the key point in order to replace it with incidental fluff and original research. This page has been on the receiving end of many whitewashing attempts. If we need more eyes we can go to WP:FTN (yet again). Bon courage (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if you are reading my replies properly. Nothing is being removed, no original research or whitewashing is being done. Only more context is being added from the same source. It’s not incidental fluff as you dismissively describe it. The context is that yes, certain information was withheld but the practitioners being part of the “outside world” were concerned about negative press and were reviewing the level of secrecy according to the source. Hire power (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Pre-RFC discussion

See the previous discussion above (Cult allegations section reference to page 214 of Coney's book). I wanted to expand a bald statement to add context. The context comes from the very same paragraph of the reliable source. I have been accused of "whitewashing" but that doesn't feel right to me. Removing context is a great way of misrepresenting or oversimplifying something. Hire power (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hire power, I removed the RfC tag, since you did not open it with a brief, neutral statement. Please use this space to workshop a good opening question with your fellow dispute participants. RfC's are a major commitment of community time, and they are much more likely to result in useful consensus if they start well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, workshopping with my fellow dispute participants is precisely the problem and the reason why I am requesting a RFC. OK, I will try a new one with a briefer and more neutral opening statement.Hire power (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Shame about the misleading title. Bon courage (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on adding context to existing statement

Note: filing party was indef blocked as sock. Bon courage (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Should the sentence "Judith Coney has written that members 'disguised some of their beliefs' from the outside world." be changed to "During her research, Judith Coney attended a meeting of Sahaja Yoga members where they discussed why Sahaja Yoga had been seen as a cult in a particular press article and of the level of secrecy in the group. She described it as an extremely frank and revealing discussion."? Hire power (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Responses

• No (Summoned by bot), at least not based on the arguments presented in the relevant section above. The relevant part of the quote is Finally, throughout the study I faced the challenge of getting Sahaja Yogis to let me get behind the public facade. The substantive information therein is that Coney identifies that the group maintains a facade. Coney goes on to explain one of the rare circumstances on which she was able to get past said facade. Ignoring that this is explicitly presented as a noteworthy exception would be misrepresenting what the cited source says. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  But wouldn't it be pertenant to mention this noteworthy exception? The facts are not black and white. Hire power (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  To the exclusion of the core statement, as proposed in this RfC? Absolutely not. Incorporated some other way? Maybe, but that becomes a different question. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• No. This would come across as whitewashing. The knowledge the source conveys is that sometimes cult members have to disguise their views when speaking to outsiders. Reframing to omit this entirely and concentrate on incidental details (like that the meeting was 'frank') would be a gross failure of NPOV of the kind that was frequently been attempted on this page by its long parade of now-blocked SPAs. (I would also note this RfC is dishonestly titled: it is not about 'adding context' but removing text and replacing it with something bland and pointless). Bon courage (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I've said it many times – nothing is being omitted. Correctly summarising a source and providing context is the opposite of whitewashing. "The knowledge the source conveys is that sometimes cult members..." can you please check your bias? And you want to omit all context from the source. Hire power (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CIR: the proposal, if implemented, deletes text. You are also now WP:BLUD. Honestly, the amount of time POV-pushers waste at this article is mind-boggling. Bon courage (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please demonstrate how the proposal deletes text. Hire power (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  The text conveying the main point that adherents "disguised some of their beliefs" is deleted. That quoted text goes down the memory hole aye. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  OK so you have proven that I have literally added text, count the words! The text you've highlighted in yellow is an only an interpretation of the source that some editor has made. The text in blue is a re-interpreted summary of the source that includes more context. It has the same message but includes more context. OK, if you really love the words "disguised some of their beliefs", how about we include Coney's last sentence about what was discussed at the meeting. I thought "level of secrecy" was sufficient. Hire power (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  At the point this whole thing seems like either trolling or a severe WP:CIR problem. Neither is good. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  You have not addressed my arguments and instead calling me incompetent, a troll, an edit warrior and an original researcher. Not just uncivil but thinly veiled personal attacks. All designed to push your own POV it's very clear. Keep going because it will all be on record when you get reported. Hire power (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Bon courage, I would have to partially agree with Hire power here that your comments could have been more WP:CIVIL. That being said, I could tell the moment I first opened this talk page that there were strong opinions on both sides and so it is probably time to disengage for a while, wait for more responses from other uninvolved editors, and then rejoin the discussion if there's a salient point to be made. This back and forth isn't likely to end up solving anything. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 06:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please demonstrate how the proposal deletes text. You literally asked to be shown how your proposal deletes text. I did that. In my opinion, the current text does not need to be changed and as others have said you're only really adding fluff and bluster in what I perceived as an attempt at whitewashing rather than meaningful context. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 05:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  The meaningful context is that a meeting was held to address public criticism and secrecy in the group. Is that irrelevant? It shows the members are reasonable enough to consider their approach. Fluff and bluster...?

  The current wording also says "disguised some of their beliefs from the outside world". As if to imply the members have isolated themselves from the rest of the world. This is completely false and misleading.

  I would have thought including more context would be an unarguable improvement to an article. I am told to assume good faith but it seems some editors would prefer to convey a wrong impression by omitting context. Hire power (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  −

  Judith Coney has written that members 'disguised some of their beliefs' from the outside world.

  +

  During her research, Judith Coney attended a meeting of Sahaja Yoga members where they discussed why Sahaja Yoga had been seen as a cult in a particular press article and of the level of secrecy in the group. She described it as an extremely frank and revealing discussion.

  Just to highlight the differences between the two proposals. "Judith Coney" is the only bit that's the same in both. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 05:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• No as per Rosguill and Bon courage. This is a blatant attempt at whitewashing. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 05:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• No (invited by the bot) Such disguising (and from good source) is essential information on a core topic/question. IMO it's unimaginable to replace it with something that says nothing...just that there was a discussion that had a nice atmosphere. North8000 (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Why not try to combine both points of view, such as:

  "Judith Coney wrote of listening to a frank discussion between members on how they disguised some of their beliefs from those outside the organisation, following Sahaja Yoga's portrayal as a cult in a press article."

  This includes both the fact that members would sometimes disguise their beliefs, and gives wider context.

  In the interest of wider context, it might be pertinent at this point to add a line that Judith Coney herself, who is so heavily leaned on throughout the article, refrained from labelling Sahaja Yoga a "cult", but called it a New Religious Movement (as the topic of this section is cult allegations). Bookish14 (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• No Having gone back to the source I feel this is a better summary of what Coney actually wrote:

"Judith Coney has written of hearing from some members that they disguised some of their beliefs from non-members". Bookish14 (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Since this suggestion was turned into an edit: no, Coney directly asserts without attribution that they hide their beliefs, and further gives an assertion of a rare example where Coney was able to engage with them in frank discussion. This is less egregious than the RfC proposal but is still inaccurate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

The last suggestion seems fair enough but I think it's worth mentioning the meeting since being accused of secrecy in the media was obviously cause for them to introspect about their methods. Bearing in mind religious movements will adapt and change over time, Coney's observation was made over 25 years ago. As she herself said, members even at that time held a variety of views about the movement. Furthermore, Coney never said "from the outside world" which implies the practitioners are world rejecting or somehow apart from the world, which was not observed by Coney. Hire power (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the remark 'from the outside world' is leaning away from a NPOV, however I think we're getting weighed down by unnecessary detail in whether or not we include a mention of the meeting.

On the other hand I would agree that many sources in the cult section are from 20+ years ago, and there should be a more nuanced representation of the movement as it is now, for example focusing more on the meditation aspect, which seems to be the key focal point in how people interact with Sahaja Yoga. Bookish14 (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects sources and will have a full coverage of the topic over history. It is not a brochure for "Sahaja Yoga Today". Bon courage (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

For sure. My point was more that it also shouldn't be a brochure for "Sahaja Yoga 20 Years Ago". Bookish14 (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Remove the section on Cult. It is highly demeaning for Sahaja Yoga. Shree Mataji has helped tonnes of people in the entire world. After her passing away, the haters started righting negative about Sahaja Yoga. Aalargefile (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. What we have is well-sourced knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Sourced to a known anti cultist and a minority of ex members. For an anti cultist everything is a cult. Hire power (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The section also includes citations to the Belgian state organization on sects, as well as a scholarly publication documenting Sahaja Yoga's dispute with said state entity which ultimately ended in a final judgement that found SY to have been unable to refute the Belgian state organization's claims, and various appropriately attributed claims made by newspapers and former members. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I've just added a new reference that talks about that. According to the source, the main mistake of Belgium (and France) has been to listen to political, ideological or private groups of interests and to turn a deaf ear to the opinions and warnings of sociologists, historians of religions, and professors of constitutional and human rights law.

So my claim stands that the description of cult comes from two places – a minority of ex members and anti cult groups. The Belgian state relied on these same pressure groups.

The harnessing of the word "cult" should not be used to describe a new religious movement on Wikipedia. It is non specific slur and completely non academic. Hire power (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That just seems to be a 2008 'written contribution' from a lobby group to the OSCE. How can that apply to a 2011 ruling in the Belgian courts? This source is probably not usable. Bon courage (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The wiki page of Human Rights Without Frontiers International does not describe it as a lobby group. It was a comment on the one of the rulings before the Belgian State appealed. Hire power (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. They describe themselves: "HRWF employs various forms of advocacy to help shape the international and European policy agenda for human rights". Did the document get any attention from an actual publisher, or in secondary sources? Bon courage (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a decent primary source by an independent observer. Hire power (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That would be a "no" then. Bon courage (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Well technically this was a contribution that the OSCE felt worth publishing on their website. So maybe it's not primary after all. I don't see how it is not a reliable source. According to that Wiki policy, a contribution only needs to be sourced if it is likely to be challenged. In what respect are you challenging this paragraph and how does it not adhere to WP:RELIABLE? It's a very relevant comment which gives a lot of extra context to the Belgian case. Hire power (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It has no WP:WEIGHT and the source is unreliable for anything except its own view. Bon courage (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's been published by the OSCE which seems like a reliable publisher, would you agree? The comment seems well informed, is not controversial, highly relevant to the topic and is certainly not a "flat earth" type of argument. WP:REL states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". Hire power (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not 'published by' OSCE except in the most tendentious of senses: it is a contribution to a working session reproduced by them with the disclaimer:

The views, opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this document are not given nor necessarily endorsed by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) unless the OSCE is explicitly defined as the Author of this document.

Such meetings are open to external contributions and there is no automatically reliability accorded just because something is emailed in. Bon courage (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

But there's no doubt they saw fit to publish it. According to WP:REL, things don't necessarily even need to be referenced unless they are likely to be challenged. Are you challenging this change? Why? Hire power (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

They didn't 'see fit' to do anything, this is just an external document made available for process and transparency purposes. It has garnered zero attention from RS. It shall not be going in the article; we have good quality sources to use instead. Bon courage (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.