Talk:Dahn yoga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Headline text

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!

[edit] Wikipedia policy

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)

[edit] Sectioning and NPOV

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)

[edit] Use of Letters to the Editor (LTE) as Source Material

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)

A literal prohibition is not required. A letter to the editor that lacks fact checking and editorial review is defined as a questionable source. The point is not that letters wouldn't be okay for citing opinion, but that the source does not reliably verify that the source of the letter was a sanctioned spokesperson for Dahn. Applying an official air to a source which is not confirmed to be so is not acceptable. The other source comes from the Village Voice, which is reliably assumed to have confirmed that it was a Dahn spokesperson. VanTucky Talk 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If you read the letter in question, the Village Voice replied to the letter, thus showing that they accepted the letter-writer as the actual spokesperson, and not someone pretending to be a spokesperson as you seem to be implying. I would think this provides confirmation enough for the letter to be used as reference in this paragraph. Do you disagree? You seem to be splitting hairs about validity in this case. Forestgarden 01:27, 16

September 2007 (UTC)

The letter to the editor was printed in the Village Voice, a publication with an editorial board. While letters are not edited and fact-checked in the same fashion as an article, editors do choose the published ones carefully from the many that may have been submitted. Villiage Voice was clearly convinced that this letter was from Charlotte Connors, the person identified in both articles as the Dahn Center spokesperson, or it would not have been published with that attribution. Rhetorician magician 01:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if the letter was considered an RS, which it isn't, the letter only ever criticizes the article and the journalism of the Village Voice. It doesn't call the accusations of culthood anything, but only denies certain points in the wrongful death case (i.e. the drugging) and attacks the journalistic standards of the Voice. It doesn't even deal with an accusation of culthood as the article's text claims. Including this is not just proving that it meets WP:RS, but that the reliable source supports the content you wish included. According to WP:V, the burden of proof rests with you to prove that the content is fit for inclusion. VanTucky Talk 04:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, the legitamacy of the letter is prooven by the very policy pages that you have cited in your attempts to discredit it. It was published in a legitamate publication, and it is obviously a reliable representation of the spokeperson's responce to the article in question. To suggest that it may have been falsefied is simply irrational. However, your point about immediate relevancy is more well-reasoned. I will revise the sentence to deal only with the cult issue. For the sake of balance, the sentence must include some specifics about the spokesperson's POV (i.e. that the cult accusations are based on misinterpretation), just as the previous sentence includes specifics about the critic's POV (i.e. that Dahn Yoga is a cult). Rhetorician magician 04:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You fail to understand my objections in terms of relevance. It was not that your addition was irrelevant (far from it), but that the source was so. The source doesn't ever mention the accused cult status of Dahn, so it cannot be used as a source retorting that claim. If you wanted to use it in a relevant way, such as a source proving that Dahn spokespeople objected to the veracity and fairness of news coverage, then that would be acceptable. VanTucky Talk 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriateness of Photograph

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)

Thanks for the specificity of your questions. First, the image is still relevant even if the article doesn't yet discuss Dahn ad campaigns. The fact that we can have an image illustrating that Dahn does have advertising campaigns and is active in Korea is extremely informative. As to what the article "seems to be about", Wikipedia has a worldwide focus. If we can find reliable sources detailing facts about Dahn in Korea and elsewhere, it would be most welcome. Being too U.S.-centric is a problem to be fixed, not something that we should alter the images to fit with. Foreign languages in images are perfectly fine, as their text does not necessarily have to impart encyclopedic information. The relevance is that it is a Dahn poster, not that it is an English-language poster. An image of someone practicing Dahn yoga would be great. However, it is important to remember that this article is also about the organizations and individuals that created and promote the practice (not just Dahn yoga itself), so a photo of Dahn yoga being practiced isn't automatically better. But if you can find a freely licensed image of better quality that the present one, it would be helpful. VanTucky Talk 05:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Specificity

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)

[edit] recent additions

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)

[edit] Timelyheart's additions to the Ilchi Lee article

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)

[edit] Article needs improvement

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)

Matthew, please read the note I just left for you at [1]. As I said there, your contributions to Wikipedia are welcomed, but they must respect the rules of the venue. (The majority of your edits so far do not.) You must accept that all reliably sourced material is allowed in Wikipedia articles, not just the information that you personally agree with. In fact the point is to provide encyclopedic articles, rather than opinion pieces that are biased either positively or negatively about the subject. This means that your personal beliefs, or the expected need of a for-profit company to keep itself in business, are not terribly relevant to what should be in the article. What's relevant is what material has been covered in reliable sources and then presenting that material in a balanced and neutral way. Since this article seems to attract people with strong opinions about the subject, this is even more important. Go ahead and edit, of course, but please make reasonable edits so we don't have to revert your work (saves time for everyone involved, including you)... Forestgarden (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contribution deleted as "bogus"

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)