Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

Archive 1 (Oct 2005 - June 2006)

217.20.167.217 (- nonsense)

Regarding this edit; while critics' claims may be nonsensical, they are nonetheless widely made. Wikipedia describes the place of a subject in the world; since these claims exist in large numbers they should be reported. Such is the essence of NPOV.

please provide first hand accounts under real names of the accusations. Thanks Andries 16:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The POV tag was added to this artilce in July of 2004, by an editor who made few contributions to the article. There has been no discussion on this page for more than six months. therefore, I'm removing the tag. Anyone who wishes to discuss specific issues is welcome to replace it. -Willmcw 22:16, May 22, 2005 (UTC)


There is a POV issue here, namely the so called merging of documents by Paul Foord which resulted in the removal of an entire document.

Shane

The decision to merge Sahajayoga to this article was appropriate. If you think that any info was lost you're welcome to add it in. Here it is, pre-merger, [1]. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The merged document included the deleted material, a subsequent editor removed it. See histrory (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaja_Yoga&oldid=27251293) Paul foord 13:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

POV 13/10/05

Reverted to prior version to remove inappropropriate edits done by Kill_Bossy

Why is this information inappropriate? It is sourced. -Willmcw 04:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
A discussion of vandalism of the article in the article is not encyclopedic. The label cult is pejorative. Both pro and anti perspectives can and should be presented to ensure that readers are informed of issues. Paul foord 13:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that Kill Bossy and others write down a detailed, sourced list of accusations and criticisms, instead of just saying "you are a cult" (which is quite uninformative. Andries 13:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The critical links, which cult members delete daily, are the "detailed, sourced list of accusations and criticisms." Full names of former cult members can be found there. Kill Bossy
You don't seem to grasp the concept behind an encyclopedia... the aim is to create a neutral, fact-based article. Using slanderous words such as "cult" shows bias on your part.

It is because of this POV that I reverted the document - I make no objection to the links, but the links weren't the only part modified. Shane 22:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The way this encyclpoedia seeks neutrality is through our WP:NPOV policy. Please read it. It states that "Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly." If there are significant minority viewpoints that Sahaja Yoga is a cult, a scam, or a gift from God, then we need to include those viewpoints. -Willmcw 00:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


The critics claims are not widely made. They are frequently made, and that's different They are frequently made by a very small number of people who harbour a personal grudge against Sahaja Yoga and wish to devote their time to this sort of activity. Logically, if Sahaja Yoga is free as it claims, then it is going to attract a wide variety of people, including some rare unsavoury types. If it is a good organisation then it will not allow those type to remain in Sahaja Yoga. They will be expelled, and those unsavoury types are exactly the sort of people who will continue that kind of negative and unsubstantiated allegations. Note, besides some web sites there is NO EVIDENCE that backs the claims they make. It is the worst kind of hearsay and slander and if 1% of it were true we would all be in jail instead of in many many countries around the world. Our point is that an encyclopedia needs to be factual. It should not be a platform for this kind of activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.101.131 (talk • contribs)


I agree, and also would like to point out that most of the critical external links are personal webpages which are slanderous in nature, do not employ multiple/professional sources, and therefore reflect only one persons POV, a minority. For this reason, links to sites where only one person's point of view is expressed should be removed. Please discuss. Shane 04:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The Independent and the Evening Standard two UK newspapers have each published critical articles available on the Rick Ross website [2]. I separated out the critical external links under that heading. This makes clear their status. Paul foord 04:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
External links do not need to be NPOV. Just the opposite, they are often included in articles in order to represent various viewpoints. NPOV requires that all viewpoints be represented. -Willmcw 23:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
But.. you seemed to think it was against Wikipedia policy to link websites promoting a certain cause here.. changed your mind, Willmcw? 24.224.153.40 03:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

3/12/05

Removed content by user KillBossy, uncorroborated theory. Shane 04:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)24th

Which content are you referring to? That editor added something about the follow up to a study, which is in the abstract of the study. "There were no significant differences between the two groups at the 2 month follow up assessment."[3] What theory is uncorroborated? -Willmcw 05:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In this case he should specify where exactly he took the citation from. Placing a citation without specifying it's source voids it's validity... Shane 05:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Tue 24th Jan 06

Removed links to the [[4]] site, seing as it is mentionned in the aforementionned site that the institute do not support any of the views contained on the website. ([site's disclaimer]) The links are therefore invalid. Shane

Thanks for the information, but I disagree. Even the encyclopedia Britannica has a disclaimer, but that does not mean that this is good reason to remove the external links to it or not use the information it provides. Andries 21:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross insitute

I removed the links to the Rick_Ross institute.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/acm2.htm http://www.apologeticsindex.org/130-rick-ross http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/rossr1.html

according to many, Rick Ross, the founder of the institute is a 'false specialist' in the field, having no doctorate or diploma to backup his research except for a high school degree.

http://www.culteducation.com/cv.html

Also called into question is his POV, being of the Jewish faith.

To top it all off, the man has a criminal record, dating back to when he illegaly kidnapped an individual in an attempt to "deprogram" him - one of many attempts at individuals and organisation's freedom of expression

Shane 06:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

None of those are sufficient reasons to remove links to his website. -Will Beback 21:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the links in question are simply reprints of newspaper articles. -Will Beback 21:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)