Talk:Siddha 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

History

Why I removed the history section.

Here is the removed text:

The group’s success in the west is founded on the work of Gurumayi’s predecessor Swami Muktananda (d. 1982) who brought the practices of chanting and meditation to a spiritually hungry west in the 70s and early 80's. The group has always kept a fairly low public profile shunning the limelight sought by others such as Rajneesh, Hare Krishna and Transcendental Meditation (TM). Students of Siddha Yoga come to it primarily by word of mouth and personal contact and its followers are from diverse social and economic backgrounds. Siddha Yoga has been quick to adopt the modern technology of the international video link and internet as ways to keep its world-wide network of ashrams and meditation centres part of its global community. Currently there are centers in countries on each continent, western, eastern, and in First World, Second World and Third World countries.


The first line

The group’s success in the west is founded on the work of Gurumayi’s predecessor Swami Muktananda (d. 1982)

is technically correct.

However the rest of the line containing

who brought the practices of chanting and meditation to a spiritually hungry west in the 70s and early 80's

is false. Muktananda did not bring chanting and meditation to the west. Chanting and meditation have been around in India and the west for hundreds of years. Technically, it might be more accurate to say that Siddha Yoga originated in India and was brought to US and the west by Muktananda, though I am not sure how accurate that statement is.

The statement

The group has always kept a fairly low public profile shunning the limelight sought by others such as Rajneesh, Hare Krishna and Transcendental Meditation (TM).

Seems to be more an opinion than an actual statement of fact. Plus there is no supporting evidence cited. For example, did the original author contact anyone in the SYDA organization and ask if this is an official policy?

Likewise with the statement

Students of Siddha Yoga come to it primarily by word of mouth and personal contact and its followers are from diverse social and economic backgrounds.

Again, did the original author verify his information. This is a statement about the demographic makeup of the organization, and should be easily verified if the organization keeps such statistics. So why is there no reference cited?

The line

Siddha Yoga has been quick to adopt the modern technology of the international video link and internet as ways to keep its world-wide network of ashrams and meditation centres part of its global community

is again opinion, and not really history.

Maybe it belongs in the description section.


Finally the line

Currently there are centers in countries on each continent, western, eastern, and in First World, Second World and Third World countries.

is once again somewhat true, but there seems to be no effort on the part of the original author to supply supporting evidence, and really seems to be not su much about the history of SYDA but just another description.

Thanks for reading this. TheRingess 03:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I have reinstated a reduced history section after taking into account comments by TheRingess. If you have access to a more detailed history then please add it to the article. Lumos3 22:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Basically I think this article should be classified as a stub.

There is very little information here.

The revised history section does not add any information.

The introductory section is sparse.

The beliefs and practices section is so general as to be non-informative.

This page is barely more than a link to other pages.

None of the previous authors bothered to cite any sources.

For instance, how do we know that the beliefs and practices section is accurate.

Nowhere on the page is there any citation where a reader can go to verify the contents of that section.

Is there not some sort of textbook or an online link that defines the practices and beliefs of SY?

I think this could be a good article that would help a lot of people understand this organization and its controversies better, but someone needs to do a lot more research and fact checking, rather than just linking to other pages and asking the reader to take for granted that the author's summary and opinions are valid.


I removed the blurb about darshan in the beliefs and practices section because basically it was wrong.

If you decide to reinstate it, please cite a relative SY reference that defines darshan, otherwise I will probably remove it again.

I decided to let the other blurbs in the practice section stand, even though they are so short as to be almost non-informative, and not entirely accurate, it doesn't seem worth the trouble right now.

Once again this article seems to have been written by people unwilling to do any real research.

Links to Press articles should link back to original articles not copies since the reader should not be forced to research whether or not the copy was changed from the original in favor of a particular pov. This should be the author's job. The author would also need to present evidence that they verified the authenticity of the copy. Neither seems to have been done by the anonymous person who added. I left the original 3 links since they did link back to the original publications in which the articles appeared.

I would have changed the link to the New Yorker article, but didn't have the time to find the official link, ditto with the CoEvolution Quarterly.

TheRingess 03:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


The links page at the bottom has a link to the Leaving Siddha Yoga website which presents a critical pov.

Ringess, I would appreciate it if you made corrections to the article instead of only deleting things that may not be 100% accurated and verified. Andries 10:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I re-inserted the link to the New Yorker article because your objections to the article sound to me excessively skeptical. I will try to find the original article. Andries 10:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


Controversy section is not according to Wikipedia guidelines

The controversy section should describe attributed detailed criticisms, not an unattributed (probably personal) very general interpretation and speculation about the causes for this controvery. Unless it is attributed and sourced the controversy section seems to me like Wikipedia:no original research and will be deleted and rewritten. Andries 10:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not disagree with the analysis, but the controversy section should at least start with more concrete accusations and not with an analysis of the causes of the controversies without mentioning them. In general, this kind of unattributed opinions and comments have no place in Wikipedia. Andries 10:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
This section was added by me to contain material originally added by anonymous user 163.1.207.79 on, 24 June 2005. I agree it is a defence without citing the accusations to which it is responding and should not remain on Wikipedia without more work. I will try to redraft it. Lumos3 16:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree too, I will delete the section.TheRingess 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Removed the header also.TheRingess 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


I have inserted a Criticism section to replace this which summarises the main critics and cites the 2 principal articles. Lumos3 22:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Good job. In my opinion you have presented a neutral POV of the criticism.

I suggest the following changes to remove passive voice:

  1. The Siddha Yoga leadership has been accused by some former members...." can be changed to "Some former members have accused..."
  2. These accusations were first made public by William Rodarmor..." can be changed to "William Rodarmor first made these accusations public..."
  3. "These were repeated and extended..." can be changed to "Lis Harris repeated and extended...."
  4. "An organisation called Leaving Siddha Yoga exists..." can be changed to "The "Leaving Siddha Yoga" Organisation exists..."

Went ahead and removed passive voice and moved articles into the references section.TheRingess 23:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC) [edit]

Sign your posts?

It would be helpful if people could sign their comments on this page so we could track the conversation and see where one person's comment leaves off and another person's takes up. To sign a post type four comments. 71.195.206.168 02:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You mean four tildes: the ~ symbol. Indium 02:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I didn't know about signing posts. BTW, after reflection I agreed with Andries that I was being excessively skeptical regarding the disputed link. It's still my contention that any link to an article used as a source in any entry, should be a link to the original version. However the material on the LSY website was not used as a source for anything in the article, but just as a reference for anyone wishing an alternate viewpoint. So I reinstated the link. I do take slight (very sligh, LOL) exception to the categorization of my edits as nothing more than deletions, as I have cleaned up grammar and edited the article to have a more neutral point of view, but I won't argue it more than this. So no need to argue about it. I agree with the analysis of the controversy section. TheRingess 03:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I felt this article needed a reference section as it describes the beliefs, practices and history of SY. Since SY itself is the main reference for its own beliefs and practices I added a reference to the book "Meditation Revolution". TheRingess 20:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


History Section needs to be changed

Basically I still feel that the history section needs a lot of work.

For example, the line "The group’s success in the west...."

needs to be expanded, clarified and sourced.

What is meant by the word "success"?

When I have some time, I will work on the history section.

TheRingess 01:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Criticism

Perhaps you want to keep an eye on 151.205.115.183. This user keeps deleting all the criticism in this article. Thanks. JHMM13 08:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I was very new to the wikipedia but I signed on and learnt more as suggested.


Welcome to Wikipedia. I made many mistakes when I first started editing. Thanks for your contributions to this article. In my opinion, the history section still needs a lot of work. Feel free to edit it. P.S. Please sign all your comments on this page with 4 tildes, so that it's easier to distinguish who made what comment.TheRingess 17:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Started changing History section

I started a rewrite of the history section, to present more of a timeline of the main siddha yoga events. TheRingess 09:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs

I don't see how a section titled "Beliefs " can be anything other than POV since it is describing what Siddha Yoga beleives. I think the inspired edit by 68.198.7.14 added considerably to the article and should be reinstated. NPOV does not mean an insipid view which offends no one , but that all views on a subject are given a clear exposition. Lumos3 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just briefly, I disagree. I do not feel that the edits were inspired (just my opinion) nor that the beliefs section, is as you call it, "insipid". I am considering renaming it to "Tenets", as it is currently written it is more about the documented philosophies of SY and not what individuals in SY believe about it or the Gurus. The line about the guru is about as brief of an explanation of the concept of a satguru that I've seen, and probably does not need to be expanded since there are already definitions available on Wikipedia about the word guru and satguru. I voiced my reasoning on the users discussion page in order to give them the opportunity to rebut my arguments.

In brief, I think its well understood that in just about every religion there are going to be disagreements about the tenets. For example, I'm Catholic, but I don't believe that the Catholic church is the only church, yet I'm still Catholic. My argument would be that an article on Catholicism does not need to state that some adherents believe that the Catholic church is the only church, some believe that it isn't. Simply because without doing some more research, it's impossible to tell whether or not the difference of opinion is significant, so in my opinion that kind of statement implies original research. Another example, is that some people view Jesus as the son of god and some view him as an interesting fellow, with interesting things to say. Which is a rather obvious statement.

And it still seems to me, that talking about the beliefs of some and the beliefs of others, without specifying who those people are and how the information was obtained, qualifies as original research.

Why not include that some people in SY believe in God, and some people don't. Or that some people in SY believe vegetarianism is essential for spiritual progress and some believe that it might be helpful but probably isn't essential. Some people in SY practice hatha yoga and some don't. Some people in SY believe in UFO's, some people think that they are nothing but hoaxes.

It seems that if we really wanted we could create a separate section that details all of the beliefs that various people in SY might have.

Plus the editor started to make claims about the effect the gurus have on their students. Now that is very POV, and unsourced.

In an attempt to summarize the above, my main objection was that all the edits did was point out that not every member of SY (or non-member) holds the same viewpoint on every tenet.

Also, it's just my opinion (and therefore not a neutral pov} that you can write about an organizations principles, tenets and beliefs in a neutral way by simply stating Organization A believes insert belief here, and providing a source. A non neutral pov would be to judge the belief by writing Organization A stupidly believes insert stupid belief here or by trying to prove that their belief is more valid than other beliefs, e.g. Organization A correctly believes insert belief here.

TheRingess 20:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)