Talk:Sahaja Yoga

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)

Kindly replace word "cult" from the description. 115.112.143.150 (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The use of the word "cult" is attributed to reliable sources and you are unlikely to find any editor willing to remove it. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources have to say about a particular topic and articles should never be written to satisfy one editor's or group of editors' personal preferences or beliefs. If a reasonable number of reliable sources have used the word "cult" in describing this group, that is sufficient for Wikipedia to use "cult". Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:40, 19 January 2025 (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.

Sahajayoga

Remove word *Cult* in the topic Sahajayoga Babatelkar (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: the claim that it's been characterized as a cult on the third paragraph looks well sourced and reflects the "Cult classification" section. Given the above edit request and subsequent discussion, you will need to establish a new editor consensus before that edit is made. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)