Talk:Sexual abuse by yoga gurus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AhmadLX (talk · contribs) 16:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Misc.

• The lead isn't representative summary of the article. Needs expansion.

Expanded.

• "father of modern yoga" Krishnamacharya. This is a judgement on part of Wikipedia. Either add, with ref, that he is called as such, or "according to Indian Express".

No, it's widespread and readily cited; added ref to Yoga Journal.

• Yoga Basics also names Swami Shyam. You haven't mentioned him.

Added.

• "Yoga Basics listed those same gurus, and named others including..." Why does this statement end with other sources [7] and [8]? I couldn't find any mention of "Yoga Basics" in either of them. If you intended to show that the names provided by Yoga Basics are also mentioned by these two, remove "Yoga Basics listed".

Done.

• "Satyananda engaged in 'aggressive, violent sex' with numerous women". "Satyananda" occurs in the article once before this, and there it is mentioned as an institute name. If he was a person, please give full name and link at this instance.

The link was already to Swami Satyananda. Clarified text and made link explicit.

• "in 2016 he was ordered to pay Minakshi Jafa-Bodden over $900,000 for sexual harassment followed by dismissal." What does dismissal mean in this context?

Her wrongful dismissal, following her sexual harassment. Clarified.

I modified this a bit.

No worries.

• Why do you need this "giving a long list of well-known gurus in the 2010s, and another list of those of an earlier generation in the 20th century"?

Because it shows that scholars agree with the newspapers that this is widespread, and further that it spans the generations and is not a purely recent phenomenon.

• Section "Policy" needs expansion. Stating that some institution has published a policy is of little use.

Added descriptions.

It is still not satisfactory. For example, in "it describes what is considered inappropriate for yoga teachers in America.", this "what" needs to be explained. Also for the other one.

Extended both with descriptions.

• Please rmv duplinks.

Done (using the tool to check).

Sources & Verifiability

• Falk, Geoffrey (2009) needs specific page number/range. "Chapter 1" or "whole book" is not acceptable.

Added.

• Park, Tosa (11 February 2015). Title correction needed.

Fixed.

• "Pattabhi Jois". The Economist. 4 June 2009. Ditto.

Fixed.

• Pearlman, Jonathan (4 December 2014). As above.

Fixed.

• Also for "Equity Policy".

Updated.

• Singleton, Mark; Goldberg, Ellen (2013). Publication year is 2014

Fixed. This often happens when a book is actually released at the end of one year and formally dated the start of the next.

• Singleton, Mark; Goldberg, Ellen (2013). Goldberg and Mark are editors. Chapter name and chapter author name needed.

Ref [16] is to the Introduction of which they are the authors. Added parameters to ref.

• Bühnemann, Gudrun (2007). Dead link.

Link removed.

• Storr, Anthony (1996). Page number needed.

Ref removed (per item below).

• "Swami Satchidananda, commentator on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali and the Bhagavad Gita" is not supported by [2] (Indian Express).

Removed the gloss. Ref says "Swami Satchidananda [section title] Considered as the superstar of yoga, he too had sexually abused several of his students."

• I could not find anything in [4] ("Pattabhi Jois". The Economist.) which would say that Jois has been accused of sexual abuse. What is says in that matter is only undertones and subject to interpretations. Many other sources (eg. [5], [6] etc) explicitly talk about the abuse allegations. Recommended action is to remove [4].

Removed.

• [10] (Goodyear, Charlie; Marech, Rona (12 May 2002)) talks about sexual relationship between Yee and his students. This is not akin to "sexual abuse".

Removed. He is mentioned (in many places) for misconduct with his students, which is often considered unprofessional and inappropriate but I agree the category of abuse (which overlaps with the above) is somewhat different.

• [14] (Elephant Journal, 4 January 2010) doesn't mention Jois.

Removed.

• [13] (Elephant Journal, 22 September 2009) shows a photo, which was originally posted on a blog. This is non-RS stuff.

Removed.

• "Criminal convictions and lawsuits for civil damages have been less frequent." doesn't seem to be supported by [17] ( BBC. 25 April 2018.)

Reworded.

• [20] (Mishra, Debashree (3 July 2016).) doesn't support anything that it is cited for.

Replaced ref.

• [24] (Neehan, Jack (21 March 2017).) only partially supports the claims of the following para.

The following para is cited to Singleton & Goldberg 2014.

Sorry, my mistake. I intended to write "following sentence". ;)

• Could you please quote here from [21],[22],[23] which supports "Before then, hatha yoga had... to their master or guru."?

The matter is not controversial among scholars. Singleton for example writes "the secretive transmission of hatha lore from guru to disciple". I do not think we need to say any more on this in the article.

• "medieval relationship between guru and shishya was one-to-one, well-understood in traditional Hindu society, based on trust developed over many years of instruction." isn't supported by [19] (Singleton, Mark; Goldberg, Ellen (2013)) pp. 7-8.

Extended page range. On p4 they write "students had to undergo initiation and extensive training under a qualified guru before they could learn the techniques and practices of yoga. Yoga was often secretive and exclusive, and the relationship with the guru was one of submission and obedience (although not necessarily without interpersonal tensions...). Indeed, it was often understood that yoga would simply not work without the grace of the guru. Today, on the other hand..."

• Singleton's characterization of Storr's work doesn't need ref of Storr's work. Singleton's ref is enough.

Removed.

• Please remove dictionary ref to the meaning of shakti. [26] is enough.

Done.

Images

• File:Guru and DiscipleI.jpg source link is broken. Also, what is its copyright status in the US?

Painting from 1740 is {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}. Too bad about the source link but the date is not in doubt.

Yes, but there is no way to prove it is from 1740. One could verify that if the source link was working.

Found it: https://www.freersackler.si.edu/object/F2006.4/ - the Smithsonian page agrees on 1740 as the date. I've updated Commons.

• File:Tripura sundari 4.jpg is unlikely to be "Own Work" of the uploader.

Replaced image with 12th century statue photograph that certainly is 'own work' depicting PD-old-100 artwork.

The new file needs tag for original work (3d art).

What tag would that be? It's correctly marked "own work" and it's of an 800-year-old artwork. If you know of the correct tag maybe you could add it on Commons.

I was told at FAC image reviews that 3d works have two copyrights, one of original creator and one of photographer. If original creator died long ago then original work's copyright will be PD. Something like {{PD-art-3d}} should work.

Added on Commons.

• Caption of the first image is an unsourced statement. Also is POV.

Edited and reffed.

I modified this a bit.

OK. Perhaps we should say "must be" but we're in the right area.

Summary

I believe I have responded to all items. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Pass. Seems good. Nice work. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 09:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed