Talk:Siddha Yoga/Archive 3

Restructuring

In the interest of moving forward, I propose: That the subsection (level-3 heading) currently named "Controversial tantric practices" be changed to it's own (level-2 heading) section titled "Controversy". Rationale: sex with underage girls is not a controversial tantric practice, it is in fact statutory rape whether or not it was consensual. Placement: I don't care where the section is placed in the article, but it should not be nested under a level 2 heading. Sourcing: There is proper sourcing at this time. If the content is expanded, can all we agree, for the sake of peace moving forward, that each sentence be sourced with an inline citation? Netherzone (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed to both the new heading and that all new content will be sourced. I do have some concerns though because many of the "sources" being used by those who keep trying to hide the controversial issues aren't actually legitimate or so it seems. I'd like to add that any sourced material should actually state what is being claimed. One editor, for example, is trying to source something claiming Muktananda was a tantric yoga practitioner but in reality that source (Caldwell) was trying to get to the bottom of that claim as a means of dismissing his rape. She concludes "these accounts bear little resemblance to the ecstatic Kaula rituals described by Abhinavagupta in his antraloka, and lack their most essential component, a fully aware, consenting female partner or yogini. Whatever Baba was doing, claiming it to be a form of Tantric initiation, seemed rather to retain only the bodily shell of a Tantric practice that once held out the promise of profound enlightenment experience for both the man and woman."

Let's stop trying to pretend Muktananda and Siddha Yoga are a tantric yoga sex group because it's not. Misconstruing sources and then lying that my statements aren't backed up by those same sources isn't legitimate. I'm pretty tired of the one sided beating over the head with rules that don't apply, sources that don't back up claims, and demands that everything meet TheRingess' standard. TheRingess already went back on a compromise reached with an admin and yet no one seems to care, deletes 10,000 words of copy from me saying it's not sourced and makes things biased but then I delete a small "tantric sex controversy" section that contains obvious lies and attempts to characterize rape as yoga and then she reverts and says the section is fine and I can try to modify it instead of removing it. Exactly what I had asked her to do with my content.

Sources need to support claims and they need to be actual sources. Also let's not forget that "Meditation Revolution" which is used to support many claims is written by Siddha Yoga practitioners and therefore shouldn't be considered a neutral source for anything other than claims about Siddha Yoga's beliefs.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Can we please just discuss my proposal? Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I agree, but I would add that it needs to be rewritten because the current copy isn't neutral and contains lies about claims of tantra using sources that actually discredit that claim. I suggest the content under the new heading be the original controversial content that had existed here for months and we can work from there.206.214.56.81 (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you could also go on to the talk page of the editors who created the content and invite them to participate. Though they may see this section and weigh in. Since we are inviting consensus it hardly seems fair to exclude them.TheRingess (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No one is excluded, all voices are welcome to post here. Netherzone (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Object against a separate controversy-section, per WP:CSECTION.

Regarding Caldwell, see the same page 25:

My thesis is that Baba was an initiated Kaula practitioner, that he aspired to model himself after Abhinavagupta, and that he revered the secret teachings of the Kula path as the innermost core of his power

See WP:TENDENTIOUS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, I fail to understand why you would respond to my proposal with an accusation of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. I have only made a few edits on the article [1]] and none of them are disruptive. Netherzone (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose a separate controversy section, per above and WP:NPOV. Please work the controversies organically into the body of the article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Do any of you actually read those pages?

"Philosophy, religion, or politics - For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets. "

I already stated previously that the controversy section I added was modeled after other existing controversial religious pages and when you linked that page I told you it clearly states to do what I did. You've been here reverting my changes that follow the guidelines you claim to want others to follow.

Did you read it? Did you read Caldwell? Do you read any of this stuff or just link rules and revert edits you don't like and misconstrue sources? This is a legitimate question because you keep linking things that actually support doing exactly what I did. It still seems obvious to me that there is a lot of bias on the part of those who keep trying to confuse the issue and claim rules are being broken when in reality they're the ones breaking those very rules. Again, are you reading these things yourselves, or what? From my perspective it makes you look pretty stupid or biased to keep linking something that supports doing exactly what we're proposing and trying to claim it as the reason why we shouldn't do it.

Paging Joshua, did you read it? Have we reached consensus now since your own link states explicitly to add a controversy section? Again we need to determine the larger format before discussing the content itself. 206.214.56.81 (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Caldwell quote, we can resolve that once the format is fixed, per my request above which was ignored. Before we talk about content we need to determine the proper format. According to your own links the format proposed is correct. A controversy section of subheadings for each controversy. Exactly what I did and then TheRingess broke 3RR to try to remove it.206.214.56.81 (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Netherzone: the IP is tendentious, not you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, thanks for the clarification, I appreciate your quick response. To all: I still feel strongly that the article contains an obfuscation of the facts. Having sex with teenage girls, whether it is consensual or not, or whether it is a "spiritual practice" or not is still statutory rape. (At least in the U.S. where these events occurred.) Why not simply say that, rather than describe the events as "Shaktipat and controversial tantric practices"?

The exact words "statutory rape", does not need to be used, however evasive descriptors like "activities" or "interactions" conceals the facts from our readership. Netherzone (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Now we get to the crux of my issue. For years the article has presented the fact that these allegations and accusations were made public in two major articles. They were summarized succinctly in order to keep the article balanced between a presentation of the tenets and practices of the organization and a fair presentation of the accusations made. I've had to argue with people who believed that the accusations were false, reminding them that to classify the accusations as such was non neutral and way beyond the scope of a wikipedia article. I have also had to remind editors that it is beyond the scope of this article as well to label the allegations as "facts" as true since that would also make the article non neutral as well. Now the gist of this conversation seems to be to present these allegations and accusations as fact. I am not going to give my opinion one way or the other, the allegations seems imminently credible, but in the absence of further criminal investigations or civil lawsuits they remain accusations. It is not libelous to say that the allegations saw the light of day, it is just the truth that they did. It is potentially libelous to present those allegations as fact in this article as it would implicate many living people who supposedly participated in the criminal activity (and if memory servers Harris was very careful in the New Yorker article to present them as allegations rather than fact). In essence we are stating that every person who knew Muktananda also knew he was engaged in criminal behavior so they were at best accessories at worst they actively conspired to cover up criminal activity. This is just my viewpoint, contrary to what you yourself have accused me, I don't own this article. Maybe we should just make it quite clear that he was as guilty as charged and that many members of the organization covered it up. We can then just let the chips fall where they may. Perhaps you will argue that the "evidence" is overwhelming, so be it. Perhaps it is. I am also curious why Shaktipat, which has a sentence in the intro, is grouped together with the controversy, it seems to imply that the concept of shaktipat is in and of itself a controversial topic, rather than a religious belief.TheRingess (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

TheRingess, thank you for this, it helps clarify things. Allegations is correct, is it libelous to use that word?

I think it will be useful if you and I can agree to move past my use of the word "ownership". The reason I used that word is in looking back through many years of article history I saw a pattern emerge which looked alot like ownership. I also stated that I admired that you were keeping the article "clean" which was meant as a complimentary balance of "owny". I give you the benefit of the doubt, will you extend the same --- I think we have the same goal here.

I too am curious about why Shaktipat is now grouped with the controversy. Netherzone (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

--

Thank you. I agree that we can move past that. I believe, and am no expert, that allegations is not libelous. I believe news organizations tend to use words like allegations and/or accusations in order to avoid libel and slander. In news articles a person is often "alledged" to have committed a crime.TheRingess (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

False. The article, prior to my first edit, was written in a way that did not make it even remotely clear what Muktananda was accused of and it also did not make mention to large body of controversies surrounding Siddha Yoga. Also the same INCORRECT Caldwell quote was being used that is trying to be brought back now. As already stated Caldwell concludes he was not doing tantra, just that he was knowledgeable about it, yet the current copy still tries to use this source as a mean's to diminish what was happening. Same with the wording that "women said he had sex with them" which makes it sound like a celibacy issue not a rape accusation. Your statement is factually wrong according to this diff. For years the article did NOT present any of these allegations or accusations. It used the same misleading phrases and couched terms to try to minimize what the real controversy and accusations are. When I went back and clearly stated that Muktananda was accused of raping girls, etc you immediately reverted and fought with me over it. I'm sure I may have used poor wording as well but ultimately the 3RR was broken, an admin got involved, we reached a compromise and went back on it to try to restore the same minimizing phrases seen on the copy today where a faulty incorrect source is being used to try to say this was some tantric yoga controversy. Still waiting for you to explain why you thought it was okay to go back on this compromised solution and content if you're so neutral. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=886552142&oldid=865325123

206.214.56.81 (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of arguing about content still which is rather pointless because the list of controversies extends far beyond the rape of children as seen in my original edit. We need to cover Nityananda's departure and him reporting being beaten, the legal threats to the newspaper that published his account, etc.

Have we reached consensus now that a controversy header can be added to house all these stories? We can discuss the content of each of those items as they're added to that section. I propose that we stay focused on RESTRUCTURING and not rewriting sentences or rehashing wording. So far I've been shown CSECTION which clearly states in bold letters to have a controversy section so if we're following that then the matter is resolved and the proposal is accepted.

Let's move this along, unless someone else has a reason we shouldn't follow the CSECTION that was linked by the opponents of adding this section. They linked it. Maybe this misread it. In any case it says what it says, if I'm missing something let me know. 206.214.56.81 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

IP 206.214.56.81, can we agree not to bicker and blame others moving forward? I really think it will help to achieve a better quality of discourse that will hopefully lead to consensus. As we are seeing, achieving consensus can be a messy thing, so it helps to turn down our emotional responses and try to be patient and trust the process. Trying to force a consensus or a solution will only cause more disruption. We are all fellow volunteer editors committed to the integrity of the encyclopedia; can we agree on taking things slowly and communicating calmly and succinctly? Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to agree not to "bicker and blame" when people are attacking me. As Johnathan just did saying my list can be completely ignored because of my poor writing and lack of sources. The same lack of sources as last time when an admin got involved and apologized to me for assuming I wasn't 100% correct about everything I wrote and it all being in the sources? I'm not going to be the nice guy when people aren't respecting me.

Why don't you ask TheRingess to stop being a jerk first? Let's see that content restored to something closer to what we had agreed to and not an insanely one sided take that I have to argue against now. Let's see TheRingess apologize for not using the talk page for the last, what 3-6 months, of me asking them to do so? How many times did I ask them? Probably at least 10 times with zero response from them except edit summaries. TheRingess apologize for going back on the compromise? Anytime and I'll be happy to return the respect. My experience here is that I'm being bullied repeatedly and no one cares and keeps asking me to be the nice guy and wait and see how the bullies will handle it and what they will allow on their article.

I return the same respect that I get. TheRingess has been a jerk to me since I first edited this page to change "had sex with women" to "raped underage girls." They display ownership. They go back on compromises. They break 3RR. On and on and then people ask me to calm down and work with them. Yeah, been there, saw where that got us with the months later revert of consensus and ZERO discussion or reasoning still as to why that was done. Whatever.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

IP, no personal attacks. See WP Conduct policy: WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Netherzone (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, take the helm captain, show me how the process works. I outlined a clear list of major controversies. The details are in my large edit and in this talk page history that TheRingess "archived" which also had most of the same issues detailed the last time we went through this. It's pretty clear to me that I'm not allowed to edit the page but others who are using incorrect sources which don't support their claims, yadda yadda, are free to do whatever they want. I won't bother anymore. Show me how it all works bro! I believe! I'll trust you but not this process. You see how ridiculous it is to mask this controversy when the facts are obvious and well supported. Just don't lose sight of all the other major controversies as well. It's a large compelling story really about how Muktananda was exposed as a sexual deviant and the organization fell apart because of it. The death threats, the two gurus, Muktananda not being an actual successor of Nityananda, etc it's all connected to that but it is all part of the larger story that some editors here refuse to let be told even in a succinct directly sourced manner. I'll check back in a month and see what happened. My guess is people will say no one cares anymore and things will look pretty much how they do now.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

IP, slow down. I ask that you kindly don't refer to me as captain or bro, because I prefer my user name. We have heard your arguments. I imagine several of us are thinking about them. Here's an essay that has been useful to me, perhaps you will like it too. WP:COOL. Netherzone (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION

I have read and re-read WP:CSECTION and the talk page of Wikipedia:Criticism. My understanding of the essay is that in the case of philosophy or religion articles, it is indeed appropriate to include a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section. The rationale in the essay states: Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets. This is key, and why the controversial incidents should not be placed in the subsection, "Controversial tantric practices" nested within the "Teachings and Practices" section, as it runs contrary to the recommendations of CSECTION.

It is not unusual for an article to have a Controversy or Criticism section, there is an established precedent; see this list of 23,750 wikipedia articles for example:[2]. Of course, not all of these are philosophy, religion or spirituality articles, but in browsing the first 500 or so, all of these articles have Controversy or Criticism sections: Christianity, Hinduism, Religion, 14th Dalai Lama, Kabbalah, Agnosticim, Talmud, Seventh-day Adventist Church, Polyamory, Mormonism, Church of Scientology, Modern Orthodox Judaism, Islamic eschatology, Hedonism, Pacisfism, Islam in the United States. There is no reason why the Siddha Yoga article should not have a separate section for this content. It does not cause undue weight as the vast majority of the article is positive. I am of the mind that a "Controversy" section should go at the bottom of the article, below History, but not embedded within History. I was encouraged at ANEW to be bold and will boldly make that change. Netherzone (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

You've got a point; I mixed-up Siddha Yoga, and Muktananda himself. Yet, there is a differnce between criticism and controversy. And personally, I don't like criticism-sections; they invite undue pov-pushing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, thank you for your reply. I am pretty sure the article is now in compliance with guidelines and policies. Everything is well sourced, no BLP violations, no undue weight, nor potential legal issues. I hear what you say about criticism sections potentially inviting undue POV-pushing, however, I think there are enough of us watching the article (including some admins because of the ANEW report) that they can be addressed without too much drama. Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Joshua and Netherzone.TheRingess (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

TheRingess, and thank you for keeping a cool head for so many years, even when you were misunderstood (like by me!). Thank you Joshua Jonathan for the excellent editing and finding solid reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Edits post archiving, and restoration of talk page discussion

The talk page was good faith archived, but archive 3,4 & 5 were empty and the talk page blanked, so the discussion of the work that several editors did in recent months was not visible to new editors. This content included the agreed upon consensus on where the "controversy" section and associated content should be placed. I've restored the talk page. The Controversy section we agreed on now no longer exists. Note to Chiswick Chap, you recently have made a lot of changes to the article that does not take into account those discussions and consensus. There is no way you would have known about the previous discussion due to the good-faith blanking of the talk page. Pinging a couple other editors involved in the former discussion from when it was resolved: TheRingess, Joshua Jonathan. Netherzone (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Gosh. All right, in that case we'll need to row back and take this slowly. I've restored the 'Controversy' section, and moved some new material to 'Analysis' as it has some dependencies on the statements made there. I've left in the recently-added major sources, and note that these concur both on the fact of the multiple allegations against Muktananda, and on the multiple lines of evidence that point towards a succession battle. My view is that the article will read much better if we make it flow as a normal history, with embedded discussion and suitable caveats where there are alternative versions of events, rather than jumping backwards and forwards between history and 'Controversy'. Editors can look at the version I've just reverted from to see how that might work in practice. A readable summary written by a leading academic, Karen Pechilis, is available at World Religions and Spirituality Project; it provides a timeline with a consensus view on the key facts, and it cites all the major sources (which happily we mostly already have in the article). It'd be nice if we could converge the Wiki-consensus on that academic consensus. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Your version looks fine to me; integrating controversies into the other sections is conform Wiki-policies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Disagreed. The controversy section has been hidden three times now and restored by admin intervention twice. Siddha Yoga is a controversial organization and deserves to be noted as such. As mentioned above once people can stop attempting to hide the controversy section it will be expanded with succinct and well sourced content covering these events. Other editors walked away once it was clear their own attempts at rule lawyering back fired and supported the controversy section and therefore the controversy section should be restored. This conversation and attempt to weave controversy into history has already been discussed and consensus was reached by deciding the controversy section was appropriate. The current copy is still mostly inappropriate and using sources to make claims that those sources don't support as already outlined above. I'm merely waiting to put any effort into fixing this incorrect sourcing because I have already put significant effort into this article only to have content bulk deleted and biased content restored.

Controversies:

Rape Accusations - These are currently being white washed as "tantric yoga" using sources that actually conclude and directly state that whatever Muktananda was doing it was not tantric yoga. Yet those sources are currently only partially quoted to make it seem like they support these acts as just being misunderstood yoga practices.

Two Gurus - Nityananda's departure is extremely controversial and is relegated to about 2 sentences in the current copy that does not cover his physical abuse and other aspects of this event.

Death Threats - This has been minimized now to "threats" when in reality "enforcers" of Siddha Yoga made death threats and various criminal cases resulted from this. Another extremely controversial event which is being minimized by the current copy and essentially vanished in terms of the severity of what happened.

Cult Accusations - Previously I sourced 3 different professional sources indicating Siddha Yoga is a cult. This included someone who did a PhD dissertation on Siddha Yoga being a cult. Oddly these were all removed and now there is only a source claiming Siddha Yoga is NOT a cult as part of "analysis." Another example of the obvious bias and white washing this content is undergoing.

Leaving Siddha Yoga - An entire organization exists decidated to Siddha Yoga's controversial and criminal history. This still exists in the copy and is practically the only thing that has been left alone as part of the controversy section.

New Yorker article - This is another major event in the history of Siddha Yoga but is now merely one sentence mentioning an article was written and then is immediately white washed by the following sentences which attempt to confuse those accusations as being misunderstandings of yoga practices. As already mentioned Caldwell does not support this view but in that very source says that while Muktananda WAS those things it only served to support the fact that what he did had nothing to do with tantric yoga. I have quoted this previously.

Profiteering from 9/11 - Another controversial event which was covered by reputable news sources which is fully wiped now and every time it is brought up.

Nityananda successor - Absent from the current copy is that Muktananda was never considered Nityananda's successor. The current copy follows Siddha Yoga's attempts to make this link but such a link has never existed except in the mind's of Siddha Yoga adherents.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Analysis section has been removed and the content has been relegated to the appropriate sections. Gurumayi's secession has never been widely considered controversial outside of the absence of her brother. Similar the "brainwashing" content is out of place because it seems to counter a point that Siddha Yoga is a cult which isn't made anywhere in this article. The content supporting that claim was purged and therefore this rebuttal is out of place. It can be added again once the controversy section is stabilized again. I have no problem with a point / counter point controversy section but what seems to be a repeated trend in this article is the removal of controversial points and then leaving the counter point in place. This is the same as how the very straight forward rape accusations of underage girls by Muktananda was attempted to be recast as "misunderstood tantric yoga practices" as discussed previously on this talk page. I have updated Caldwell as well as mentioned many times now and the most glaring example of this repeated misattribution of statements from sources to attempt to support Siddha Yoga which those sources do not support Siddha Yoga.

For example, claiming Caldwell said Muktananda was an awesome tantric yoga practitioner and people just misunderstood. No. Caldwell said Muktananda obviously was a tantric yoga practitioner and that is just all the more damning that whatever he did with those underage girls was not tantric yoga as the updated quote from Caldwell asserts.

This is fairly simple, from CSECTION:

Philosophy, religion, or politics

For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets.

This is exactly what some editors are doing when they repeatedly remove the controversy section and rewrite things and selectively use quotes from sources like claiming Muktananda was practicing tantric yoga. In these editors' haste to cover up these controversies they are misconstruing the material and making it seem as if tantric yoga is part of Siddha Yoga yet that is not the case. Tantric yoga is mentioned no where in the practices of Siddha Yoga yet repeatedly editors try to cover up the RAPE OF UNDERAGE GIRLS as tantric yoga thus confusing these controversies with the beliefs of the organization. Muktananda's rape of young girls stands on its' own and attempts to weave this into the article as history or practices merely confuses things.

Again, once people can stop blanket removing the controversy section or confusing it, it can be expanded with better sources, new information, and rebuttals such as the brainwashing content. Until then any attempts to remove or rename this section are simple wrong according to policy. I agree the controversy section should be succinct, well sourced, and directly addressing controversy not used as a way to dismiss and provide rebuttals to controversy. The repeated removal and massaging of content seems to always turn the controversy section into something like a glowing endorsement of Siddha Yoga and something which only exists to counter controversial claims rather than document them factually.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I have revised this page and I feel it now better represents the information above including by not solely using the controversy section. For example, instead of treating Nityananda's removal as controversy it can more easily be a more prominent part of history. The previous copy attempts to fold Nityananda under Gurumayi's history which is inaccurate. Nityananda was appointed as a co-guru by Muktananada and remained so after his death. He should be a prominent part of history rather than a foot note and did in fact serve as leader of Siddha Yoga for a time. I actually feel Nityananda should come before Gurumayi for simple chronological accuracy as the final spot in history should below to Gurumayi but I imagine that would be seen as undesired so I will let things evolve from there.

This also involved a lot of clean up but almost all information was retained under the Gurumayi article where most of it was already duplicated anyway word for word. There is no need for this duplication and expansion of the Gurumayi portion of the Siddha Yoga article. I do think more could probably be written in the Gurumayi section but it should be a more succinct summary similar to the Muktananda section rather than a few hand picked and overly verbose statements as had previously been done. Missing is her noted absence from followers for several years and other events which should all be summarized in her section along with whatever is considered notable but we don't need a list of celebrity names and other sales pitch material there, a simple one liner on a few high lights like Muktananda is more fitting.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Primary sourcing

Policy permits limited use of primary (here, SYDA) sources for basic facts about an organization. That does not extend, for example, to stating how well-received a policy or event was. We should use SYDA materials very cautiously, only for facts, and always with strict neutrality. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Chiswick Chap that primary sources should be used sparingly, and never for promotional or advocacy purposes. Netherzone (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Analysis Section

I have reinstated the analysis section as something separate from the controversy section. After all these discussions I was going to make it separate since I thought the agreement was that a controversy section was necessary and allowable. The material in the analysis section is well sourced and neutral. It was added by Chiswick Chap. I see nothing in the section that violates the neutrality guidelines and the sourcing guidelines. Plus a couple of sentences were moved to the practices section and I moved them back here as I felt those sentences were not about the practices but were more about a survey done a few years ago of the inhabitants of the Fallsburg ashram. It would be interesting to see if any other similar surveys were done at ashrams in other countries, as the article currently is very much about the US inhabitants.TheRingess (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me

206.214.56.81 (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)