Talk:Yogi Bhajan/Archive 2

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --There is no copyright infringement here - seriously. I examined the article http://sovyatnik.editboard.com/t465-guru-ram-das-ashram-in-la. It is similar. The material is similar, but it is in no way a copyright infringement.

What IS copied is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbhajan_Singh_Khalsa is a virtual copy of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbhajan_Singh_Yogi - most of which I wrote. Not knowing any better way of doing it, I hoped to change the name of the original article by starting under a new name and pasting the original material into the new article.

I did this: 1) because the legal name of the subject of the article is Harbhajan Singh Khalsa, and 2) because "Yogi" carries pejorative connotations in the Punjabi Sikh culture from which the subject comes. Aside from being his real name, "Khalsa" is more respectful. 3) This article was originally titled "Yogi Bhajan." 98% of those who know of the subject know him by that name.  I have no idea how it became "Harbhajan Singh Yogi."

Please excuse me if my procedure in changing the article name was not correct. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've redirected the article to Harbhajan Singh Yogi. You can read about how to accomplish a page move here: WP:MOVE. Valfontis (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

content discussion
This was cited to rick ross, the rick ross cite is not reliable, it is quite excessive commentary are there some reliable weblinks to support it, has it/was it widely reported? Was he found guilty of anything at all? Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

An Abstract of the Suppressed Public Record of Lawsuits
There were three prominent law suits against Yogi Bhajan. The lawsuit with the most emotional impact for the Yogi Bhajan community was the Kate  Felt lawsuit. This lawsuit alleged that Mr. Harbhajan aka Yogi Bhajan had raped and forcefully sodomized Ms. Karta Purk Kaur aka Kate Felt. Further the complaint alleged that Mr. Harbhajan had ripped a mole off of Ms. Felt's backside. There were also allegations of false arrest and false imprisonment of Ms. Felt. The plaintif was represented by Messers Peter N. Gorciades, Esq. from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Gordon  Reiselt Esq of Singer Smith and Williams from Albuquerque, New Mexico. A second lawsuit had been initiated by Premka Kaur for rape, and assault  and battery. An affidavit by Manmohan Singh will attest to the fact that Harbhajan Singh and Pritam Singh had met to discuss a settlement for  both lawsuits. Harbhajan Singh had expressed the sentiment that the lawsuits would be damaging to the Sikh religion in public opinion. The third lawsuit was a complaint over defamation among many other wrongs. The plaintiff was Mark Baker, and he had left Akal Security in order to become a law enforcement officer with the state of New Mexico. It seems that Yogi Bhajan or Harbhajan Singh had made allegations that Mr. Baker  was a danger to the group leader's life. Harbhajan's complaint was made to the state of New Mexico which resulted in Mr. Baker being dismissed  from the police training program. In the end Harbhajan's insurance company made a settlement check to Mr. Baker for the sum of $250,000 in  order to have the lawsuit dismissed.

comments
I am amazed at how much of the material shows only one point of view of Yogi Bhajan, that of 3HO. The lawsuits were totally expunged. The lack of inclusion of any other account of history of Mr. Harbhajan Singh Khalsa, but that of Mr. Fatah Singh is audacious in its presumptuousness. The total lack of respect for any other accounts is amazing. We cannot even verify if the college that Bhajan received his Ph.D. degree in "humanology" had any credibility. It is as if the history of the man was written by a dozen Winston Smiths. I suggest Wikipedia use some of its endowment to hire a credible researcher, because if this account is closed without any of the accounts of him abusing students, and breaking many laws as evidenced by his cash settlements, we will end up with a monster of a man presented as a saint for all of history. Truth does not always win out in history. Many times it is only known by those with private archives while the lies are repeated by school children. Those who want to present a false story always seem to have more passion, time and resources than those who see a more real version of events. You cannot be polite when you see a liar. It isn't nice to call someone a liar, but the fault lies not with the one who points out the miscreant, but with the liar himself. The psychopath will always have standards of politeness on his side. Sharkbait061 (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Retraction Request
I think the request makes a mockery of fair use provisions for copyrighted works. Also we never see the author's opinion more fully expressed, so I cannot really get the flavor of what was said. It is as if one was making objection to only the article's title without anymore context than that. It is not very sporting to do so and thus shows the intent to hide historical fact. As to the disappeared article from the Time Magazine archive, there are plenty of libraries with past issues of Time archived. Additionally I really don't want to take only Mr. Bebeck's word that Time does not have the article. I think this needs more verification. Sharkbait061 (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall saying that, and if I did I was wrong. The article is right there on the Time website. I agree with the concern about quoting the entire rebuttal. Wikipedia is not intended to be a repository of source material.   Will Beback    talk    00:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you meant. However I was referring to the rebuttal or the request for retraction, not the original article.   Will Beback    talk    00:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Yogic study in India
Throughout his life, Harbhajan Singh continued his practice and pursuit of yogic knowledge.[7] His government duties often facilitated his traveling to remote ashrams and distant hermitages in order to seek out reclusive yogis and swamis.

Again the same incestuous source is mentioned, "The Man Called Siri Singh Sahib". There is no mention of any third party source with the names of yogis and swamis recalling their encounters with Yogi Bhajan. It is self claimed claim by all appearances.

''In the mid-1960s, Harbhajan Singh took up a position as instructor at the Vishwayatan Ashram in New Delhi, under Dhirendra Brahmachari. This yoga centre was frequented by the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, his daughter, Indira Gandhi, and diplomats and employees from a host of foreign embassies.[8]''

And yet another claim made by a follower of Harbhajan without any other source. Can we directly quote PM Nehro? Has Indira Ghandi mentioned Harbhajan in her memoirs? Can we get source material directly from diplomats and employees? Why can't the bibliography of TMCSSS be published instead of TMCSS always tirelessly being used as the main source? I would say this material needs deletion unless other neutral source material can be found. Sharkbait061 (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Education Section Disputed
''Most influential of Harbhajan Singh's relations in his early development was his paternal grandfather, Bhai Fateh Singh. Fateh Singh taught him the essence of Sikh teachings and instilled in him a respect for all religions. As a teen, Harbhajan Singh spent several years under the strict tutelage of Sant Hazara Singh who declared his student a Master of Kundalini Yoga at the young age of sixteen.[6] ''

The only source for this information is provided by a book, The Man Called the Siri Singh Sahib, written by two 3HO insiders. I cannot call this a third party point of view. Can the authors provide a direct reference from Sant Hazara Singh's writings or memoirs. Has Mr. Sant Hazara Singh ever been quoted by any other author or news source?

''Harbhajan Singh's schooling was interrupted in 1947 by the violent partition of India, when he and his family fled to New Delhi as refugees. There, Harbhajan Singh attended Camp College – a hastily put together arrangement for thousands of refugee students – and led the Sikh Students Federation in Delhi.[7] Four years later, he graduated with a Masters Degree in Economics.[8]''

Again is a quote from the same authorized biography written by two of his followers. Is the sole source for the claim? Can the book quote those who were in the Sikh Students Federation? Is there any such group with that name? If the group exists do they have archives of this Harbhajan Singh leading them?

Harbhajan Singh years later graduated from the University of Humanistic Studies in San Francisco with a Ph.D. in Psychology with his seminal doctoral thesis, Communication: Liberation or Condemnation.[9]

How do we know HS attended the University of Humanistic Studies? How do we know it is not a diploma mill? I had read his thesis, and I cannot find any experiments done by him. No surveys of humans. No longitudinal or latitudinal studies involving statistics or factor analysis. There is nothing involving any sort of psychometrics. I think this section should be mostly deleted except for him earning some dubious degree. I do believe he earned a degree in economics but I would like to know for sure. There is only the book written by two Yogi Bhajan Sikhs that claims this. Sharkbait061 (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

On second thought I think the Ph.D. mention should be deleted because it comes from the Yogi's own website without any third party verification. Sharkbait061 (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan
The sources by Shanti Kaur and Guru Fatha are not neutral sources as they express a point of view as followers of Harbhajan. Are there others outside 3HO who can give a more unbiased view? Sharkbait061 (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rick Ross the cult deprogrammer aka "Sharkbait" is hardly a neutral authority either. At least, as Yogi Bhajan's biographer I have the original source material, and as a member of the University of Toronto's multifaith Campus Chaplain's Association, there is a reasonable chance I can offer a dispassionate point of view.Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, you can't attack me if your sourcing is not from third party material. You can't criticize me if you are using your own original source material. I have nothing to do with your sourcing or postings that express 3HO point of view. I am not the issue. And I suggest you quit using Rick Ross's name if you want to be legally prudent. The only source material I see comes from 3HO and its affiliate organizations. I have yet to have seen third party material as to the major claims, for most of the articles here do not have any bibliographical information that extends beyond KRI, 3HO, Sikh Dharma or The Man Called the Siri Singh Sahib. Where is it?? Also I do not take appeals to authority or membership in some chaplain organization as germane or material to the issue at hand. How do such claims argue that you do use third party material? Sharkbait061 (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Retraction request
In the footnotes there's an extensive quotation, starting: It isn't clear where this was published. I can't find it in the Time archive. If it was never published then we shouldn't use it as a source, per WP:V.  Will Beback   talk    00:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ''Time Will Tell: September 5, 1977 Mr. Henry Anatole Grunwald Managing Editor Time Magazine Time Life Building Rockefeller Center New York, N.Y. 10020 DEMAND FOR RETRACTION Your article in the September 5, 1977, issue of TIME entitled “Yogi Bhajan's Synthetic Sikhism” was a scandalous attempt to besmear the reputation of one of the world's major religious leaders. A copy of said article is enclosed as Exhibit One....
 * The source - a 3HO Foundation publication - was given in the body of the article. It is now also given in the endnote.Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that fix, but it's still unusual. Aren't 3HO publications copyrighted? If so, posting such a long excerpt may be considered a copyright violation. Is it really necessary to include all of that text if interested readers can just go to the original source? We don't even explain what Time magazine said that is being rebutted.   Will Beback    talk    20:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the retraction request letter, it was never published by Time Magazine. This retraction request letter came from the private files of Mr. Guru Terath Singh Khalsa, a 3HO lawyer. Sharkbait061 (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

External Links Restored
I gave opposition voices a fair hearing on the External Links section. The earlier external links mostly fed into 3HO and its affiliated web sites. Sharkbait061 (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Miri Piri Academy
I felt that more needed to be said on the education of 3HO children. Sharkbait061 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I restored the section on GNFC. I expect people who edit the articles to have the kidney to document the changes. Sharkbait061 (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to document that for the second time today within an hour, I had to put back the second paragraph with picture of the boys forced to have socks in their mouths. Just check the UTC time. Again the author did not document his change of the article. I am astonished at such effrontery. Aren't you supposed to make note of such changes? Sharkbait061 (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Media Coverage Section
I made efforts to include what was actually said in the Time Magazine article by complying with fair use provisions of copy righted works and by paraphrasing what was said in the Time Magazine article. I felt that the reader needed to know what was said in the Time article that prompted the rebuttal by Mr. Tohra and the Retraction Request Letter from Mr. Terath S. Khalsa, retained lawyer for 3HO. Sharkbait061 (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I restored the actual substance without plagiarism what was actually said in the Time article. This section was removed without attribution. I figured it was useless to print a rebuttal by 3HO without showing what was being rebutted. I think it lacks fairness to rebut what hasn't been quoted in the first place. I wish that whoever edits these articles would claim credit for the deletions, etc... Sharkbait061 (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Section Redacted
Why has so much of the discussion been deleted? Just want a reasoned answer. Sharkbait061 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussions weren't deleted, they were archived. It's standard practice on Wikipedia talk pages to periodically archive old threads.  The archive is still accessible by clicking the link in the box at the top.TheRingess (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuits Restored
I support the inclusion of this lawsuits in this article. The lawsuits are very telling about Yogi Bhajan's real character. The recent article in the Eugene Register Guard "Yogi's Legacy in Question" exposes this hidden agenda of YB. No matter what 3HO does the truth will come out and expose their veiled attempts to highjack Sikhism to further the Bhajan Puri cult. signed Gursant Singh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.51.53.206 (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I restored the lawsuit section. I don't care what anybody says about Rick Ross because the court documents submitted to Mr. Ross's host are real. Charlie Manson and Jesus Christ could say the earth goes goes around the sun, but that does not matter because you can verify it for yourself. Fatha (I'm sorry I cannot call him Guru as it is disrespectful to the Sikh religion.)is using guilt by association to taint the verity of court documents. I have the court documents myself in my desk drawers. More than 80% of the article is written by Mr. Fatha Singh, Yogi Bhajan's court historian- more like court praiser. He wrote YB's authorized biography in 1983. I don't want the king's praiser to write most of YB's bio article. Sharkbait061 (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the version re-inserted by Rick Ross aka Sharkbait with editorial comments:

There were three prominent law suits against Yogi Bhajan. ALL 3 UNSUCCESSFUL, ONE MINOR The lawsuit with the most emotional impact for the Yogi Bhajan community was the Kate Felt lawsuit. SAYS WHO? This lawsuit alleged that Mr. Harbhajan aka Yogi Bhajan had raped and forcefully sodomized Ms. Karta Purk Kaur aka Kate Felt. Further the complaint alleged that Mr. Harbhajan had ripped a mole off of Ms. Felt's backside. There were also allegations of false arrest and false imprisonment of Ms. Felt. The plaintif was represented by Messers Peter N. Gorciades, Esq. from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Gordon Reiselt Esq of Singer Smith and Williams from Albuquerque, New Mexico. NEEDLESS PRURIENT AND OTHER DETAILS FOR AN ARTICLE OF THIS TYPE A second lawsuit had been initiated by Premka Kaur for rape, and assault and battery. An affadavit MISSPELL by Manmohan Singh will attest to the fact that Harbhajan Singh and Pritam Singh had met to discuss a settlement for both lawsuits. MORE NEEDLESS DETAIL Harbhajan Singh had expressed the sentiment that the lawsuits would be damaging to the Sikh religion in public opinion. OF COURSE. THE TACTIC IS TO DESTROY A PERSON'S REPUTATION JUST BY GETTING THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INTERNATIONAL MEDIA. THE LEGAL OUTCOME HARDLY MATTERS. The third lawsuit was a complaint over defamation among many other wrongs. The plaintiff was Mark Baker, and he had left Akal Security in order to become a law enforcement officer with the state of New Mexico. It seems that Yogi Bhajan or Harbhajan Singh had made allegations that Mr. Baker was a danger to the goup MISSPELL leader's life. Harbhajan's complaint was made to the state of New Mexico which resulted in Mr. Baker being dismissed from the police training program. In the end Harbhajan's insurance company made a settlement check to Mr. Baker for the sum of $250,000 in order to have the lawsuit dismissed. A LOT OF PRINT IN A WIKI ARTICLE FOR A MINOR LAWSUIT Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If we take out "the purient details" of the Kate Felt lawsuit then we won't know what the complaint was about. All we will know is that there was a lawsuit by Kate Felt. Then you, Guru Fatha, will complain that since the referred to lawsuit in the Wiki article as explicated in the article to your taste, has no meat to it so it should be deleted. Live with it Guru Fatha. You have enough PR copy in that article to overwhelm sensiblity when it comes to one section on lawsuits. Sharkbait061 (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If Mr. Harbhajan Singh Puri felt he was being libeled or defamed then why is it he never initated legal action against Kate Felt or Premka Kaur for libel and defamation? Why did he settle with his adversaries if he is indeed not guilty? I would think he would defend hinself to the last dollar if he was as saintly as he claims to be. Some people's reputations are not destroyed as much as they earn that reputation. YB earned his reputation for being a false spiritual leader. You can quote as many passages on slander and libel from any number of holy men's mouths, but the standard in the United States is that the truth alone is defense against charges of slander and libel. Sharkbait061 (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a better standard still. A person is known by their legacy.  It is too early to tell what Yogi Bhajan's legacy will be.  Let's give it 500 years and see if he is remember for Ms. Felt's mole or for his contributions to peace, goodwill and the healing arts.  As for defending himself, Yogiji set a standard.  He said a saint never defends themself.  Slanderers abuse.  Saints endure.  Let's leave this discussion.  I am sure you think you are doing a righteous and honorable thing.Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I know no better standard than Anglo-Saxon common law. I don't take legal advice from Mr. Harbhajan. It's been over a hundred years since the Mountain Meadows massacre where the leadership of LDS murdered Americans going westward. Those high saints were actually murderers, sinners really. Thanks to the internet people can find the truth about this. In time Mr. Harbhajan Puri will be known as the Espanola mole ripper. I have no doubt I am righteous in my cause. I try to avoid holy smoke as it clouds my vision of the truth. I suppose by your logic Guru Gobind Singh is not a saint because he defended himself. I don't know see why you want to leave the discussion when you brought it all up. It hardly seems very fair of you. Sharkbait061 (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I included the allegation that 'Bhajan gave Premka Kaur a herpes infection resulting from his forced sexual assaults, another allegation. I would appreciate any jpegs of settlement checks and agreements. Sharkbait061 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is bad form to publish on the article page what should be published in the discussion. I think whoever is in charge of protocol for Wikipedia should warn whomever altered the Lawsuits against Yogi Bhajan not to put personal recriminations against others on the article page. I know that Mr. Fatha Singh has accused Rick Ross of some personal vendetta against 3HO. I think it is well within Mr. Ross's rights to write a strongly worder letter to Mr. Fatha Singh to cease his rootless allegations against him. As for myself I have used public third party sources to back up my research. Mr. Fatha Singh has mainly used research from the house organs of 3HO and its affiliates. He has earlier maintained that Premka Kaur AKA Pamela Dyson had reconciled with 3HO in the late 90's, but has not provided any proof other than his assertions that that has happened. Lately the article has been altered without comment on the author or the rational for changing the article. I feel that this is bad form. Sharkbait061 (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I added a thumbnail image for the settlement check to Mr. Baker. Sharkbait061 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Litigation Section and Miri Piri Academy Article Censored
Who has the time and resources to keep redacting and censoring the section on lawsuits against Yogi Bhajan? Are they or is he funded by some foundation grant? Who can deny the validity of a picture of boys whose mouths are stuffed with socks by their instructor at the Miri Piri School? There is something fascist about this. Such a disregard for truth never ceases to amaze me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We cannot use material sourced to a blog, nor can a photograph be used as a reliable source. Please actually read the link and try to understand what a reliable source is. Yworo (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia policy violations
The Wikipedia flag at the top of the Yogi Bhajan cites the following problems with the page, I will talk about each one. “relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject”; “written like a personal reflection or essay”; “it may contain original research”; “its neutrality is disputed”; --Daan singh (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC) I shall deal with each of the page “problems”:

First, I will deal with “references or sources affiliated with the subject” first. The page has 91 citations. 58 of these are “affiliated with the subject”. “These being ‘affilated with the subject”, Yogi Bhajan/ 3HO pubications and/or websites. These references are clearly biased and contain fabrications to promote the Yogi Bhajan /3HO agenda. Examples: “Beads of Truth”, a 3HO publication, is cited 20 times; “Sikh Dharma”, a 3HO organization, is cited 9 times; Golden Temple Enterprise, a 3HO organization, cited 6 times; and, Sikhnet, a 3 HO organization, cited 5 times.

“Written like a personal reflection” this page was setup by Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa, a Yogi Bhajan follower and 3HO member. It is clearly biased to promote the Yogi Bhajan/3HO lifestyle which is contrary to traditional Sikhism. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa treats the page as his personal website, cost free at Wikipedia expense, and ‘undos’ anything he dislikes that reflects on Yogi Bhajan in a negative way, even if it is the truth. I recently posted a quote from the Time magazine article about Yogi Bhajan cited on the page, “the 3HO leader…inspires hostility”, it was deleted. He uses fabricated reasons to undo posts not to his liking. I also posted quotes about AKAL security, a 3HO organization from a newspaper article as being fined for millions of dollars by the U.S. Federal Government for contract violations at U.S. military bases. It too was deleted.

“it may contain original research”, may? Does! Many things at 3HO publications and websites are fabrications. an example is the Kundalini Research Institute (KRI, www.kundaliniresearchinstitute.org).

Years ago the website stated that Yogi Bhajan got a Phd. in Humanolgy from the University of Humanistic Studies in Solana, California, an unaccredited school that closed May 1999. Now, the KRI website states that he received a Phd. in Psychology from the University of Humanistic Studies in San Fransico. There is no record of any such university. The KRI current website data about Yogi Bhajan’s education was changed and fabricated to promote a more favourable image of Yogi Bhajan to the public despite its falsehood.

KRI was established in 1971 with the mission statement to do research on the physiological effects of kundalini yoga on humans. After 41 years there has not been any studies conducted and no papers on the subject published by the Institute or reported. And I seriously doubt any such research is being done currently. A keyword search of the word “research” at the KRI homepage gives 10 pages of hits. Almost every hit mentions Yogi Bhajan and “yoga as taught by Yogi Bhajan”, and none on the supposed kundalini yoga research conducted. The KRI website is just another push for the Yogi Bhajan/3HO agenda, and it’s 3HO teacher training program for “yoga as taught by Yogi Bhajan”.

“its neutrality is disputed” I reiterate the above, “Written like a personal reflection”. This page was setup by Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa, a Yogi Bhajan follower and 3HO member. It is clearly biased to promote the Yogi Bhajan/3HO lifestyle which is contrary to the traditional Sikhism. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa treats the page as his personal website, cost free at Wikipedia expense, and ‘undos’ anything he dislikes that reflects on Yogi Bhajan in a negative way, even if it is the truth. I recently posted a quote from the Time magazine article about Yogi Bhajan cited on the page, “the 3HO leader….inspires hostility”. It was deleted. He uses fabricated reasons to undo posts not to his liking. I also posted quotes about AKAL security, a 3HO organization, from a newspaper article being fined for millions of dollars by the U.S. Federal Government for contract violations at U.S. military bases. It too was deleted.”

Rick Ross is a renown anti cultist and deprogrammer, at his website www.RickRoss.com there is the court affidavit of Phd. Richard Ofshe, a cult expert, regarding 3HO, 1.	I hold a Ph.D. in Sociology from Stanford University (1968); I also hold a B,A. degree in Psychology (1963) and a Master's degree in Sociology (1964) from Queens College, City University of New York. 2.	I am presently a Professor in the Department of Sociology, University of California at Berkeley, having been on the faculty at Berkeley since 1967. I have held the rank of Professor there since 1982. 3.	My particular fields of interest are social influence, decision-making, and the organization of highly controlled groups. This would include organizations commonly identified by the general public as cults. I have been involved in the study of such matters throughout my career, and as my principal area of concentration since the mid-1970s. 4.	In 1979, work that I did together with David and Kathy Mitchell was awarded the Pulitzer Prize Gold Medal for Distinguished Public Service. The work consisted of a series of articles and editorials analyzing a cult-like organization called the Synanon Church. 5.	I have served as a consultant to the United States Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service, several state attorneys general, and a number of district attorneys and other-prosecutorial agencies in connection with cult-related matters. 6.	I am a member of numerous professional societies, and have served on the editorial boards of several refereed journals; I am currently a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Cultic Studies. I have authored several books and monographs, and have published more than two dozen articles in scholarly journals, a number of which have to do with cult-like organizations. I have also made more than two dozen presentations in my areas of interest before scholarly conferences. 7.	I have served as a consultant and expert witness in more than 30 cult-related cases in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Puerto Rico and other jurisdictions, as well as in Canada and Great Britain. 8.	When I refer to the "Sikhs' in this affidavit I am not referring to the worldwide Sikh religion in general, or to the Sikh population group or religious community in India, or to any follower or member of the Sikh religion anywhere who does not acknowledge Yogi Bhajan as his or her leader or "guru." Rather, when I refer to the “Sikhs" in this affidavit I am referring specifically to that Sikh community in the United States which consists only of organizations and individuals recognizing Yogi Bhajan as their leader, or having close affiliations with such individuals or organizations. 9.	In addition to the experience described in paragraph 8, I have served as an expert consultant in litigation involving the Sikh movement in the United States, and its New Mexico contingent. In the course of that service I studied the organization and operation of the Sikh movement in the United States and in New Mexico, including the roles of the various Sikh corporations, and of Yogi Bhajan and those close to him. I have continued to follow issues involving the Sikh movement in the United States, and am aware of the indictment of Guru Jot Singh Khalsa on RICO violations and large-scale international drug trafficking, presently pending in federal court here in California. I am also aware of related official court documents describing money laundering and attempted arms trafficking in addition to the crimes alleged in the indictment itself. Based on my professional knowledge, on my previous study of the Sikh movement, on documents I have reviewed, and on interviews I have conducted with former members of the movement, I have reached the following conclusions:

a.	The Sikh movement in the United States exhibits characteristics common to cult organizations, including the use of intimidation and other forms of coercion to impose control and enforce norms within the group.

A look at Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa’s number of bytes on “user contributions” page, and the “Revision history of Harbhajan Singh Yogi” pages details how Fatha treats the Wikipedia Yogi Bhajan site as his personal website, being solely the main author and editor deleting (undo) at will. Is this according to the Wikipedia policies?

The page for some reason lacks any reference to “white tantric Yoga”, the major component in Yogi Bhajan’s teachings. I studied Tantric yoga for five years, there is absolutely no reference to white tantric yoga in the ancient Sanskrit texts, only Red (sexual), and Black (occult). “White tantric yoga” was a Yogi Bhajan fabrication. A keyword search of the 3HO website will find a multitude of hits on this subject.

Summary…This page is clearly biased, and not neutral, and is in violation against Wikipedia policies. It should be removed.

Respectfully Submitted Daan Singh Daan singh (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC) April 23,2012

This Wiki is an utter sham; everything negative has been redacted from the site.
One example of which there are many:

It's ironic that Sardarni Premka Kaur Khalsa (Premka) is quoted as a source in numerous cases.

I seriously doubt that, after all of litigation that took place between Premka and Yogiji, after he got her pregnant, that Premka would assent willingly to the use of her name as a source.

This site is all very pretty, but the real truth is quite different. Yogiji was a manipulator who used people for his own ends.

3HO is nothing more or less than a cult.

The so-called Truths taught by Yogiji, (disclaimer: other than standard Sikh teachings) do not hold up to scrutiny.

Most of Yogiji's talks, were incomprehensible rants. They were full of coercion and guilt. Of course it was anathema to question the word of a so-called "God-Man".

As a former teacher of 3HO, (I taught classes in Tempe and Prescott for three years), as a former ashram leader, I can tell you that the teachings nearly cost me my sanity. It took me nearly ten years to recover. My former teacher left 3HO citing numerous problems and his inability to support the organization further since there was no effort made to correct them. The problems were endemic, systemic and started from the top.

Something needs to be done about this site, considering the cult-like nature of 3HO and the numerous offenses committed by YogiJi, including fraud, sexual harassment and abuse, harassment, etc.

A former student and Teacher.Jacksokol (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There's very little use for opinion in an encyclopedic description.RogerThatOne72 (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see lawsuits against Yogi Bhajan put back up on the site. It is not a neutral article. In general I think it's important to get to the bottom of whether Kundalini Yoga is a cult or not. It's the compassionate thing to do. If it is a destructive cult, we need to help the people involved transition into a more heart felt authentic way of worshipping god, where as if it isn't a cult we need to show the community at large that what is currently a fringe religious belief is nothing harmful and deserves respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.246.159 (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of litigation sections
I am removing the legal issues sections – both of them – for the simple reason that in the big scope of things, they do not merit mention in an article about a man of the caliber of Yogi Bhajan, a religious figure considered by the United States Congress to be in the same elevated category as just three other individuals, Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II, and Martin Luther King, Jr.  Anyone who seriously looks at the remarkable contributions Yogi Bhajan has made, as sketched out in the article, in areas from the healing arts to interfaith dialogue to standing firm against terrorism, will come away impressed, if not amazed at his consistent humanity and passion for peace and the good of all.

Rick Ross aka “Sharkbait” has inserted these hackneyed and libellous sections (poorly written, with word for word redundency) about unsuccessful litigations for one reason alone: to slander a great American who does not fit into his Judeo-Christian model of what a good man should be and do, and incidentally to attempt to enlarge his case file as a deprogrammer. If it is a reputable Jewish connection you are after, I can tell you that Yogi Bhajan was a good acquaintance of the former Head Chaplain of the U.S. Armed Forces. He also shared Shabbat with Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach.

As I indicated in previous editions of these sections you inserted into the article, at least one of these legal cases of the 1980s was funded by third parties with an interest in defaming Yogi Bhajan. Moreover, one of the plaintiffs, Premka returned to New Mexico in 2000 and was employed for a time by a 3HO company as she sought to reconcile herself with Yogi Bhajan. I might add that the notable students (see the Notable Students section of the article) of Yogi Bhajan – people of staunch morale fibre, superior intelligence and high ideals, would certainly have denounced their teacher or simply abandoned him had they believed there was any substance to the allegations made against him.

In summation, you are on the wrong case and you've got the wrong man, Mr. Ross. (If you want to write about cases of wrongful confinement and rape, you can supplement your wiki bio with details about your work as a “deprogrammer,” kidnapping and subjecting your unwilling guests to your brainwashing techniques.) None of the three cases you mention was successful and dragging them up clearly serves no purpose but your own. In the big picture, it should not surprise us if Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II and Martin Luther King, Jr. also dealt with vexatious and petty litigations. But since these were neither memorable nor significant, why should they be included in a wiki article about their amazing lives and tremendous contributions? Of course, they should not and consequently, they are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I put the lawsuits back as I think they are very important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru Sant Singh (talk • contribs) 07:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment..There is no value to excessive legal jargon,the average reader can not understand it and it is currently masking the article unreadable, also there are an excessive amount of primary citations, we need reliable secondary citations, not the original court doc or legal document but independent reports of what happened. Also Rick ross is not a reliable citation. There are excessive overly long quoted or copied sections of text in obituaries and the kundalini yoga section, this content should be summaries and shortened, also there is excessive content in the footnotes, the complete retraction request for example and some of the other stuff, if it has any real value add it to the article if now then it is of little value to the reader and simply serves to elongate the article necessarily. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is getting to be utter codswallop, User:Guru Sant Singh and his socks keep adding the same gibberish, which is one person's opinion, none of which has been shown to be relevant to this article except in passing. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope I am doing this right. I am PLEADING to include the litigation information. I am interested in learning about the history of kindalini yoga and I am shocked (and appalled) that not all available information on Bhajan is included, which leaves Wiki-users to have to investigate and collate the information on their own time. This is ridiculous; why suppress public information? Whether he is guilty or not guilty, Wikipedia should include information that people are looking for, and litigation is hard for lay people to research. I feel that removing the litigation does a general diservice to people who cannot research on their own time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.69.239 (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harbhajan Singh Khalsa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090610044331/http://tobias-lib.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2008/3596/ to http://tobias-lib.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2008/3596/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Beginning to address concerns listed at top of page, NPOV
By not including any, this page appears to claim there exists no controversy surrounding the subject. In every article I have read on the subject, controversy is mentioned and it should be here, too. I will be working on this as time allows, using the following sources to start.


 * This article (2010) covers sexual abuse allegations, and several cases settled out of court.


 * This article (2011) covers the controversies and lawsuits.


 * This piece covers the lawsuits, and states" "The litany of complaints that have surrounded the group regarding abuse go back to the '70s: sexual, financial exploitation and allegations of child abuse. This is a group that has a deeply troubled history.'" None of this is mentioned in the WP article, to my knowledge.


 * Even in this very positive NYT article written just after his death is controversy mentioned: "Yogi Bhajan inspired critics, including traditional Sikhs; the cult expert Rick A. Ross, who called him an "absolute authoritarian figure"; and people concerned with his sometimes explicit sexual instructions."   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for review
I believe the talk section lays out clearly several reasons to believe the article is far from neutral. 206.29.176.51 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just work on improving it, and if you run into difficulties you'll have a more specific question for people to comment on? Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not sure RfC can handle open question with this open. Matthew hk (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a strong core of users hell-bent on removing any negative stuff from this article as soon as it is added, and smearing those who try to add it so I wonder if anything can even be done without protecting the article somehow. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment  206.29.176.51, please don't use this RfC to make a vague statement. It should only be used to request community input on specific issues. Either take the time to lay out the issues or close out this one. Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment In the section just above this RfC, I've added what I believe to be reliable sources that could help balance this article. I appreciate the attempt by IP to bring attention to the matter. If anyone would like to work with me on this, please ping or drop by my talk page.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   16:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

POV Problem
This article appears to have a POV problem and exhibits bias both in it's content and on it's talk page.

The lawsuits that have been removed from the article have been written about and mentioned in reputable news sources that meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability and should be included to prevent bias in this article. These sources also mention allegations of sexual abuse. For example:

LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-23-et-yogi23-story.html

Yahoo News Canada: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/the-cultish-call-of-yoga-studios-200139178.html

Furthermore with the recent publication of the book "Premka: White Bird in a Golden Cage" on January 8 2020, characterizing rape, sexual assault and imprisonment among other allegations from first hand experience, this article needs to be updated:

https://www.amazon.com/Premka-White-Bird-Golden-Bhajan/dp/0578621886

These updates may need to be done in a protected manner by Wikipedia Administrators/Senior Editors to prevent the immediate removal by biased POV writers. New Author 9 (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for Neutralizing the article...
I an effort to "de-peacock" the wording in the article, I removed "Charismatic" and "Successful" from the opening lines. They should be proven/given example of in later sections if relevant. While this may be both true, it should be backed by examples. Also, I though the line:


 * "Although a promised position as director of a new yogic studies department at the University of Toronto did not materialize because of the death of his sponsor, Singh the Yogi made a considerable impact in the predominantly Anglo-Saxon metropolis."

Was superfluous. Does this add anything to the article? I'm just trying to reduce the impression that this was written by any fans or detractors. Should be neutrally worded. I'm happy to put these words back if they make encyclopedic sense. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree ... no entry about how there is an investigation of sexual abuse by Bhajan or mention of all the students abused in India ... nothing... Netal2001 (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Request
This page is need of some serious attention by senior Wiki editors. Otherwise it is simply a promotional page by Guru Bhajan's followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.37.53.52 (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2014


 * Agreed, in spades. All of the critical comments in this Talk Page remain. The article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It is clearly being written and guarded by editors with a non-neutral point of view, who remove anything critical that has been written about Harbhajan Singh Khalsa (a.k.a. Yogi Bhajan or Siri Singh Sahib), about "3HO" (which also needs re-writing), about Kundalini yoga, etc. If you want a flavor of these critiques, look for the reliable-source articles linked on e.g. these blogs (among many, many, many others): http://www.wackoworldofyogibhajan.net/forums/index.php?sid=d463b3bb081913ede5d0cad9ae3f8025, http://indiakids.blogspot.com/search?q=abuse, http://www.sikharchives.com/?p=13439, http://www.sikharchives.com/?p=10638, etc. (Again, to be clear: I am not proposing that these blogs themselves are "reliable sources" per Wikipedia policy, rather that the blogs link to other, third-party sources that are reliable by Wikipedia standards.) This is not what an encyclopedia should be. My guess is that in order to bring this back to a reputable encyclopedia page it will have to be semi-locked and maintained by neutral, senior Wikipedia editors. Benefac (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

And now in 2020 there is even more controversy with the publication of the Premka book, multiple new people coming forward with allegations of Sexual abuse by Bhajan plus the kids abused in India at the school. There is an actual active investigation into Yogi Bhajan and many yoga studios and teachers have stripped their studios of pictures of him as well as book. There is multiple movements to create a Kundalini Yoga community separate from those that worship this alleged serial abuser. Netal2001 (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Standard of evidence for posthumous, non-courthouse allegations
There has been some confusion about what Wikipedia may report and the voice it may use to do so. Firstly, Wikipedia must never take either side in a dispute, so it must confine itself to reporting that A said X and B said Y. Secondly, when a subject is dead, a criminal trial is impossible, so a criminal standard of evidence cannot be attained. The most that can occur is an inquiry which finds that there is reasonable evidence that allegations are true, which is the case here. It is mere filibustering to argue that such evidence is insufficient for imprisonment: that will always be true in all posthumous investigations. When the appearance of Conflict of Interest is also present, as here, then attempts to suppress reliable reports of the findings of such an inquiry are unacceptable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation of how Wikipedia works.

I was very concerned when properly cited allegations of sexual abuse by Bhajan and the AOB report kept being deleted.

The explanation that it is because the report does not mean criminal court standards as the reason for the repeated deletions is perplexing.

Given that the law does not allow dead people to be tried in a criminal court case the idea that the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”in examining the sexual abuse allegations is incorrect. The flaws are the responsibility of the SSSC Board of directors including the three that designed. They are the ones the created the terms of references. Those flaws do not remove the facts that these sexual abuse allegations exist.The term “more likely than not” was used in the report precisely because there will never be a determination in a criminal court of law “beyond a reasonable doubt” The continued repeated deletion of the facts and citations around the allegations are not neutral edits. There are a number of civil lawsuits being prepared and eventually they will reach the courts. The verdicts in these civil actions will also not be “ beyond a reasonable doubt” either. Again because the accused is dead.

Many of those making the allegations as well as their supporters wanted a licensed law firm to conduct the investigation. The SSSC board disregard these requests and chose An Olive Branch.

Frankly the idea that the report criticizing a report on sexual abuse get more space is not balanced or neutral either.

I am happy that more experienced Wikipedia editors are showing an interest in the continued biased deletions of any mention of the sexual abuse allegations which even the Yoga Organization the accused founded ( and which commissioned and created the terms of reference for the AOB report) has reluctantly accepted the findings and is in process of significant internal changes.

Netal2001 (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ban Something Something Singh Khalsa from Editing
2021-02-28 Wow! I see people have been complaining about Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa's editing since as far back as 2010! Holy crap indeed.

I posted this on Chiswick Chap's talk page, but see it might be more useful here.

Almost the entire historical information section in the Wiki entry on Yogi Bhajan has been generated from his own words or his own words as repeated by his faithful students. If you look at the sources of the core content, they are almost all written by 'Something Something Singh Khalsa' or 'Something Something Kaur Khalsa'. These are all the given names of 3HO cult members. There is no daylight between what the Yogi said and what they repeat. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa, a frequent editor of this page, wrote an almost 1,000 page book (Messenger from the Guru's House - it is cited in the footnote. Check it out if you are having trouble sleeping) on Bhajan without a SINGLE WORD OF CRITICISM. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa is not what I, or anyone not in the 3HO cult, would call a 'good academic'. Read some of his output, or take a look at his web site. That foundation, devotees spewing group dogma, for much of the material does not seem to be a reliable source to build a good and balanced encyclopedia entry on.

If Bhajan is the pathological liar, exploiter of his follower and serial sexual abuser that it is now evident he was, why is the AOB Report, or even the 1977 Time Magazine article any less compelling than the content that Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa and other dogmatic followers post? Why can't the abuse material be front and center? Why is it more balanced to base it on 'the official version' as provided by group members. Why is that any more legitimate? This is such a conservative approach to the Wikipedia entry on Bhajan.

I encourage all concerned to read the actual AOB Report. No less than 30 women came forward with stories of horrendous exploitation at the hands (and teeth) of Yogi Bhajan. This is not some mass hysteria. Their stories were given independently and the patterns of sexual abuse by Bhajan match up. He was a biter of their private parts. He hit the women in the face. He was into degrading sex with vulnerable women. Here is a table pulled from the report to give some flavour. I posted this to the Wiki entry, but Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa deleted it.

To get an idea of where he created Kundalini Yoga from, read Philip Deslippe's account (unlike Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa, Deslippe is an actual historian) of how Bhajan changed his story of his 'golden chain' lineage. Bhajan lied about many things, including having invented both Kundalini Yoga and White Tantric Yoga. He lied about being designated the "Siri Singh Sahib" of the Western Hemisphere.

I would really like to know how to have these documented and well researched versions of Bhajan's story take prominence and have the stories of his abuse be brought back from the footnotes. Right now, it feels like someone is tending the garden and hiding all the truth under the compost pile. A casual reader is not going to get that there is a real problem with Bhajan.

So my question is, what do I have to do to get my edits to stick. What am I doing wrong? Also is there a method of having Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa, and other known devotees of Yogi Bhajan banned from editing this article? They are clearly in a conflict of interest position.

-Anon for Now

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:79EE:5B00:D5B:B0CD:A5E5:221A (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

State Highway
2021-03-02 I see Chiswick Chap has changed my edit about the State Highway. I had: "The State of New Mexico honored Yogi Bhajan by naming of a 'highway' after him. State Highway 106, an approximately 1-mile secondary road with a 35 mph speed limit, which ran in front of his home was renamed the Yogi Bhajan Memorial Highway." citing "rm WP:UNDUE detail on the highway, readers can look at the cited source undo".

I get that it is a detail, and readers could look it up, but to me it seems like an important detail. It speaks to how greatly they valued Yogi Bhajan's regular campaign contributions were to Bill Richardson. They named a 1 mile stretch of road with a 35 mile an hour speed limit, after YB, not a highway. This was noted by another commentator above.

Compromise proposal: at least change it from State Highway to 'road'. I don't think the term 'state road' would apply. Just road. And yet, the sign says 'Yogi Bhajan Memorial Highway'. Its a fucked up thing and I go back to thinking that the detail is important. I changed my mind. No compromise seems right, can we put the detail back in?


 * PLEASE sign your posts (use ~ ).


 * I removed it as you say because I felt it was undue; I still think that is correct. Feel free to look around Wikipedia and see how Legacy is generally handled; we always do it very briefly, and that is certainly appropriate. Why? Because the name is the thing, not speed limits or lengths of road. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeated Point-of-View editing
It is concerning that this article still seems to have an issue with point-of-view editing, despite the presence of multiple reliable sources which state quite plainly that accusations of sexual abuse have been made, and on investigation have been found to be "more likely than not".

Now, even if (for the sake of argument) it were found LATER to be the case that the accusations were all false or misguided, and that the investigation had been flawed to the point that it should have concluded that it was unlikely that sexual abuse had ever occurred, it would STILL be quite wrong to remove the report of the earlier allegations. In that hypothetical case, the correct procedure would be for the article to report, truthfully, that (A) accusations were made[1][2][3] (B) the report validated them,[4] and (C) a later inquiry invalidated the report.[5] --- where the bracketed numbers symbolise reliable citations. It would be quite wrong, indeed inappropriate, to remove (A) or (B) and merely to report (C): this would be WP:POV, and given the situation, also WP:COI, a serious breach. I do hope this is crystal clear, as something very wrong appears to be happening here, and if it is what it appears to be, it must stop at once.

I have therefore restored the (very brief) statement about the "AOB" report; the following paragraph about the "Thompson report" however goes into much more detail, which in comparison is both WP:UNDUE and gives a sharp impression of WP:POV even with the restored AOB statement. We must either cut down the latter, which gives the impression of speaking in the Thompson report's voice, or build up the former. Neutrality in such a sensitive matter is clearly essential. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to see that people are starting to edit-war about the abuse allegations: that is never acceptable, even without the evident WP:COI issue. On such a sensitive matter, it is essential that people do not attempt to delete the well-cited allegations and indeed the citations. Given that we have been discussing already here and on other talk pages, continued non-consensus deletions are inappropriate. If there are substantive points to be discussed, then this page is the proper place, not the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it now several months later and the neutrality issues around the Thompson report have not been addressed. Any chance of that being addressed Netal2001 (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Bhajan’s Yoga: The Roots and Context of Kundalini Yoga As Taught By Yogi Bhajan
Has anyone perused this article on Harbhajan's yoga teachings? Academia - Bhajan's Yoga Lots of references that might be useful. Full disclosure: I know the author. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject assessments for quality and importance
I have reassessed this article as C-class primarily because of the instability of this article recently and over the past 10 or so years, since it was first assessed as a Start-class in 2012. This downgrades the article from B-class for a couple of WikiProjects that were given in May 2020. Given the article seems to have been the subject to editing by contributors with a of a conflict of interest and is now in need of clean-up, as a result, I think some rigor needs to be brought to this article's assessment, so I have added a set of B-class questions that need to be asserted before the article is rated B class. I reproduce them here for the record along with my thinking: Also, I have given this article a Low importance assessment, apart from Crime, because that is what it had been previously assessed as. For Crime, I have rated it Mid importance on account of the number of victims who came forward to tell their stories, which is an unusual circumstance for the crimes involved. Admittedly, assessment is a matter of opinion, in some respects, so I share mine here so others can understand my position. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) b1 =  - Referencing & citations - Are there enough references and citations in-line and generally. Are these accurately and precisely described with sufficient detail, including headlines, page numbers, authors, publishers, URL's, Archive Url's, etc. to enable them to be found in the future and verify the sources still say what they said when cited. This is why an access date is important to know for on-line sources. - Not yet assessed.
 * 2) b2 =  - Coverage & accuracy - Is the subject fully covered? And is it accurate? - NO - because the article is still unstable, with so much being added and removed by various editors, at the moment, I do not think the coverage is going to be either accurate or fully covered.
 * 3) b3 =  - Structure - Does the article follow the standard template for a biography, with appropriate headings and section titles? - Not assessed yet
 * 4) b4 =  - Grammar & style - Is the article written in an appropriate encyclopedic tone and style that is free of grammar and spelling errors. In other words is it concise, precise and does it make sense, with writing that flow naturally? - Not assessed yet
 * 5) b5 =  - Supporting materials - Are there supporting materials such as appropriate images and info-boxes? - Yes

Requested move 27 February 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh Khalsa → Yogi Bhajan – Yogi Bhajan is the WP:COMMONNAME as per: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Yogi+Bhajan%2CHarbhajan+Singh+Khalsa&year_start=1969&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2009&smoothing=3 ThethPunjabi (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as most common name used in referenced sources. BhamBoi (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2023 (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.
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - with a redirect from Harbhajan Singh Khalsa to Yogi Bahjan. Netherzone (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)