Talk:Kundalini

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Focus of article[edit]

It seems that this article and the one on Kundalini yoga have become confused. There is however good reason to have two articles, as this one can naturally focus on what Kundalini is, and the other can focus on the school of yoga. What we have right now is close to a content fork with much unnecessary overlap.

To achieve this focus, much material currently here will need to be removed, and possibly reused in the other article if it's not already covered there.

Alternatively, people may think that the two articles are covering the same territory, in which case they should be merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: nice article for your to-do list? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Science[edit]

May I suggest the addition of one section to this article: a section on the scientific consensus on this topic? I find it odd that this "encyclopedic" article goes in-depth on the various concepts, which claim some sort of "existence" of these spiritual entities, but does not address whether such things actually exist in a scientific sense.

I would suggest the addition of a "Science" section to the article with content along the lines of "all the content herein is unsupported by any and all scientifically accepted evidence, and the scientific consensus that these supernatural entities exist is in the negative. Evidence-based medicine does not support the veracity of any of the claims herein."

Compare this against, e.g. articles on Christian or Muslim mythology, and I am sure you will find sections that discuss the objective reality and scientific consensus on claims of paranormal/supernatural phenomena. However, this article is clearly deficient in that respect; it makes objective claims to natural phenomena which are simply false, but that is not addressed in this article.

Newage articles in general on Wikipedia are poorly edited, and it is disgraceful that such pseudoscience is given a platform here. 138.16.128.0 (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. All articles are 'works in progress' by volunteers, and can always be improved. However, this article states clearly in the first sentence "in Hinduism ... a form of divine energy", so unambiguously identifying it as a religious topic. In addition, it is throughout qualified by "reported", "The concept of", "described as", "is said to", "Yogis ... consider that", "According to Hindu tradition". All of this makes it clear that Wikipedia does not endorse or assert scientific "reality" of the reported phenomena but is describing a religious or spiritual experience.
This is accompanied by a single sentence on the "New Age" presentation of the concept, and then a section on its psychological interpretation, which gives a scientific view of the phenomena. All of this is very far from being a "New Age" article uncritically endorsing some new fad. But, room for improvement, certainly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

All these

"The concept of", "described as", "is said to", "Yogis ... consider that", 

are weasel words, asking for the "by whom" tag.

-》 Let us clearly state that science does not cofirm this.

Science doesn't confirm any religion. These are medieval beliefs within Hinduism. It may be as well to mention that before these phrases were added, the article was speaking in Wikipedia's voice, exactly what we don't want. That Hinduism has these concepts is true and neutral. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Growing interest[edit]

Mystic experiences are an interesting problem in neurology and I'm aware that there indeed was/is related research, but rare and by specific people. The literature produced by some of those groups was also contestable. The first link to Google Scholar seems to only lead to a search results page, it would be best to provide a more specific citation. I unfortunately cannot access the second source for this claim, so cannot verify if it really says that the interest is on the rise. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Clarification: the above was in relation to this this contested paragraph. —PaleoNeonate – 19:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent cleanup[edit]

@Alexbrn: thanks for helping. A few sources were restored by the bot because they still had references. One thing I noticed is also removal of personal experience testimony which may well have been undue. However, since this is really a topic about mystical subjective experiences, probably that some is due. For instance, even if I consider all related pseudoscience fringe and outdated, this doesn't exclude occasional personal mystical experiences I had during Siddha meditation practice (i.e. temporary ego death with subjective experience of union with/being the universe; Samadhi with an explosion of light+joy filling the whole body, sometimes intense enough for laughter to interrupt the session)... Apart from those very subjective experiences (which I consider to be of natural neurological origin, but are perceived/felt as spiritual), the rest is of course tradition and philosophy, pseudoscience, beliefs, related cults and proselytism, etc... It seems to me that tradition and personal experience, with mention of pseudoscience and probably of notable cults, could be the focus. I'd also have to search for relevant sources, but as in a previous comment I made above, it's also common in cults to ascribe everything to Kundalini (or steps on the path) to manipulate... —PaleoNeonate – 20:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we'd need secondary sources describing how people experience these things, to establish weight. Surely there are some? Alexbrn (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It is important before one starts deleting content with references or to delete because you don't believe it, to bring your thoughts to the talk page first. We need to give editors time to correct a problem before you delete. Calling something "woo" just says to me that you are not familiar with Kundalini which is not excuse for deleting. Please reinstate what you deleted stating what needs to be fixed. Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, my comment was also in case you intended to keep working on the article (an idea of the scope). I'm not currently working on it (although it's on my watchlist) and didn't seriously read about this in the last 20 years or so, I'd have to eventually search for relevant modern sources myself. —PaleoNeonate – 19:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Deletion is the fix for unreliable/undue content. In particular, health information sourced to unreliable sources is against the WP:PAGs. If it's desired to include material, find usable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes and no. We must not make health claims in Wikipedia's voice; and extensive quotation from fringe groups is at best unwise. However, the fact that incorrect health claims have been made is reportable, requiring as you imply independent sources. We ought here to distinguish clearly between medieval beliefs, all magical, and fringe modern beliefs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
You deleted so many things without consulting other editors. Either reinstate what you deleted or explain thoroughly here each deletion here for our discussion.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It is not necessary to "consult other editors" before making edits, and insisting on it is a kind of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Note that WP:BOLD is part of the WP:PAGs. In essence I removed bio/medical content sourced to unreliable sources and some undue primary material. If you have any specific objections please say so. Alexbrn (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I just reverted your last edit - the source was excellent from PubMed which is a free search engine accessing primarily the MEDLINE database of references and abstracts on life sciences and biomedical topics. The United States National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health maintains the database as part of the Entrez system of information retrieval. Slow down and discuss what you are thinking. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
PUBMED is just a search engine, and is chock full of unreliable sources (such as this old primary source) per WP:MEDRS. Even more seriously, the text in our article fails WP:V (and WP:RELTIME). Please don't add original research to Wikipedia sourced to poor sources. Alexbrn (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Here is the actual study, tell me how this is unreliable? Tell me how the US National Library of Medicine under the Dept US Dept of Health & Human Services is not a reliable resource? [1] Stop deleting content until you know what you are doing.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I will wait until you put it back and if over 24 hours you don't, then I will.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It's old primary research published in the journal Neuroreport in 2000. Primary research is unreliable for health information per WP:MEDRS, or undue if no secondary exists to establish weight. More particularly the source (which I have read carefully) makes no mention of what "the medical community" is "recently" doing. This has been invented by an editor. Edit-warring content into Wikipedia that misrepresents an unreliable source, would be bad. Alexbrn (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter on wikipedia how old the research has been done on Wikipedia. What matters is: "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." WP:RS/MC As a wikipedia editor we need to improve articles. If you think this needs an updated research that is published in a medical journal, then you should research that and add it to enhance the article and wikipedia OR alert other editors what he is needed but leave the information in the article giving time for editors to help improve the article. I am challenging the way you are editing in this article. How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars WP:AVOIDEDITWAR Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The source is not a primary source [2]. It is research conducted by 5 researchers that is published in a medical journal. But to compromise with you, I will post more medical research. Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
That is a primary source. We want secondary sources (e.g. reviews, systematic reviews or meta-analyses) for biomedical content. WP:WHYMEDRS explains some of this. Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)