Hi Folks,
Just saw this link (I’ve been irregular here for the past 15 days or so). So what happened in the end? Did you Cosmic, or Shanti write a para?
Once someone gets the article started, be sure to tell us about it. Then I’d be happy to go in and edit it.
Hi Cosmic,
I have started writing stuff on the topics you have listed above. So if you are going to do some writing, please do let me know… that way we will not be working on the same topics. I have started from top down… maybe you can start from below and move up the list.
Thanks for the headers… it is much easier gathering info this way. 
-Shweta
Hi All:
Off-forum efforts have led to one AYP article being successfully launched on Wikipedia, and a second one that is being worked on in communication with the Wiki editors and may or may not make it (the first “learning curve” effort – deemed too promotional in present form).
Launched: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogani
Questionable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Yoga_Practices_(AYP)
Many thanks to all who have been contributing ideas and effort!
The guru is in you.
Hi All:
Okay, an attempt has been made to clean up our questionable Wiki article. Let’s see what the Wiki people say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Yoga_Practices_(AYP)
The guru is in you.
Hi all,
I don’t think there is anyone opposing AYP on purpose in Wiki. The system is fair. And AYP will get a lot of opportunities when it grow more. At the moment, the main reasons why the article is questionable are the followings:
- The term “Advanced Yoga Practices” isn’t really a specific-enough term, although the short form “AYP” may be. The term “Advanced Yoga Practices” can be (and is frequently) used in a much more general way. Think about this: if I setup a website and upload a collection of the greatest pieces of music of mankind, and have 10,000 members and 20,000 visits per day, and I call my website (or my collection) the “Greatest Music of Mankind”, what is the chance of being accepted in Wiki?
Thoughts: Not a suggestion, but the situation may be different if Yogani had chosen a more fancy and special name for his system. But it’s just good for getting an entries in Wiki, nothing else. The plain name AYP is less “Secterian”, of course. - The first obstruction is not something unchangeable. Unfortunately the more important factor is not very much about the quality of the teaching, just as my “Greatest Music of Mankind” will not be accepted not because of my choice of music. It’s about its influence(importance criteria as written in its policy.) Something very difficult to measure, but with followers/readers as many as Iyengar, Tolle; you are bound to have some influence in the world, and bound to have an entry even if you don’t want one.
Thoughts: the second point is more important than the first. So if they delete the current articles, do something else to promote AYP and articles/links will come automatically as AYP grows.
I don’t think it’s so much about being commercial, although you can’t even have the slightest sign of advertising… They just worry that if you are not well-known to start with, you may have some other purposes in your mind when you posts an article. That’s understandable, given that AYP is not currently known to most people. - In the case of spiritual teachings, they are even more cautious against any possible cults that may wants to make use of the openness of Wiki to preach. OKOK, AYP is non-sectarian. But is it some commonly accepted knowledge? And are there any cults who would admit that they are sectarian? From the outside, all teachings are more or less the same until they become well-known (and so well-tested) enough.
Don’t know if this is true: I’ve heard that Wiki has tightened its policy on new articles. Although it means a more difficult entry, it also means the articles are more valuable and credible for all readers around the world once they’re accepted. Isn’t that a nice fact that AYP don’t have to compete with most small, sectarian approaches?
Alvin
Hi Alvin:
There is some support for the questionable AYP article among the Wiki editors. In fact, it has been edited by them to bring it closer to their standard. The current issue is that, early on, a few spoke up against the article on the issues of “notability” and “promotional advertisement,” and lately the tide is shifting. Not sure how long or if the edits by us and Wiki editors will lead to an approval. If not, the article (possibly further edited) will be resubmitted under the name “Advanced Yoga Practices” (no acronym). That would likely pass, because the tide is already turning on this matter. The “notability” of AYP (their term) has now been recognized among Wiki editiors, though it was not in the beginning. In the meantime, the article has been cleaned up quite a bit and no longer looks like a promotion.
Meanwhile, the “yogani” article flew right through with no complaints so far. Once the other one is approved in some form, the two will be linked together, which will help fill in from both directions on your question about the generic sounding name of AYP. But preferably no cross linking before the pending article is approved. It is about “brand recognition” really. Any combination of words can be meaningless, or have a lot of meaning, depending on the degree of recognition in society – what the Wiki folks call “notability.” Slowly but surely, we are getting there.
Once the AYP article is approved in some form, the door will be open to do many more articles on the practices listed – most which do not exist on Wiki at present. There is some interest from Wiki on this, because dead end (article invitation) links have been placed on all the practices in the AYP article by a Wiki editor. So there is a great opportunity for both Wiki and us here. I will be happy to do the work if they are willing to open the door.
Thanks for your input.
The guru is in you.
Sounds good.
The next step may be to form link of AYP in the more frequently viewed (and searched) article. I think that’s very important. For example, if we can add,in the entry “Yoga”, a paragraph titled “new development” or “latest trends of yoga in the western world”, and mention AYP in the paragraph, then millions will have the chance to know AYP. Of course, that paragraph have to mention all the famous systems (e.g. Iyvengar) nowadays, otherwise it will be considered promotional.
With a little imagination, it’s not hard to put have a direct description in articles such as “kundalini”, “kriya yoga”, or even “Transcendental Meditation”.
Btw, I am surprised to terms such as Mulabandha, Sambhavi Mudra, Uddiyana/Nauli, Kechari Mudra, do not yet have entries. As these are actually common knowledge in the yogic society, I don’t think there would be any problem in adding these articles. But probably we cannot have a direct link of AYP in these entries, as AYP is not the sole source of these practice.(except Kechari Mudra, of which AYP is the most detailed source )
Hi Alvin:
Great idea. Yes, we can gain a lot of exposure with linking to AYP related pages from articles that cover common ground, done according to Wiki rules, of course.
But I suggest waiting until we sort the matter out on the AYP article in question. According to Wiki rules, there is a five day discussion period on an article proposed for deletion, and then the article will be either deleted or approved – that would happen around July 22 in this case. If it is deleted, we are permitted to resubmit it with improvements, which we surely would do, as mentioned above.
Regarding linking back from other articles, including ones we may write ourselves on practices, we can do that as long as we are balanced in the presentation, including citing relevant scriptures, traditions and/or teachers as appropriate. It can be done with internal links to other Wiki articles, and/or with “External Links” which go at the end of the article.
Check this article on kechari mudra for one that I edited the other day (not my article) adding text and internal Wiki links to “Hatha Yoga Pradipika” and “Yogani.” I also added two other teachers who are noted for kechari (no Wiki articles available for them), so the AYP addition is low-key and relevant. I’m pretty sure that external links could also be added at the end of that article for Paulsen, Shailendra and Yogani’s kechari lesson #108 without complaints. I just haven’t gotten around to it yet. You can see what external links look like by clicking back to the Yogani page. The links are supposed to be embedded, but I didn’t get around to that yet either. Code for adding an external linking section at the end of an article and the method for embedding links can be copied from the edit page of any Wiki article that has external links.
From what I gather, it is taboo to put external links within a Wiki article – only in the external links section at the end. So there are two ways to link:
- Internal within Wiki direct from the article.
- External after the article.
The guru is in you.
Hi All:
Well, both of the AYP Wiki articles are up for deletion now, and it is pretty much out of my hands, since both have been labeled “vanity articles.” Only input from others can change it. Here are the articles, which include links to talk pages for discussion and debate on the deletions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Yoga_Practices_(AYP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogani
Wiki also has rules about supporters of an article getting organized and piling in to defend it, though they admit it happens all the time, and it does make a difference. Credible sources will make the biggest difference. It would be logical to assume that personal experience constitutes credibility, but it is not so simple in the Wiki world. Wiki rules encourage maintenance of the status quo, which we are certainly not for in AYP when it comes to teachings on spiritual practices. We can look forward to the day when open, easy-to-use systems of practice become the status quo. Until then, we will be viewed as promoters. So be it … there are far worse things to be in favor of…
Suggestion: If you have an idea to help AYP and bring it here, please consider following through on it. Good ideas are ten for a penny, while even a small amount of implementation is priceless.
Wiki is a case-in-point. AYP will only fly on Wiki when sufficient numbers of people believe it belongs there and are willing to weigh in to make it happen. It is in your hands.
The guru is in you.
So Yogani I am not sure I understand. Can we post somewhere on wikipedia to show our support for them to keep the articles, if so where would I do this?
A
Hi Anthem:
Yes, all Wiki stuff is done through postings by anyone who is there. It tells you where to go for the deletion discussions in the notes on the above page links.
Posting is a bit odd, particularly on behind the scenes talk pages, as opposed to articles. Both are formatted and updated the same way. In either case, you go in and edit the page – in the case of a talk page, adding your comments at the bottom. The best way to learn is to go into edit pages and see how others are doing it. To sign a talk page entry, Wiki sign-up is necessary, and then signing a talk page note is done by adding four squiggles like this: You can also post without Wiki signup, but maybe no one will pay attention. Not sure.
It is a pretty strange system, but there are detailed instructions for everything, and the learning curve is short.
Getting through the morass of “shoot from the hip” Wiki elves is something else. As far as I can tell, it is a dream world, with limited connection to reality, and certainly not toward innovations that are occurring in the field of yoga. But, oh, what great search engine exposure! Of course, there are a lot of ways to get that.
The guru is in you.
Hi All:
The AYP article is now gone – the 5 day discussion window passed. The article can be reposted, but not by me. Anyone interested can do it – I have the code saved here.
The second “Yogani” article is slated for deletion also. I put a note on the deletion talk page this morning (at the bottom) for the 10 Wiki elves who nominated the article for deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yogani
It speaks to a fundamental flaw in the Wiki service that has become quickly apparent – an inability to incorporate new innovations in knowledge. Perhaps that is the nature of an encyclopedia – it is yesterday’s news. But we expect better from the internet, don’t we?
The guru is in you.
It is the nature of an encyclopedia. I don’t think it’s a flaw. The difference between an online encyclopedia and Google or Yahoo is that the content of an encyclopedia should be reliable, well-tested and/or with some significance. It is because of this high quality(despite the freedom) that Wiki got its fame.
And as I pointed out many times, many practices of yoga are far from being well-tested. (except meditation)
They’re doing what they can, working within their own limitations, trying to keep Wikipedia in good shape. The elves are flawed indeed, but taken en masse, they are an efficient machine which can be worked. The strategy that I would have liked to follow is to put up a very bare, unambitious article on AYP and have it accepted and let it lie low for a while before anything more ambitious is done.
Maybe next time.
Hi Alvin:
Yes, encyclopedias were invented as a proxy for the library we could not fit in the house. Does the internet (thousands of libraries on our desk) need a proxy?
If you are saying that Wiki is a viable proxy because what it has on yoga practices is well tested, I must disagree. What is there is a tangled rehash of media coverage and other information which can be found elsewhere on the web. Wiki is not about truth. It is about prominence – truth and prominence are rarely the same thing in the field of yoga these days, certainly not in the sense of revealing a practical path.
If you do not have fame, Wiki has no interest, whether what you have is truth or not. The Wiki rules exclude new ideas and approaches to knowledge, wholesale – no questions asked. Not just AYP, but many spiritual efforts going on around the world are excluded. When something reaches national and international prominence, for reasons relevant to truth or not, then Wiki is happy to jump on the bandwagon. On today’s modern internet, that is both redundant and incomplete. And, in the case of yoga, it is misleading and confusing also…
Google is much better because it leaves nothing out.
Due to its narrow inclusion policy, Wiki is very limited as a research tool on spiritual matters. These days in the spiritual field, there is much more going on under the radar than on top of it. It is, in fact, where the action is. Wiki by its own policies does not show you any of that. So, when doing serious spiritual research, better use Google and the other search engines. Unless you are only looking for famous public domain stuff. Then use Wiki. And good luck with finding the truth in there.
Come to think of it, AYP is a sort of Wiki for yoga practices, having cut things away left and right. What we keep is not based on prominence, but on what works. That’s the fundamental difference between AYP and Wiki. Will the two ever meet?
As for what works in yoga practices, in the case of AYP, what is happening at home for each of us is obviously most important. But if it isn’t happening at home, let’s not ignore the growing list of recorded experiences under the bell curve.
The proof is in each of us, and in the statistical relevance of the experiences recorded by all of us. If the latter is true, the former should be true also, sooner or later.
Just some food for thought…
The guru is in you.
I hope I won’t sound too pessimistic: I think it’s very hard for AYP to be popular unless it evolves into something like an organization. Now it’s just someone (yogani) sharing some methods of practices, writing a few books. If you search through Amazon, you’ll discover how many spiritual books there are in this world. Well, even more in China. And most of it never gets much attention.
Well, may be yoga is going to be very popular soon, and so more people will be interested in advanced practices. But such thoughts are usually too optimistic and have no evidence to back it up.
Anyway, AYP will play a role for bringing the advanced practices into the public, but it’s very hard for AYP to be a brand (like Iyvengar) unless it became organizational.
Currently, I don’t think the number of web visit mean much. The forum is largely dominated by the first 25 persons in the member list. This means that most (over 99%) of the web visitors are not participating actively. The generous sharing of spiritual knowledge here is well-appreciated, and is actually the attraction of AYP. But the price is the lack of bonding between its followers (if there is any formal “followers” at all).
One current suggestion is to write a detail and balanced article(with some history, quotes in the classics, etc) on kechari and include AYP as the external link. Include other books, of course, like the classics and Theos Bernard’s books which teach the frenum snipping 40 years before yogani’s (though not in that much detail). I’m sure this will do if the article is well-written.
Hi David:
It is not too late. But it can’t be done quietly as you suggest, because if you are not linked within Wiki, you are flagged and there is no way to avoid the back room battle, at least at AYP’s present level of “prominence.” Still, with a half dozen or more people backing you up in the back rooms, it may be possible, most likely as an ongoing war.
But, honestly, if we are really on to what we think we are on to here, within a few years AYP will be on Wiki automatically. The national media will have to pick up on it first though. Wiki is pretty far behind the real world of yoga – this one below the radar where the action is… 
The guru is in you.
Hi Yogani,
Thanks for your sharing. It’s impossible for an encyclopedia to satisfy everyone. Google includes everything, but then there are too many rubbish and scams. You don’t have to be responsible, you can just write anything you want and got searched in google. So it’s a chaos… A well-known encyclopedia like Wiki has to be reasonably objective. So they have to rely on reliable sources as much as they can. They just cannot test everything themselves. So if we have some truth, we have to prove it! It’s our responsibility o convince Wiki that the practices, or the layout of practices in AYP, merits an entry. This, as I see it, can be justified in 2 ways:
- Fame/influence. Most spiritual entries in Wiki get in by this criteria.
- Scientific research, or at least convincing objective proofs about the effects of the practices. Most spiritual practices fail to meet this.
That’s why I’m always asking for objective evidence. At the moment AYP fails to meet any of the above criteria. Testimonials won’t do. All scams have their testimonials. FIrst hand experience is important, but not something we can use to convince the others.
Personally I find Wiki to be very useful. There are very few scams, and of course, no surprise . It’s not supposed to be a spiritual resources, afterall. Even original scientific research are banned in Wiki, since there is a long way from a new scientific research to a well accepted piece of knowledge. So it’s very fair. Many scientists full of (correct) ideas are disappointed. But then even more scams are blocked, which makes Wiki a useful source for leisure reading and learning.
May be someone can set up a “spiritual Wiki”?? But we will face the same problem: what’s the criteria? If you allow anything to have an entry, the “spiritual Wiki” will then contains more scams than useful articles and soon it will have a bad reputation of being useless…
Alvin
That’s a good idea, Alvin. Would you like to try? See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kechari_mudra
If that one works, others could be tried, via external links to appropriate AYP lessons.
The guru is in you.