The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Arnelque (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (User:Arnelque)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is it even Yoga? I attended a class several years ago in Boulder, Colorado, and was not able to discern any "yoga" in their teachings at all. Calling what they do "yoga" gives it an air of respectability and a presumed connection to ancient Hindu philosophy. I suppose the word "yoga" is not copyrighted, and anyone can call what they do yoga... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.237.88 (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

CULT

Here's a web page that collects various articles on the cult aspects of Dahn Yoga: http://www.rickross.com/groups/dti.html

They seem to rely on tactics similar to Scientology, convincing people that they have "blockages" within their body that need to be healed through Dahn Yoga. Naturally, this will cost several thousand dollars. I'm not sure what the proper Wiki way would be to have NPOV between Dahn Yoga as a cult and Dahn Yoga as it is presented in the advertising blurb here.

Wiki needs to get its stuff together. This people are genuine criminals and this info relays none of that to the unsuspecting public. Get a real page wikipedia! Don't coddle a genuine cult!

Dahn is some strange combo of exercises sold as yoga. It's a weird group of fanatics who are taought to fear the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.88.57.70 (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

According to Jimbo Wales:

"No original research is a fundamental bedrock policy on Wikipedia. This means: unless you can confirm a controversial fact with a cite to an independent mainstream publication, you must leave it out of the article."

--Fire Star 火星 18:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It seems that according to the majority of reliable sources the organization is most notable for being accused of cult status, rather than as a simple instructional group. I think the separate controversy section (which is discouraged by WP:NPOV anyway) should be removed, and the info integrated with the intro and history sections. As the majority of sources only deal with the accusations of cult-hood, this should be part of the basic introduction to the topic. VanTucky ^Talk 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have completed a basic restructuring. VanTucky ^Talk 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It looks like that restructuring has long since been undone to bury all references to the controversy. Even the lead-in to the "news" section has been replaced with some cheerful "we're great!" article instead of the more prevalent and notable news articles about the controversy. Are cult members the only ones working on this article now? -24.90.210.165 (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not clear about accepted community policy concerning use of LTE as source material for articles. VanTucky, I agree that letters are not as reliable as published articles in the same publications, due to minimal editorial oversight. What is not clear to me, even after reading WP:RS and WP:V again, is whether they are accepted as sources in limited contexts, as in this article. From what I've read, there is no prohibition against them. Please point me to specific guidelines or directions, so I can fully understand your objections. If the letter were used as source for something presented as fact, I would agree with you. However, it seems reasonable to use a published letter from the spokesperson as a source describing the spokesperson's stated position, especially since the letter is a reply to a previously accepted source used in the same paragraph. Can you clarify either the accepted Wiki guidelines or your personal opinion in this specific case? Thank you! Forestgarden 00:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

A literal prohibition is not required. A letter to the editor that lacks fact checking and editorial review is defined as a questionable source. The point is not that letters wouldn't be okay for citing opinion, but that the source does not reliably verify that the source of the letter was a sanctioned spokesperson for Dahn. Applying an official air to a source which is not confirmed to be so is not acceptable. The other source comes from the Village Voice, which is reliably assumed to have confirmed that it was a Dahn spokesperson. VanTucky ^Talk 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you read the letter in question, the Village Voice replied to the letter, thus showing that they accepted the letter-writer as the actual spokesperson, and not someone pretending to be a spokesperson as you seem to be implying. I would think this provides confirmation enough for the letter to be used as reference in this paragraph. Do you disagree? You seem to be splitting hairs about validity in this case. Forestgarden 01:27, 16

September 2007 (UTC)

The letter to the editor was printed in the Village Voice, a publication with an editorial board. While letters are not edited and fact-checked in the same fashion as an article, editors do choose the published ones carefully from the many that may have been submitted. Villiage Voice was clearly convinced that this letter was from Charlotte Connors, the person identified in both articles as the Dahn Center spokesperson, or it would not have been published with that attribution. Rhetorician magician 01:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Even if the letter was considered an RS, which it isn't, the letter only ever criticizes the article and the journalism of the Village Voice. It doesn't call the accusations of culthood anything, but only denies certain points in the wrongful death case (i.e. the drugging) and attacks the journalistic standards of the Voice. It doesn't even deal with an accusation of culthood as the article's text claims. Including this is not just proving that it meets WP:RS, but that the reliable source supports the content you wish included. According to WP:V, the burden of proof rests with you to prove that the content is fit for inclusion. VanTucky ^Talk 04:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

As far as I am concerned, the legitamacy of the letter is prooven by the very policy pages that you have cited in your attempts to discredit it. It was published in a legitamate publication, and it is obviously a reliable representation of the spokeperson's responce to the article in question. To suggest that it may have been falsefied is simply irrational. However, your point about immediate relevancy is more well-reasoned. I will revise the sentence to deal only with the cult issue. For the sake of balance, the sentence must include some specifics about the spokesperson's POV (i.e. that the cult accusations are based on misinterpretation), just as the previous sentence includes specifics about the critic's POV (i.e. that Dahn Yoga is a cult). Rhetorician magician 04:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You fail to understand my objections in terms of relevance. It was not that your addition was irrelevant (far from it), but that the source was so. The source doesn't ever mention the accused cult status of Dahn, so it cannot be used as a source retorting that claim. If you wanted to use it in a relevant way, such as a source proving that Dahn spokespeople objected to the veracity and fairness of news coverage, then that would be acceptable. VanTucky ^Talk 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Van Tucky, I was wondering if you could leave a comment about the photo, given your depth of experience as a Wikipedian. I have two questions about the photograph of the Korean ad. First, there is no discussion of Dahn Yoga ad campaigns, so it seems like an odd choice and it doesn't seem to add anything of substance to the entry. The entry seems to be about Dahn yoga as it exists in the United States, with no mention of its current status in Korea. Would it be better to replace the photo with something that is more descriptive of the practice itself, if a non-copyrighted choice can be found? Secondly, this is English Wikipedia, not Korean Wikipedia. I have read that foreign language sources should be avoided if English language equivalents exist. Does the same sort of thing apply to photographs? Also, I think you added it so maybe you can explain your rationale.Nicola Cola 05:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the specificity of your questions. First, the image is still relevant even if the article doesn't yet discuss Dahn ad campaigns. The fact that we can have an image illustrating that Dahn does have advertising campaigns and is active in Korea is extremely informative. As to what the article "seems to be about", Wikipedia has a worldwide focus. If we can find reliable sources detailing facts about Dahn in Korea and elsewhere, it would be most welcome. Being too U.S.-centric is a problem to be fixed, not something that we should alter the images to fit with. Foreign languages in images are perfectly fine, as their text does not necessarily have to impart encyclopedic information. The relevance is that it is a Dahn poster, not that it is an English-language poster. An image of someone practicing Dahn yoga would be great. However, it is important to remember that this article is also about the organizations and individuals that created and promote the practice (not just Dahn yoga itself), so a photo of Dahn yoga being practiced isn't automatically better. But if you can find a freely licensed image of better quality that the present one, it would be helpful. VanTucky ^Talk 05:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

VanTucky, please point me to the specific statement in the reference you mentioned in your removal of my request for citation. The reason I noted the lack of citation is that none of the articles referenced in that paragraph have any direct claim regarding the efficacy of the practice. There are many other criticisms but I cannot find any regarding this specific claim. Thanks. Forestgarden 05:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

For NPOV and accuracy, I removed the claim of 1 million practitioners. First off, the policy page of NPOV as well as WP:WTA advises against following facts with immediate refutations that begin with phrases like "despite this" or "however". Second, there was no reliable, independent citation for such a number. Third, and most importantly, citing the number of practitioners is not a comment that refutes any claim about the characteristic of Dahn training. VanTucky ^Talk 19:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

They smell fishy. Are they forgeries? How come no one ever heard of these religious scholars before? They weren't on the Dahn page in the past, where did Timelyheart dig them up?

Matthew Laffert (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, this article is a terrible read and it needs lots of work. I will now proceed to make changes for a better, more suitable article.Matthew Laffert (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Matthew, please read the note I just left for you at [1]. As I said there, your contributions to Wikipedia are welcomed, but they must respect the rules of the venue. (The majority of your edits so far do not.) You must accept that all reliably sourced material is allowed in Wikipedia articles, not just the information that you personally agree with. In fact the point is to provide encyclopedic articles, rather than opinion pieces that are biased either positively or negatively about the subject. This means that your personal beliefs, or the expected need of a for-profit company to keep itself in business, are not terribly relevant to what should be in the article. What's relevant is what material has been covered in reliable sources and then presenting that material in a balanced and neutral way. Since this article seems to attract people with strong opinions about the subject, this is even more important. Go ahead and edit, of course, but please make reasonable edits so we don't have to revert your work (saves time for everyone involved, including you)... Forestgarden (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

RE: March 4, 2008 removal by NicolaCola of some my contribution with comment: "Removed non-NPOV material. EVERY study is limited and academic articles always make suggestion for further study. Bogus attempt to cast doubt on positive results of the study.)"

I believe that personal attacks and presumption of mal intent are frowned upon by Wiki policy. (FYI, one of the limitiations discussed by the authors would have resulted in more positive results, not negative.)

Just as it is commendable, balancing, and neutral for study authors to discuss potential for intervening bias and other study limitations and offer suggestions, it should be so for a Wikipedia article too. It's non-NPOV to imply that a study showed causality and benefits without balancing it with the study's limitations. With this study, I can see potential for bias in that at least one of the researchers was a Dahn practitioner, now high ranking in the organization. The subjects weren't "blinded" to the instructors - Dahn instructors could have influenced subjects' self-image before taking both the pre and post tests. The subjects were not representational of the general adult population, mostly middle age educated women, making it questionable to generalize the results to all adults. They didn't compare the effects to other mind-body practices or other programs or treatments, limiting the specific conclusions you can make about Dahn yoga. In fact, they found the benefits of the Dahn training were not dose-dependent, meaning that those who took zero to few Dahn classes improved as much as those who took 100 classes. And as the study authors said, the results shouldn't be extended to a patient population without randomization.

Any studies mentioned on Wikipedia in support of a practice, especially a practice that sometimes makes extraordinary claims about cures and supernatural abilities, and is sometimes controversial, should be scrutinized and balanced or left out.--Timelyheart (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

BUT its not the cult and bogus... Its a helpful one for the every man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I NO ENGLSIH, MY DAUGTHER ENGLISHI (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

'Dahn's leader is a documented sexual predator who preys on brainwashed victims.

Mr. Lee is a very humble, Ph.d educated, poverty level, abstinent, handsome, multilingual, and thin individual. He is a greater man than Jesus or Davinci.'

Please provide a reference, unreferenced material may be challenged or removed. petiatil ^»speak 06:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting comment on handling of controversy related to Dahn yoga. 15:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I visited the Dahn Yoga page to learn about the well-known controversies, but the article appears to have been thoroughly whitewashed by its members. All revisions since December, and many before then, seem to have been entered with the intent to bury any reference to controversy, either by creating a dismissive introduction, deleting reference entirely, and burying them behind a bunch of specifically positive but questionably relevant articles. I don't know enough about Dahn nor about Wikipedia policies to tackle this. -Lciaccio (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Moved the above from WP:RFC/BOARD Coastside (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The article has some major problems, both in terms of bias and organizationally. I took some first steps in working it over, removing some promotional text and making a few other minor fixes. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree also. They have some major problems with POV.JSR (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Comment. I can't make any sense of this, perhaps because I have never heard of Dahn Yoga. For a start, what on earth does it have to do with maths, science or technology? More specifically in terms of the RFC, what exactly was/is the "controversy"? What is the article doing in WP in its current form anyway? It is bog-standard, unoriginal, new-age smoke-blowing and handwaving -- totally meaningless. And the wording is an insult to any reader's intelligence, if any: "...a form of internal alchemy using five simple postures focused on breathing and what is said to be proper positioning of the body. It is claimed to help release stagnant energy and accumulate fresh energy in the lower abdomen, ..." FTLOM! And people are discussing whether it is POV??? Since when do quackery spams and scams have to be NPOV? I have no idea how the controversy should be handled, if at all. The article (the only thing I have read on the subject), reads to me as though a lot of suckers got rooked and then suckered each other into court and got out of their depth in the legal system, but in the article I don't see much substance on the point. Is the matter really interesting enough to be encyclopedic? There are thousands of similar double-talk quackeries out there and this one is just a rubber-stamp of the type. For my part the whole article could be junked, unless someone sees fit to make a sufficiently valuable case study as a warning to readers wondering whether to go Dahn or go to a plain vanilla gym. JonRichfield (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Comment. I don't have an informed opinion about how this article should be handled, but I recommend that it be removed from the Math, Science, and Technology list. — ChalkboardCowboy^[T] 13:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have done a little bit more work today. I think the article is decently balanced at this point. If no one has any objections in the next week or so, I'll probably remove the POV tag. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the POV tag, since there have been no objections. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not familiar enough with NPOV standards to know which changes are appropriate, so feedback would be great. However, as an attorney I am happy to help anyone parse out which procedural matters are key, which are official, etc.-Lciaccio (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It looks like someone has undone the work that was done to fix the article. I went back and found some of the content to restore it manually, but something more might need to be done to prevent the group or its fans from deleting the critical portions of the article. Also, were the other portions always so long? There seems to be an unnecessary amount of information about the group's practices, philosophies, and studies, when a simple summary will do. I will continue to restore old content and organize the controversy section, but I would appreciate a second opinion on preventing sabotage and trimming the remainder. -Lciaccio (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey Wiki-ers. Reading the line "published in the US National Library of Medicine" in the Brain Wave Vibration section triggered a slew of red flags for me, so I dug up the original articles. I corrected the citations, replacing the aggregators with the original journal titles, authors and DOIs.

At the same time, I decided to clarify what the articles actually said, as I don't think whoever input it originally totally got what was going on there.

Then I decided to move the CNN-investigative stuff together into the first paragraph, since Gupta's comments didn't have anything to do with what was examined in the journal articles.

When I was there I figured I should remove the quote from the youtube video since it was pretty much was a restatement of the official line with some additional unsubstantiatable claims.

This whole article needs to be re-examined. There's still a lot of reads-like-an-advertisement stuff in here.

Reve (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I like the changes you made, and encourage you to continue in that vein. The article was pretty awful a year or two ago, and I fixed it up some, but there's plenty of room for improvement yet. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

A lot of the advertisement info was still there, albeit with a counterpoint sentence after each lengthy description of a training method or study. I trimmed some of the information that was based solely on their own research, i.e. studies conducted by the group itself. -Lciaccio (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dahn Yoga recently renamed themselves to Body & Brain. I would like to change the name of the page to Brain and Body and make the according changes to the article; If there are no objections I will do so in 3 days. Cran32 (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Any and all opposition to this should be voiced here within the next two days. Cran32 (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

FINAL: I will move this article to Body & Brain in 24 hours if no opposition is voiced.Cran32 (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I wanted to open a discussion about the recent April 6 edits to this article. I'm affiliated with Body & Brain and have that disclosed on my user page. I've been making corrections to outdated infobox information over the past few weeks, things like headquarters and key personnel, sourced from government filings.

A few things I'd like to discuss: The Products and Services infobox fields were removed. These are standard fields used in company articles across Wikipedia and I'd like to understand why they were considered promotional here. Overall the current version feels less balanced than before, with critical characterizations more prominent and descriptive content about the practice itself reduced. I've also read through the Talk page history and can see this balance question has been discussed before. I'd like to approach it constructively this time.

Not looking to revert anything, just hoping we can discuss these changes and work toward a version that serves readers accurately. Arnelque (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

As a quick answer, many of the sources and their related content I removed were self-published and weren't good under Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If secondary sources are more critical compared to the self-published sources then that will be reflected in the article. However, I do intend to go back in and re-add a bit of the content I removed, like some products and services, just not at the moment.

Some good policies that may answer other questions you might have are Wikipedia:PROMO, Wikipedia:UNDUE, and others. You may also want to take questions or concerns to the Wikipedia:Teahouse or WikiProjects such as WikiProject Medicine to try and get other editors' opinions. Realtent (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly and for explaining your thinking. Good to know products and services will be coming back. I’ll read through those policies you linked as well.

Once you’ve had a chance to restore that content, I’d love to keep the conversation going about the overall balance of the article if you’re open to it. Arnelque (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. I've had a chance to read through those policies. I do have a question about the Promotional tag that was added. From what I can see in Wikipedia:PROMO, the tag should be based on specific content in the article rather than who edited it. Looking at the current article, I'm not sure what content would qualify. There's no pricing, no calls to action, and the infobox fields are factual. Could you point to the specific text you had in mind? That would help me understand what needs to be fixed and work toward getting the tag removed. Arnelque (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The suggested edits are good, but the reviewer felt omissions in the content may create balance issues.

I'm affiliated with Body & Brain and disclose this per WP:COI.

I'm requesting removal of the paragraph in the Controversy section beginning "The 'Brain Training Center' has been reported..." (citation 26).

Two issues: 1. The paragraph is about the Brain Training Center, a Korean organization, not Body & Brain. Per Arizona Corporation Commission public records, Body & Brain Yoga and Health Centers Inc. is a separately incorporated US corporation (Business ID 07806340, 2025 Annual Report). Including allegations about a separate Korean organization in this article doesn't seem accurate.

2. The source is a Korean-language publication called "Religion and Heresy." Under WP:RS, reliable sources need editorial oversight and no apparent conflict of interest. A publication focused on identifying religious heresy has a clear point of view on the subject and doesn't appear to meet that standard.

On top of that, the paragraph ends with "Caution is advised" which reads like a warning from the source itself, not neutral encyclopedic writing, which goes against WP:NPOV. Arnelque (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not done for now: The proposed changes create some balance issues with the article. These will need to be addressed before any changes can be made. I removed an earlier paragraph where I couldn't find a citation that verified the sources, but Church and Heresy (now Religion and Truth) is a fairly usable magazine according to my brief searches. I agree that the tone was inappropriate and made some revisions. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

I'm affiliated with Body & Brain and disclose this per WP:COI.

The History section currently has a "needs additional citations" tag and ends with the 2015 rebrand. I'd like to propose adding one sentence after "In 2015, Dahn Yoga changed its name to Body & Brain" to reflect the organization's current operations, sourced to an independent publication.

Proposed addition:

"As of 2026, Body & Brain operates as a national qigong and tai chi organization offering in-person and online instruction across the United States."

Source: Lauren Finney Harden, "Chinese practices like qigong are trending on social media. Here's what you need to know," Atlanta Magazine, March 20, 2026. https://www.atlantamagazine.com/health/chinese-practices-like-qigong-are-trending-on-social-media-heres-what-you-need-to-know/ Arnelque (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Edit request declined  

1. "Body & Brain operates as a national qigong and tai chi organization"
   1. It is not known what is meant by the term "national". This same sentence specifies later in the text that this is "across the United States". The use of the term "national" and the phrase "across the United States" is vague and non-specific. Does the breadth of this "across" cover all 50 states? Does this organization have any traditional office locations, and if so , where are they? Since this organization offers a mixture of online and in-person instruction, what is that percentage? If that percentage were 20%/80% in person/online, with only 20% of their reach being in person, then can the article state that this is "across the United States"? If a wide swath of states do not offer in person instruction, then wouldn't it be more accurate to state this as "across certain states"? Which ones?
2. "offering in-person and online instruction across the United States."
   1. This claim of reach is being made by Lauren Finney Harden, a staff writer at Atlanta Magazine (AM), as it was told to her by Body and Brain employee Brian Huff. With all due respect to AM, I wouldn't expect their ability to fact check this claim to be on par with the fact checking of another publication, say The New York Times. If that be the case—that we're meant to treat any claims made by AM with caution—then it should be eminently clear in the prose who is making these claims. I don't see that level of clarity in this proposed text. I see the claims in this proposed text being made using Wikipedia's voice, which it should not do.(See WP:VOICE.)

Regards,  Spintendo  09:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the thorough review and for laying out the reasoning. That's fair, and I appreciate the time you put into it. Arnelque (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm affiliated with Body & Brain and disclose this per WP:COI. I'm raising this as a discussion rather than a direct edit.

Recent edits have improved the neutrality of this article and I'd like to continue that conversation by raising a question about one of the article's categories.

The "Korean diaspora churches" category describes itself as "Christian churches for the Korean diaspora (outside of the Korean peninsula)." Body & Brain is not a Christian church. It has never identified as Christian, does not operate churches, and does not teach or practice Christianity. No reliable source describes Body & Brain as a Christian church.

Per WP:DEFINING, categories must reflect characteristics that reliable sources commonly and consistently use to describe the subject. This category does not meet that standard for this article.

I'd welcome input from other editors on whether this category should be removed. Arnelque (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm affiliated with Body & Brain and disclose this per WP:COI. I'm raising this as a discussion rather than a direct edit.

Recent edits have moved the article toward greater neutrality, and I'd like to raise a related question about the "Korean new religions" category and whether it meets Wikipedia's standard for categorization.

Per WP:DEFINING, a category must reflect a defining characteristic, one that reliable sources commonly and consistently use to describe the subject.

Looking at how reliable sources describe Body & Brain, the consistent language is fitness, wellness, and mind-body training. The peer-reviewed Goldsmiths University study published in Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine describes the practice as "Body and Brain Holistic Fitness Training." The Arizona Corporation Commission classifies the organization's business as "Yoga Meditation and Other Wellness Training Services." The primary source supporting a religious classification is citation 21, a 2011 paper studying Dahn World, a Korean entity. That paper describes the subject as a "Korean meditation enterprise." It does not describe Body & Brain specifically, and it does not use the words "religion" or "religious movement."

Under WP:DEFINING, a characteristic must appear commonly and consistently across reliable sources to justify categorization. Fitness and wellness language meets that test. Religious movement language does not. It appears in a single source about a different entity using language that does not match the category applied.

I'd welcome input from other editors on whether this category meets the WP:DEFINING standard. Arnelque (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm affiliated with Body & Brain and disclose this per WP:COI. I'm raising this as a discussion rather than a direct edit.

On April 14 I asked in the existing thread which specific content the Promotional tag was based on, so I could understand what needed reframing. That question has been open for 38 days without a response.

Per WP:PROMO, the Promotional tag identifies content that reads as advertising, public relations, or advocacy rather than encyclopedic description. After reviewing the current article, I cannot identify content that meets that standard. Recent edits by neutral editors have further improved neutrality, including cleanup of the Brain Training Center paragraph in May.

I'd welcome a neutral editor's review of whether the tag still applies. If specific promotional content can be identified, I'm happy to work through it. If not, I'd ask that the tag be removed. Arnelque (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I'm affiliated with Body & Brain and disclose this per WP:COI.

I'm requesting removal of the sentence "They also operate the 'Honor's Haven Resort and Spa' in Ellenville, New York" from the History section.

This sentence has never been accurate. Honor's Haven was operated by Fallsview Hotel, LLC, a New York state registered entity with NY DOS ID 3446743, which is entirely separate from Body & Brain Yoga and Health Centers Inc., an Arizona corporation. These are two distinct legal entities with no shared registration.

Honor's Haven was also sold in August 2024 to Great Enlightenment Buddhist Institute Society and is no longer connected to Body & Brain in any way. This was reported by the Shawangunk Journal (August 15, 2024): https://shawangunkjournal.com/news/2024/08/15/honors-haven-sold-to-great-enlightenment-buddhists/642Ovl

The current source for this sentence is Citation 20, a personal essay on thepostcalvin.com by Caroline Higgins Nyczak (March 7, 2020). Under WP:RS, a personal blog is not a reliable source for factual claims about an organization's operations. The History section also currently carries an "additional citations needed" tag from April 2026, which reflects broader sourcing concerns in the section.

I'd welcome a neutral editor's review of this request. Arnelque (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Edit request approved  

1. "They also operate the 'Honor's Haven Resort and Spa' in Ellenville, New York"
   1. The provided source for this claim appears to be WP:OR performed by Caroline Higgins Nyczak and published on her personal blog. During her research, she claims to have found several websites that back up these claims. It's a shame then, that she didn't archive those sites when she posted about them on her blog, so that others could reproduce her work. A group of Wikipedia editors examining those websites in order to reach a group consensus regarding their conclusions is preferable to Ms. Nyczak's work alone. Accordingly, this claim reached through Ms. Nyczak's WP:OR has been deleted.

Regards,  Spintendo  09:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reviewing this and making the change, I appreciate it. Arnelque (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I'm affiliated with Body & Brain and disclose this per WP:COI, so I'm raising this as an edit request rather than editing directly.

The Wrongful Death Suit paragraph currently states, in the article's own voice, specific accusations against a living person, including sexual abuse of female disciples, tax evasion, and wage and immigration violations. These are allegations drawn from a civil complaint. Under WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME, accusations of this kind against a named living person must be attributed to their source, must not be presented as established fact, and should note that no finding was ever made. The case was resolved by a stipulated dismissal with prejudice on August 1, 2008 in the Southern District of New York (05 Civ. 7518). No court ruled on any of these allegations.

I am not asking to remove the documented facts. The death of Julia Siverls and the existence and coverage of the lawsuit are reported in independent sources and should remain. I am asking that the unproven personal allegations be attributed and that the outcome be stated accurately, so the paragraph complies with BLP. Suggested wording:

"In 2005 a wrongful death lawsuit was filed in connection with the 2003 death of Julia Siverls, 41, who died of heat stroke and dehydration during a training hike at a center in Sedona. As reported by CBS News and the Village Voice, the complaint made further allegations against Lee and related entities. Court records for the Southern District of New York show the case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of the parties on August 1, 2008, with no findings made on the allegations."

Happy to discuss the wording. Arnelque (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Unable to review  

1. "I am asking that the unproven personal allegations be attributed and that the outcome be stated accurately"
   1. References entailing that attribution and describing that outcome were not provided along with the proposed text on the talk page.

Regards,  Spintendo  10:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm affiliated with Body & Brain and disclose this per WP:COI. I'm raising this as a discussion, not making a direct edit.

This article has the category "Korean diaspora churches." Body & Brain is not a church. It doesn't hold worship services or function as a congregation.

Wikipedia's rule for categories (WP:DEFINING) says a category should match how reliable sources describe the subject, consistently.

Here's how sources actually describe Body & Brain: CNN calls it "a national chain of yoga and wellness centers." Forbes calls it a chain of yoga centers. The Arizona Corporation Commission lists it as a for-profit business offering "yoga meditation and other wellness training services." None of the sources cited in this article call it a church or a diaspora congregation.

I'd like input from other editors on whether this category fits, or if there's a source I'm missing. Arnelque (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply