Talk:Sri Chinmoy/Archive 2

Copyright Question

• What is the copyright status of the poem on this article's main page? Since the author was born in 1931, it's not free for the taking, unless he's specifically authorized that use of his work. -Colin Kimbrell 01:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep -- I've exchanged email with someone at Sri Chinmoy Centre who is involved in their web publishing. I believe a permission will soon be emailed to permissions@wikimedia.org. There seems to be goodwill to do this, and I got a strong sense that a copyright complaint is unlikely. I'm removing the Copyvio banner with the expectation that this matter will soon be resolved, and that the banner is overkill. I will monitor and post a follow-up. Thank you. --Fencingchamp 12:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the copyright issue, I think that a poem is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Of course, there should be a "Beliefs and practices" section, but not in this way. Andries 22:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Update Jan-1-2007: The Columbia Encyclopedia describes Sri Chinmoy as a "mystic and poet," so it's appropriate to discuss his poetic works. Excerpts from his writings have been released under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) on a page located here. The Wiki article does not contain any copyright violations. Fencingchamp 03:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To Avoid Revert War

To Fencingchamp: I admit, that the tabloids aren't the most credible sources ;). So I tried to provide more serious published material. To further clarify my intent, im not up to paint Sri Chinmoy black but the criticism exist and cannot be reduced to some hate group. The article shouldn't state his guilt or innocence. It should inform about the fact that the issues have been raised. (62.168.125.215 15:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Ex disciples

To find all the information you need, look for the huge amount of ex disciples and their stories. You'll find all sort of things... [defamation removed Fencingchamp 15:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)] It's not just one story, neither two. It's plenty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.169.217 (talk • contribs)

+++

These are vicious and unsubstantiated allegations.

Wiki9898zzz 23:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC) +++

If Sri Chinmoy is the monster the ex-disciples paint him to be, why, in 40 years in the West have there been no criminal charges pressed? Why does the United Nations and the U.S. Congress allow him to hold meditations at their very facilities? People can make all the claims they want, but where are the affidavits? There are none.

Why have these ex-disciples not come forward and put their views down in an affidavit? Because they would go to jail. Just because it is easy and fun to try and criticize and pull others down, doesn't mean the rumors are true. To this day people doubt Shakespeare's authorship of his plays, though any serious historian knows that there are volumes and volumes of direct documentation that he, in fact, wrote all the plays. To this day people believe that in Columbus's time that the people believed the world was flat. Take any course in the history of science and this will be proved ludicrous. It was been know since the Greeks, and probably before, that the world was round. Yet, rumors become truth, when not well researched.

If you truly believe Sri Chinmoy is a fraud, do you own independent research and you will not find any documentation of any fraud or abuse. Why? Because, however much our jaded minds refuse to believe it, some people are sincere.

People should understand this, and very clearly. Libel is a crime. Defaming another's reputation is a crime. One can't merely make claims because you dislike someone. You must prove your allegation or you are guilty of a crime.

The so-called "anti-cult" movement supports kidnapping people in order to "convince" them. These people's word is not some kind of "counter-balancing" equality in the search of truth. It is extremely biased testimony of people who are often involved in criminal kidnappings in order to "convert" people.

Wiki9898zzz 16:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

These disciples have come forward. But: It isn't illegal for a cult leader to preach abstinence and fuck get laid with his adult female fans. At most, a civil lawsuit would make sense if coercion was involved. (Of course, these ladies would risk to be called "sluts" by Sri's attorneys).

It is illegal to posted unsubstantiated allegations. Your posts, even in this wikipedia article constitute libel and you should be prosecuted for it.

Wiki9898zzz 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Same for his bogus sports achievements. It isn't illegal to claim to be superhuman. --Tilman 16:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't illegal to be a Nazi either. Unless your actions violate laws. Your actions are part of a hate campaign. They constitute libel and probably violate harassment statutes as well. You should be prosecuted for these offenses against the laws of the United States.

Wiki9898zzz 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted a section which posted allegations about Sri Chinmoy's behavior. If you have references from credible sources which are critical of Sri Chinmoy, please present them, not undocumented accusations which amount to both character assassination and illegal libel. Can you reference an article from a respected psychological journal which declares Sri Chinmoy and his practices to be harmful? The reason I mention this is that professional journals, or even professional magazines like Psychology Today maintain standards of journalism which protect themselves from lawsuit. Therefore, they check facts. If you have criticism of Sri Chinmoy, do you have some from a respected source? From a university professor?

Wiki9898zzz 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete comments by others.

Criticism doesn't have to come from a university professor. --Tilman 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

+++

And so, you can't find criticism from a university professor or respected source.

You have reference Rick Ross as a source. Here is a website about his background:

http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/rr_convicted_felon.htm

Wiki9898zzz 23:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

+++

Yes, in a sense these disciples have come forward. But they are lying. Ok, if not an affidavit, then how about testimony under polygraph examination (lie detector)? They won't do this either...because their allegations are simply false. He did not sleep with his students. That is a lie. People just want to throw mud on everything, just want to drag everyone down to their own miserably depressing level.

I am sorry if people refuse to believe in transcending physical limits, but his weightlifting events are not stunts (by the way, an Indian student of Yoga in the 1920's did incredible physical feats as well and his efforts were published in the papers of the day. Mahatma Gandhi, by the way had an appendectomy without anesthetic, remained conscious the whole time and joked with friends while the operation was going on. That is also documented).

The weightlifting has been done in public places, and videotaped, often with public officials looking on. The documentation is there, the tapes (and photographs) can be analyzed for fraud. There is none.

The movement to discredit Sri Chinmoy is often promoted by fundamentalist Christian groups who do not believe that any group outside of Christianity is a legitimate religion (and, they don't even believe that some other Christians are legitimate either). Allowing these kinds of extreme people to make statements is like allowing Nazis to argue for the lynching of African-Americans.

As far as ex-students are concerned, let them take a polygraph and assert their testimony. These are consciously disgruntled people, with an ax to grind. They tried to find truth and they did not have the strength to persevere in that discipline. This is hardly unique to Sri Chinmoy's path. People have been leaving monasteries for centuries and then blaming the monastic life for everything under the sun...simply because they did not have the strength to persevere in the disciplines. That spiritual topic is discussed broadly in all monastic traditions, not just on Sri Chinmoy's path.

No, people have fundamentally gotten this wrong. This is not some crazy Jim Jones character. This is a traditional Hindu monastic path; from a traditional which dates back at least 4000 years. That is the path that produced Mahatma Gandhi and the Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore. There is reason that it produced them, there is a reason that meditation works and its expression is a pure benefit to society.

Wiki9898zzz 04:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: the deleted comment.

I've been polite here. I used the f-word in a general meaning, that it isn't illegal to "f" adult followers, that is all. It may be sleazy, but not illegal. I did not say "f you" or "f person XY". But to make you happy, I'll strike it and put another word. I did not post defamatory comments, I did not bully other editors. I did, however, make statements that include a different opinion as yours.

You used the "f" word because it is designed to inflame emotions. That is all you can do, since you have no proof of anything. Creating a climate of hatred against someone is an illegal act of harassment and unsubstantiated claims are illegal acts of libel.

Wiki9898zzz 15:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A polygraph is not a scientific instrument. --Tilman 16:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, polygraphs are used by corporations all over the world and thousands and thousands of institutions.

Wiki9898zzz 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't make them scientific. --Tilman 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If the weight lifting was done in public and is shown on video, provide me an address where I can download it. --Tilman 16:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tapes of these events are available through the Sri Chinmoy Centre and other avenues as well. Professional forensic techniques can verify that these videos and DVD's do not include doctoring of the images.

I have seen in your posts that you are opposed to Scientology. Personally, I think they are a little wacky myself. However, I have met a bunch of them who are not only very nice people, but used the techniques to get off of drugs and solve other problems. So, perhaps I don't know everything. I do not believe that you have truly examined the evidence, personally, about Sri Chinmoy. If you do, I do not think that you will find that this is a cult. Why is the U.S Congress and the United Nations letting him conduct meditations in their facilities if he is such a monster? Do you not think they have security people capable of doing background checks?

Wiki9898zzz 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is not what "can" be verified. The question is whether it has ever been verified. At least one witness has come forward that there has been some doctoring. --Tilman 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

-Pardon me for intruding here. I believe that if there is a significant amount of SUGGESTED abuse of power on the part of Sri Chinmoy, then that becomes a notable point of consideration in a fair and unbiased biographical account of the man. If part of Sri Chinmoy's effect on the world has been to arouse suspicion and doubt concerning his objectives, methods and results, then that is worth mentioning. cheers

Your idea that a group of allegations mean something is necessarily there is the definition of a witchhunt! Lincoln was called a tyrant by the Southern racists, didn't make him one. Plenty of public figures have had every kind of mud thrown on them without one shred of it being true. Again, where is one allegation by a reputable source? Where? A million lies don't make one truth.

Wiki9898zzz 15:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Who says that there is a suggestion of abuse of power, other than that by a group dedicated in opposition to Eastern religion? They are not an unbiased source.

Sri Chinmoy meditates at the United Nations and US Congress. And he has done so at the UN for at least 20 years and at Congress for at least 10 years. Why have they not kicked him out? Do you think they don't run security checks. So those are two very powerful and very credible sources which completely refute your suggestions.

Wiki9898zzz 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

True Masters - Fake Masters

Let the truth be said. In this 21st century of ours, we have enough information on true masters and fake masters. It's amazing to see so many people still waste their time and follow these charlatains [defamation removed Fencingchamp 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)]. It could be understandable in the past, with the lack of informations. But come on guys. It's more than time to wake up. It's been a long time now since the 60's and 70's. There is no easy path. Self knowledge is the hardest path of all. If you can't take it, go practice something else, but don't think you'll know yourself by taking drugs and having sex, self knowledge is not a party. I'm sorry. It just won't happened without self effort and sacrifice. The words of one charlatain compared with the words of all the real masters is like comparing a spark with the sun. This is not an opinion. Go ahead, study all the great spiritual classics of humanity, such as the Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, Upanishads, Puranas, Mahabharata, Yogasutras, The tibetan book of the dead, Buddha's gospel, not to mention the Bible and Coran, and these books will confirm what true masters state, such as Krishna, Buddha, Lao-Tse, Nanak, Patanjali, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Abedananda, Ramana Maharishi, Trailanga swami, Nagendranath Baduri, Sri Yogananda, Sri Yukteswar, Morihei Ueshiba, not to mention western masters and saints. It's all there, the same truth, the same words, the same life-examples, in very similar practices. So please, give us all a break. Denying what is writen here is nonsense. "Only fools follow fools, bad Karma of disciple, even worse of socalled master".

Yogi. December 5th 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advaitananda (talk • contribs)

I'm missing your point. Sorry if I perceive your above paragraph like soapboxing. Are you suggesting a specific change be made to the article? Regarding "let the truth be said" — it's important to note that all content must be verifiable. Truth isn't enough. So if you have notable facts to include about Chinmoy and can cite references, go for it! --Ds13 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you've missed my point, I'll make it clearer, although I'm sure most people understood what I meant. I'm a man from the days when Truth was enough and the only sought thing. True Masters expose their teachings with their own acts, that's why there are so many great masters who never spoke a word. It is quite simple - do not preach that which you yourself cannot follow. Do not say "don't eat meat" and get caught eating chicken! Do not preach "be a celibate" and then have thousands of people stating that they had sex with you. I'm talking about real imaculate masters. The ones who their whole lives are impecable. Why waste your time trying to verify if all the many acusations are true or not? If they were only one or two allegations, but c'mon, this man had A LOT going on behing the scenes, and everyone knows about it. So, if my point is still not clear - let me put it down on words in a way you will understand ok? You're wasting your time following someone with loads of acusations.True masters are rare. Fake ones are in every corner, take India for instance. The land of true, rare masters, yet packed with charlatains. You have enough informations nowadays to follow anyone. See it for yourself. Is there any fault on the life of Ramakrishna? No one dares to say a thing. He was a saint from begining to end - and I'm not saying this because I'm a follower of his, cause I'm not. Go ahead an openly speak to any ex-disciples, and I'm sure you'll not miss the point anymore. I love the history of India and all it's legacy of great teachers. All I want is to help alert people to the fact that there are hundreds of misguiding people in the paths of spirituality. This kind of concern is well known in India, for they know the urge for alerting people better then anyone. There is much allegations and acusations going on concerning the man in discussion, and this is a great example and oportunity to recall the ancient legal concept of fumus bonis juris, the smoke of good judgement. There's A LOT of smoke, so there's a good, good chance that the fire is big.

Yogi wannabe. April 10th 2008.

Let's Maintain A High Standard

This article has suffered from the "Siegenthaler problem" in the past, though no one made a public stink about it. Also - as some critics of Wikipedia would be quick to note - when the article contained defamatory material it was scraped by a couple of spam sites which set the defamatory content in stone.

For this reason, and given Jimmy Wales' new directive on handling biographies of living persons more responsibly, I'm removing a couple of anonymous swipes which I don't believe can be justified through any reputable source. I've also rechecked whether sources previously linked to use tabloids and message boards as the basis for their criticism, and will revise accordingly.

Not for nothing, but Sri Chinmoy was invited to open the Parliament of the World's Religions with a silent meditation in 1993, and again in 2004. It's not because he was the only one who could find directions to the hall. I don't think he would have received awards from Hinduism Today, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (the Institute of Indian Culture), or the Jesse Owens Foundation if he were some shady character or bump on a log. Fencingchamp 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fencingchamp, I'm hardly an anti-cultist or even a critic of Sri Chinmoy. However, I have no respect for the way this entry is written, which in turn makes me suspicious of Chinmoy adherents. Even if, as we know, encyclopedia entries are hardly free from subjective assessments, this one is over the top. Wikipedia should not be the place for a glowing article written (and controlled) by one person, in what comes across as a PR spin. For instance, there is a difference between "His music is simple, spontaneous and appeals to a childlike spirit" and "his music can be described as simple, spontaneous and appealing to a childlike spirit" (the first being your original and revert, the second being my edit). The first is debatable, the second proposes. Please realize that propaganda does not necessarily put forth your agenda more effectively. In some cases it only hurts your cause. RKlassen 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag

For some reason the consistent removal of everything critical related to Sri Chinmoy has been performed on this article. Even a section detailing controversy or allegations would aid in making this article less of a "Sri Chinmoy is fantastic" piece. Nothing on the archived discussions has been resolved, and Fencingchamp is domineering the edits with poor logic and voluminous replies. "defamation removed" by Fencingchamp in the above comment? Completely absurd for him to get away with censoring the talk page. Needs to stop now. Blumpalump 08:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am amazed of this one-sided hagiography, about a guy who is basically a fraud and has been exposed for it multiple times. I recommend a look at [1]. --Tilman 13:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tilman is referencing Rick Ross. Here is a website critical of his background, which apparently includes a jewelry theft conviction, at least one expert questioning his mental stability, and states that Rick Ross holds no degrees in either psychology or theology.

http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/rr_convicted_felon.htm

Wiki9898zzz 23:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Chinmoy entry has a whole lot of undisguised interpretation! This sort of language simply should not be in an encyclopedic entry: "Browsing a list of Chinmoy's achievements, one might imagine that he operates from an ivory tower high above the plane of human suffering. But in fact, he spends most of his time with his students, helping them deal with everyday human problems like depression, illness, the loss of a loved one, and the struggle to remain cheerful in a world filled with hatred, bloodshed, and myriad natural disasters. His efforts to gain acceptance for his teachings make life easier for his students, lessening the likelihood that they will be subjected to religious discrimination." What is this? I would edit it except it seems that it would just be reverted. RKlassen 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone who does believe in Sri Chinmoy, I don't disagree that an encyclopedia entry should not be merely some glowing admiration of the man. But that does not mean the opposite is true. In the biography of Abraham Lincoln, you do not see unsubstantiated allegations of child molestation. And there is a reason why. Because no one has credible evidence, from respected sources that such an activity took place. Similarly, there is no evidence that Sri Chinmoy has done anything wrong. And, on the contrary, there is a host of evidence, that he is quite credible. I would imagine that if this article were not the conscious subject of attack by right wing fundamentalists, like the followers of Rick Ross, that those who do believe in Sri Chinmoy would not be involved in opposing this libelous attack. If the Sri Chinmoy Centre cared enough, they could easily prosecute these people for libel. I believe on occasion they have indeed done so (and successfully), but I think that they focus on the positive and not on every criticism suggested by an extremist. Again, if people want to weigh the pros and cons, let them reference respected psychological or theological journals and not just anyone who has an ax to grind.

Respectfully,

Wiki9898zzz 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Credibility

(note: Not sure of all the etiquette here, hope I am doing this correctly)

Sri Chinmoy has been conducting meditations at the United Nations since the 1970's and at the U.S. Congress since (I believe) the 1980's. I highly doubt he would have been doing so if he fit the bill of his critics.

The anti-cult movement has targeted truly extreme and frightening groups like Jim Jones and (IMHO) the Moonies (who I personally enountered in San Francisco and felt were scary). And the anti-cult movement has targeted just about every single group that does not fit into some ludicrous kind of Norman Rockwell painting. They have targeted Buddhism - across the board. They have targeted Hinduism - across the board. The have even targeted people people in the gay community and people with left wing political ideologies. Further, many of these people are consciously engaged in illegal kidnapping to enforce their own views. So, readily accepting criticism from these groups hardly seems an exercise in unbiased academic truth.

Further, Sri Chinmoy does not take fees. There are no communal living arrangements. He has been open about his finances, he lives in NYC, though he was offered a large piece of land in upstate New York (he refused because he felt that spirituality must not run away from society, but must work within it). His requires his students to be drug free, not drink, not smoke and to obey all the secular laws.

Wiki9898zzz 16:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues: Poetry, Religious Vilification Sites, Accuracy of Edit Summaries

I was once a sophmore myself, so I can understand the playfulness and good humor behind adding the Vogon poetry banner to articles about poets who are off the beaten path and for whom one feels no kinship or sympathy. But because the Sri Chinmoy article space is a frequent target of vandalism, it would be a kindness if the friskier members of the Wikipedia community could please restrain themselves from teasing minorities.

Among many aesthetes of good will, there is a gentleman's or gentlewoman's agreement that one writes about the poets whose work one finds worthwhile, and doesn't trample on those working in areas where one has little interest. Sri Chinmoy's specialised field is devotional poetry rooted in the Vaishnava tradition. Many of his finest English poems are translations from his original Bengali. This area is not everyone's cup of tea. If you're into Charles Bukowski, write about Bukowski! (or Douglas Adams).

Wikipedia is an effort at something resembling democracy, but it has no Bill of Rights. This means that majoritarian views, stereotypes, and prejudices can sometimes ride roughshod over the minority, if enlightened sysops do nothing to help.

I would like to assume good faith on the part of all editors. It's possible some new editors haven't read past discussions, or haven't fully made the connection between not directing readers to religious vilification material (unless the article is about religious vilification), and the problems (vis-à-vis slander and libel) this causes in biographies of living persons.

One important theme which did emerge in prior discussions is that a basic article on beliefs and practices should not include religious vilification material à la The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or similar material. This would (quite rightly) outrage members of the Wikipedia community who happen to be of a particular faith (Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, etc.). It would also tend to lower Wikipedia's reputation and standing among people who hope to find here high quality information unsullied by hatred or prejudice.

I would caution against using RickRoss.com, since an in-depth examination of the site shows that it contains much anonymous or poorly sourced material, including gross defamation, coarse language, and strong sexual content - what might be generically described as "hate material." Using such material in biographies of living persons is exactly the kind of irresponsible editing that Jimbo Wales has warned against as placing Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Adding links to RickRoss.com seems to encourage vandals to cut and paste anonymous rants from that site randomly into the Wikipedia article - surely not a desirable outcome.

Also, where some editors have removed links to the Ross site, to reinstate the link with an "rvv" (revert vandalism) edit summary is inappropriate, since the removers would appear to have been acting in good faith.

Thanks to all editors for their contributions. This is a research-oriented article still in progress. For over 3 years, the Sri Chinmoy article has been little more than a stub, and has been subject to frequent drive-by shootings (which continue to this day). The new, detailed article is the product of much effort, and is a measured response to past problems. I hope editors (and sysops) understand that this article space has suffered from the "Seigenthaler problem," and that defamatory versions have been scraped from Wikipedia by spam sites and set in stone. No one has complained about this or written any outside articles saying that Wikipedia is bad. Rather, there has been an effort to raise consciousness about the relevant issues, and to contribute a detailed, accurate article covering beliefs, practices, lifestyle, artistic works, and historical context. In other words, those unhappy with the continuing problem of defamation are working within Wikipedia to address it. Surely that's the way it's supposed to be.

It seems unfair to demand immediate perfection from the new, detailed article. Please give it a chance to develop. I believe the footnotes, which are now about 2/3 done - and are beginning to be added - will support the accuracy of the body of the text.

I believe most Wikipedians are intelligent people of good will who also appreciate the value of sweat equity. And when you see what people trying to do serious scholarship in the Sri Chinmoy article space have to put up with, it's not surprising they sometimes get a bit defensive. :-) Fencingchamp 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rick Ross is a well known cult expert, who is frequently quoted by the mainstream media. His site is mostly newspaper articles about the topics he is an expert on. These are on-topic here - Sri Chinmoy is the super-human that he and his followers are trying to make him look. --Tilman 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

+++ sorry to interject this...but this website references Rick Ross's involvement in such kidnappings.

http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/rr_convicted_felon.htm

Wiki9898zzz 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

+++

While I have no direct knowledge of Rick Ross being directly involved in illegal kidnappings regarding so-called "deprogramming," my best recollection is that he was connected with some groups who had some links to these acts. The extreme people in the the "anti-cult" movement, in this regard are like members of the Klan. They may get up and say that they are promoting the rights of working people, but behind the scenes they are responsible for beatings and worse. I think it is reasonable to make some connection between this kind of "anti-cult" activity being a front for an organization for behind the scenes illegal acts. It this kind of irresponsible hatred that comes up with these crazy notions about Sri Chinmoy being disreputable. Again, it is like taking testimony from the Klan or Nazis. If some credible theologian, from a university, wants to make negative statements about Sri Chinmoy, with documentation, then let him. Otherwise, these blatant lies are conscious attempts to defame his character and are illegal acts of libel. There is no right to print libel. If folks want to print these kinds of allegations, they must only do so with accompanying documentation. And not just testimony of disgruntled people, but with actual documentation. Otherwise, this isn't some internet debate, this is criminal activity.

Wiki9898zzz 04:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a reference to a website which lists allegations of Rick Ross's criminal behavior, some of which he admits to, including a felony arrest. He also apparently admits to being involved in kidnapping people (which, of course, is an illegal act) in order to "de-program" them.

http://religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/false-experts/rick-ross/continuing-pattern-and-practice-of-criminal-activity/

Wiki9898zzz 05:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reinserted the neutrality tag, and also the unsourced tag. This article is still a one-sided hagiography. This is wikipedia, not the poetrypedia. Factual statements should be properly sourced. Wikipedia is not the correct place to make PR. The article shouldn't be a praise, it should describe his activities in a neutral tone.

Spare us stories about Maria Monk & co. Like every guru, Sri Chinmoy has his critics, so these should be mentioned, possibly with a rebuttal, of course all properly sourced (newspaper articles, academic articles, government statements, etc). --Tilman 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why "should" every single article, written about every single person, include some section which spews all kinds of negative things about that person? Are people innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? In the article on George Washington, does it list that he molested children? Where is the proof that Sri Chinmoy has done horrible things? Provide it with a reference to a reputable source. Psychological journals have discussed the cult phenomena. Provide a reputable journal which references the negative actions of Sri Chinmoy. If you do not have a reputable source, absolutely none of this material should be published - here or anywhere else. On his side, the U.S. Congress and the United Nations both let him conduct meditations on site. Those are just two of the innumerable positive endorsements and recommendations he has had by all kinds of reputable sources. So, if there are 1000 reputable sources for him and none that speak negatively, why should anything negative be printed about him? Why? Where is the justification?

Since this internet site has rules about academic verifiability, why not let that be the standard by which this article is judged, not just some vague comments by unnamed people? You reference Rick Ross. He admits to both being convicted of a felony and to have engaged in illegal kidnappings. Why should this site publish anything from him or from people connected to him?

These comments against Sri Chinmoy really feel like they are coming from a hate group, not from fair impartial academic debate. I am sorry if you personally hate him, but if that is the case, that is not enough of a reason to justify the publication of your views. You must provide some independently verifiable facts.

Please sir, this is not a contest. This is someone's legal and moral right not to have their reputation damaged.

Wiki9898zzz 05:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that you're adding sources, this is good. What is bad is that you've removed all the weblinks - this may be a mistake, or you may be in the middle of some editing so I won't revert it right now. Also, don't remove the neutrality tag.

About criticism and that every Guru has some, see here: Sathya Sai Baba#Criticism. Of course nobody asks YOU to add criticism. Just let other people add, and check the sources, and add rebuttals if available. --Tilman 06:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I found the last comment (not the above) to be personal, so I deleted it. I would appreciate no personal comments about myself or others who post here. Just because someone posts some text on a website, does not mean that people can glean from that who they are or what their motivations are. I would appreciate no speculation on such things.

The act of freedom of expression, includes the freedom to allow people to express their ideas and opinions. Judging why someone posts what they do presumes knowledge that is not in play here.

Wiki9898zzz 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that the weblinks (including the only criticism) and the POV tag are still missing. Please put them back (or explain why you removed them), or I'll do it soon. --Tilman 16:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must be written from a NPOV. This article however is written like a Chinmoy press release. Editors may personally believe what they want about whether the criticism is valid or not, but Chinmoy is widely criticized, and not only anti-cult sites, but atheists, and ex-followers like Carlos Santana. A criticism section will be created like that for other gurus, and customary critical links like [2], and [3] will not be allowed to be suppressed by Chinmoy advocates who view criticism as "hate". NPOV is non-negotiable. --Dseer 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I made an attempt. It won't stay long, however; I've got an editor on my trail whose main activity in Wikipedia is to delete. The summaries are usually a random choice of (WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:LOGO). For example, he claimed yesterday that Skeptic Magazine is not a reliable source. --Tilman 12:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I's the first time I post a content on wikipedia and my english is not my mother language, so please forgive me if I make grammatical and procedural mistakes. I think we face here a problem not very easy to solve, since no article can be totally objective and neutral. Anyway I think that for bio we should discrimanate the nature of the criticism. For example is true that Sri Chinmoy have criticism but also Ghandi had it. Are those critics in Gandhi's bio? I found only generic criticism about his political approach but not about his person. I'm preatty sure that someone in India or in UK reported very bad things about him, but a bio should not include personal attacks unless are not proved by a Court especially if the subject of the bio is still alive. Any famous people has enemies, who are willing to paint him in black. Reporting those personal attacks it will really help us to understand the life of that person? I don't think so. Resources that include diffamatory declarations, even legally relevant, should not be included in a bio of a living person, unless supported by a Court virdict.

The Criticism should be contestual to the relevance of the Bio content. It's different if we are talking about for example a Sri Chinmoy misconceptions of Hindu philosophy or traditions, if there are any, supported may be by an article or a book of a renowed cultural Hindu Association or a famous hindu philosopher.

With all my respect

Chinmoy's name

I'd like to point out that Chinmoy Kumar Ghose is his real name, and Sri Chinmoy is the name used by his followers. Whoever put "originally Chinmoy Kumar Ghose" seems to think that "Sri Chinmoy" is his real name and not an appellate. I've revised the introductory sentence to reflect an encyclopedic approach. Blumpalump 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The tile "Sri" is a traditional religious title given to teachers from the Vedantic (Hindu) tradition. It has been used broadly and probably for at least 4000 years. Wiki9898zzz 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not relevant. I changed "originally" to "born". Not only is this slightly more accurate ("originally" implies he changed his name), it mirrors the biography given on Chinmoy's official site. -Fendersmasher 00:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments are completely relevant since the only reason to post this misinformation was another attempt to defame Sri Chinmoy. When you go do a martial arts dojo, you call the teacher "sensei." Does that mean he is running a cult? Hardly so. When you go to football practice, you call the coach, "coach" or "sir." Our society is filled with titles of respect.

Wiki9898zzz 15:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be surprised to find any Wikipedia articles on senseis, coaches, et al whose names are prefaced with these attributed titles. Case in point: Vince Lombardi. Notice how he is not listed as "Coach Vince Lombardi". -Fendersmasher 07:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

I removed all the gaudy quotations from the article - Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. That is what Wikiquote is for. Sfacets 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sri Chinmoy has been officially reprimanded by the United Nations for using their logo without their permission. He was also asked to change the name from "Sri Chinmoy United Nations Meditation" to "Sri Chinmoy Meditation at the United Nations". He has instructed about 60 of his disciples to work at the UN. Sri Chinmoy was not invited to give meditations at the UN, his disciples applied on his behalf under the UN Staff and Recreation Club. He only gave a few meditations at US Congress before having this privledge withdrawn by Congress.

Please provide a source for this. --Tilman 16:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sri Chimnoy..

I heard he holds the world record for most weight lifted over one's head. I heard there's a video of him painting 17,000 paintings in one day. This article is a piece of crap. Where are the facts. He deserves a wikipedia article that illustrates his accomplishments now that he's dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.205.79 (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Text Removed

This text was removed recently, while it is likely applicable, it needs a reliable source to be included.

Controversies

- Quote from the 10/13/07 New York Post, "In 2004, one former longtime follower of Chinmoy told The Post how Chinmoy summoned her for extended sex romps, then ordered her to have sex with another woman, while he watched. Other women recounted similiar tales, including one who said Chinmoy paid for her abortion after he got her pregnant." - - Rudra Tamm, a member of the group since 1968 who served as the organization's attorney until 2002, said Ghose's operation is almost entirely cash-driven, with disciples across the world funneling parts of their incomes directly to the guru to support his life and activities. Tamm said many disciples went into debt just to support the guru and to attend the group's annual three-month winter trip. "For a lot of disciples," said Tamm, "their whole existence is saving enough money to go on the Christmas trip." --Rocksanddirt 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Can these be added with the sources? Sfacets 22:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's relevant in terms of a biography and supported by actual references, why not? This article can not be let to morph into some sort of "teaching document" or advocation of Sri Chinmoy, this is not what a biography is. As a biography, this article simply does not meet even the thinnest of definitions. WiccaWeb 02:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You want libel, Wiki9898zzz? You got it.

You and Sri Chinmoy are both bold-faced liars. He is a possible rapist, a definite fraud, a completely self obsessed money making charlatan of a fake. He should be shot in the face, in fact I hereby publicly threaten to do so. Now, at last, you have someone to sue for something, I hope proceedings against me will distract you from further damaging this tattered article with your ramblings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.24.72 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

General source: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.241.38 (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with those death threats. Hope that gets you where you deserve to be (which, I guess, would be prison). I would certainly, publicly, take a lie detector test and affirm every single statement I have made on here. As long as when I pass, you pay for the exam, pay for my travel to the exam, issue a public apology and donate $10,000 to any major charity. Up for the challenge?

As far as financial matters are concerned, Sri Chinmoy opened his financial records to public scrutiny at one point. There was nothing there...very little money, no land, no jewels, no riches, nothing. Just another lie perpetrated by a bunch of haters. Don't believe me? Just call the group and ask for public disclosure of records to prove there was no corruption. They have nothing to hide.

If this Rudra was an attorney, why didn't she press charges? Where is her affidavit? Where is the court case?

Just more lies....endless lies from endless crazies trying to prove that up is down.

I think it is good that you quoted the New York newspapers. But go a little farther and find out what their sources are. Because if you dig a tiny bit under the surface, you will find nothing. Why? Because there never was any corruption...not ever. There are some disgruntled ex-members and probably a few fundamentalist Christians who joined with the intention to harass the group. I would guess that 90% of the former members who are critical, were antagonistic from the moment they joined the group. Little psycho "spies" who think that Christ needs some assistance from them in protecting his message of love.

Don't believe me? Do the research, but thoroughly and with documentation. Find someone who does not like Sri Chinmoy? Ask them to write an affidavit that binds them legally if they lie. See how many folks will sign one. He was here for 40 years. There does not exist one single piece of paper like that.

And please stop deleting the reams of evidence I already posted to prove that no fraud ever existed.

By the way, I applaud Wikipedia for eliminating the references to Rick Ross, who is a convicted felon and whose testimony had no credibility.

Truth Alone Triumphs - The Vedas

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Reliable Sources

While it is nice that there are so many inline references in this article, the sheer number of them to the subjects own writings is problematic for a biographical article. Much of this article is not an encyclopedic biography of a notable subject, but a "sales pitch" for his spiritual beliefs. --Rocksanddirt 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dua, Shyam, ed. The Luminous Life of Sri Chinmoy." Delhi, India: Tiny Tot, 2005. This book appears to be used as a lot of the factual sources of the subjects life. Is there any more information on it? A source to buy one doesn't come up in a quick look at google, only references to its use in a couple of online biographies (including this one). --Rocksanddirt 16:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Amazon doesn't have it, Powell's Books doesn't have it, Barnes & Noble doesn't have it, a Google search turns up circular references to it, a search at ISBNdb.com for "3726100059" turns up nothing for the title. In my opinion, it does not exist. In this case, since the source document is non-existent, the reference needs to be removed, and the citation reference need to be replaced with "Reference Needed" or whatever that tag is. Failure to come up with legitimate references should result in removal of the specific content.

I've "spot checked" about 2 dozen "references" and found that they don't say anything about the passage in the article. Many of the references can not be verified or simply don't exist (perhaps they are "secret" texts a la Scientology) This article is complete crap. This guy IS notable, but the quality of this article is zero. WiccaWeb 22:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Controversies section needs to be "tight" with proper citations, otherwise the Chinmoy people will be able to reasonably argue that inclusion is improper. WiccaWeb 14:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The AP is a reliable, fact checked and NPOV source. They note Chinmoy was considered "charismatic" and "quirky", and the controversy around the 1996 plaque incident, and that his organization was considered a cult by some sources. I suggest the following at the end of the introduction: While widely respected, he was also characterized as "charismatic" and "quirky", and some considered his organization a cult. . The NY Post article containes numerous allegations that can be sumarized, this is the link, [5] --Dseer 17:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Controversies section should indeed only ever contain properly cited statements. I question the sentence: "Concerns have also been raised involving the primarily cash-driven nature of the organization, wherein disciples worldwide voluntarily send part of their personal income to support Sri Chinmoy and his lifestyle[citation needed]." First, what is "the organization"? An organization founded by Sri Chinmoy is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Many people tithe to their church, so this hardly seems like a controversy. Also "concerns have been raised" is pretty vague, and "support Sri Chinmoy and his lifestyle" sounds negative. Until proper citations are found, I think the the sentence should be deleted. Thanks, Cruiser1 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, I didn't originate the statements but they are all sourced. The source states: "Rudra Tamm, a member of the group since 1968 who served as the organization's attorney until 2002, said Ghose's operation is almost entirely cash-driven, with disciples across the world funneling parts of their incomes directly to the guru to support his life and activities. Tamm said many disciples went into debt just to support the guru and to attend the group's annual three-month winter trip. "For a lot of disciples," said Tamm, "their whole existence is saving enough money to go on the Christmas trip."--Dseer 05:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Credibility

Criticisms on here have included that the sources of the article are primarily from Sri Chinmoy Centre sources and related sources. To assume that no other sources exist is inaccurate.

People had asked for sources not associated with the Sri Chinmoy Centre. Here is one article from a non-Sri Chinmoy Centre source:

http://news.scotsman.com/obituaries.cfm?id=1649042007

Quoting from the article:

"Sri Chinmoy, the Indian spiritual guru who had been nominated by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and seconded by former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for this year's Nobel Peace Prize, devoted his life..."

So, this article references that Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Mikhail Gorbachev, two very prominent people felt that Sri Chinmoy was credible enough to be awarded no less than the Nobel Peace Prize.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

As indicated above, Sri Chinmoy was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I submit this as strong evidence of his credibility. Further, the nomination was made by an internationally respected member of the religious community - Archbishop Desmond Tutu. I do not think it is a minor thing that an Archbishop of the Catholic Church not only does not consider Sri Chinmoy a fraud, but considers him worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

As the Catholic Church awards this man with prizes and honors, they go against everything they supposedly believe in. The direct definition of "Cult" from the Catholic Church is, "a group that promotes a teaching opposite Catholic doctrine." While Catholics consider cults to be the opposite of Catholic doctrine, even archbishops try to promote cult teachers' motivation with awards. I understand your position of defense for Chinmoy, however. While WhiSri Chinmoy is considered a peace seeking man by many, but he was also the leader of a dangerous facist cult. I don't know why the Catholic Church allows Desmond Tutu to keep preaching acclaim to this man's beliefs and works when he runs something so highly against the Catholic Church. America also throws mud on Chinmoy because a cult is an example of a facist group. While Americans are in the middle of fighting a certain war on terrorism, I think Sri Chinmoy is highly susceptible to criticism. Also, in a more religious standpoint, Sri Chinmoy went against his own religion owning up to this cult of 2,000 followers. Sri supposedly practiced submission to allah, but urged 2,000+ men and women to follow him, which went against everything he owned up to. He was considered for a Nobel Peace Prize for his peace work. However, Chinmoy did have many faults. I dont mean to cause any hard feelings for his current followers, just sharing my opinion with the rest of the Wikipedia community!!!

Further, the nomination was seconded by Mikhail Gorbachev, a former world leader! Again, I think it is no small matter that such a prominent world figure not only does not consider Sri Chinmoy a fraud, but so profoundly admired Him that he felt he should receive the world's highest award for peace work.

Owing to these two very serious endorsements of Sri Chinmoy, I urge Wikipedia to remove all critical comments about Sri Chinmoy until such criticisms come from court documents or other respected sources.

Two of the world's great men have nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Must we let people continue to throw mud on the name of a person so highly regarded? It does not seem appropriate.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

use of 'god'

I disagree with edits made by anonymous user with IP 64.146.239.146 - many instances of 'God' or 'Him' is changed to 'god' or 'him'. In the context of this article, 'God' is a proper noun and changing to lower case looks more POV to me than anything. I'm reverting to previous edits. -Fendersmasher 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of the pronoun "God" is a Church preference however. As a devout Catholic, I've always practiced capitilizing "God", but in this article it should not be, however. Not everyone who reads articles like these are religious and the use of the pronoun "God" in a public article like this is an example of Conjoining Church and State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.250.241 (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

References from non-Sri Chinmoy Centre sources:

Weightlifting

People had asked for sources not associated with the Sri Chinmoy Centre. Here are some.

Article from non-Sri Chinmoy Centre source

http://news.scotsman.com/obituaries.cfm?id=1649042007

quote from article:

"Sri Chinmoy, the Indian spiritual guru who had been nominated by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and seconded by former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for this year's Nobel Peace Prize, devoted his life..."

So, this article references that Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Mikhail Gorbachev, two very prominent people felt that Sri Chinmoy was credible enough to be awarded no less than the Nobel Peace Prize.

+++

New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/nyregion/13chinmoy.html?em&ex=1192420800&en=12597bbc1a6f10bc&ei=5087%0A

Article quotes US Congressman Gary Ackerman:

“I thought it was some magician’s trick, but it wasn’t,” Mr. Ackerman said yesterday. “He was running extreme marathons before people even knew what extreme sports were. When you were around him, you had the sudden realization you were in the presence of somebody very, very holy and very devout.”

+++

NPR audio file. NPR is a credible source. Does not seem that they would produce this without some verifying research:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15271102

+++

Another article on weightlifting:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0675/is_n5_v9/ai_11245879

+++

Re credibility issues:

Another article from a non-Sri Chinmoy Centre source:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World_leaders_mourn_Sri_Chinmoys_death/articleshow/2458660.cms

Quoting from the article:

"Among others who paid homage to Chinmoy were former US vice president Al Gore, the co-winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize, Indian spiritual teacher Dada Vaswani and sitar maestro Ravi Shankar...."

re criticisms that he was power hungry, quoting from the article:

"As a spiritual guru, he did not create a mass following unlike some of his contemporaries. Instead, he tended to a small flock of dedicated disciples, numbering 7,000...."

referencing his meditations at the UN:

"Since 1970 he used to lead 'Peace Meditation' at the UN headquarters for its staff and delegates...."

+++

just a few for now.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

One huge advertisement

One might as well visit Chinmoy's official site for the kind of information listed in this article. The magnitiude of original research (references to Chinmoy or Chinmoy's organization are too numerous to count) and POV (particularly in the Teachings and Awards sections), combined with the article's history of edit wars, combined with the poor use of English grammar, may warrant this article for deletion. -Fendersmasher 01:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because the article was written with Sri Chinmoy based sources, does not mean that virtually an identical article can't be written from independent sources. This line of argumentation is just a form of character assassination and does not seek the truth, based on academic or any other standards.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fact: Sri Chinmoy's association with the United Nations was not on an official or professional level. His many students who work there were able to get him to hold weekly meditations under their rights as members of the UN Staff and Recreation Club.

Yes, Sri Chinmoy's association with the United Nations was through a club. Does that mean that the U.N. lets "cult" leaders run a club? Does anyone really think that any U.N. organization, in whatever form, is not screened by security people? This line of argumentation is just a form of character assassination and does not seek the truth, based on academic or any other standards.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fact: Anyone can be nominated for the the Nobel Peace Prize if they can show letters of support from professionals of high regard in that field. Sri Chinmoy instructed his disciples to obtain letters from such dignitories by using photo's of him with other dignitories such as Mother Teresa, Mikail Gorbachev. Almost anyone can obtain photo opportunites with dignitories such as most die-hard fans are able to have themselves photographed with their baseball heroes or favourite actors or rock stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.209.150 (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This line of argumentation is completely absurd. Can anyone name a single "cult" leader ever nominated for a Nobel Prize? Anyone? Oh, and the opinion of an Archbishop of the Catholic Church means nothing...it can just be thrown away? So the opinion of Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Mikhail Gorbachev mean nothing? Ludicrous. It is testimony by highly reputable men that Sri Chinmoy was the direct opposite of a controversial figure. They are testifying that he deserved one of the highest awards given to anyone. This line of argumentation is just a form of character assassination and does not seek the truth, based on academic or any other standards.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has simply been the subject of a conscious attack by some right wing fundamentalists and does not represent fair criticism of Sri Chinmoy. Again, if the United Nations and the U.S. Congress accept him, why shouldn't Wikipedia? And those are only two of a huge volume of praise from a wide variety of sources. Is that not credible evidence that passes academic standards of fairness? Or will this evidence be thrown out because it does not support the biased notion that Sri Chinmoy is somehow not what he claims to be? Will fairness rule here? Will the voice of the reference from no less than the US Congress and the United Nations be denied in favor of some hatred spewed by an extreme minority...with no credible references?

Wiki9898zzz 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What's funny about your comments is that you sound exactly like most people assume cult followers to sound! WiccaWeb 20:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Derision is a common form of skirting any line of argumentation. Just because someone can mock another, is not a valid criticism of anything. This line of argumentation does not seek the truth, based on academic or any other standards.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How does your reasoning reflect any of Wikipedia's policies? Support from institutions such as the U.S. Congress and the United Nations (which do not possess "academic standards") does not address the criticisms at issue here. Instances in which a high number of former followers publicly admit to being sexually abused by Sri Chinmoy or a published article debunking his alleged weight-lifting claims would fall under WP:Notability, and thus deserve mention in the article. -Fendersmasher 20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you make a reasonably valid point, that in looking for an academic standard of truth in the presentation of facts, one should not merely take the "word" of someone without academic standards. However, this type of argumentation presumes that this is the only evidence of Sri Chinmoy's credibility. And that is hardly the case. As far as the U.S. Congress and the United Nations is concerned, why would they not possess "academic standards?" What is the line of reasoning that would support this? Their standards for security would be far more vigorous than any academic standard!! Both organizations are simply not going to let some crazy charlatan in their halls!!! That is a valid line of argumentation. And, by that standard, it is supporting proof that he is credible.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as the sexual allegations are concerned, where is the proof? There has never been a single court case in regard to these supposed allegations!! Why not? Why aren't there affidavits from the people making these claims. I will tell you why there aren't. They would be sued for libel and slander. Anyone can whisper gossip and create a some slander. Doesn't mean there is a single shred of truth in it. Where is the proof? The disgruntled ex-disciples are just participating in character assassination - there is no proof.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no "high numbers" as you suggest. That is a lie, as are all the negative statements on here. Provide a source of the claim for "high numbers." Provide a court case document with allegations of sexual abuse. Provide some proof or stop further participating in libel. It is an illegal act. You and the other commentators are the only ones breaking the law, not Sri Chinmoy. And hopefully, someone in the Sri Chinmoy Centre will get annoyed enough to prosecute you. These are crimes, you should be punished for them.

Wiki9898zzz 15:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to look at the references in the controversy section given in the article if you haven't done so already, as well as the Sri Chinmoy Ex-Disciples Forum and the Sri Chinmoy Open Forum on Yahoo Groups, though I somehow doubt any of that will sway your opinion. I'm still awaiting a response to the question in my previous reply. -Fendersmasher 07:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed about 10 - 15 pages of that article. I did not find a single reference from a theologian or a psychiatric professional making a criticism Sri Chinmoy. I did find a long section by someone saying that the attacks by Sri Chinmoy were unsubstantiated. I did not write that. And he wrote in great depth about how all the criticisms seemed to be made by a very small number of people using "sock puppets," referencing internet sources and not magazines or other kinds of credible sources.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I make a brief note about the definition of libel, a word that's been misused in this discussion a number of times, without getting drawn into this? If a Wikipedia editor makes unsubstantiated, negative claims about Chinmoy, it's possible he has committed libel. If a Wikipedia editor adds content to the article which acknowledges the accusations of others, he has not committed libel, even if those accusations are libelous. Whether a public figure is ultimately found guilty of an accusation does not determine whether or not it is significant enough to be included in his Wikipedia entry. For instance, no one would seriously suggest all mention of the rape allegations against Kobe Bryant should be stricken from that article because he was never convicted of a crime. I am not familiar enough with Chinmoy or the allegations against him to judge whether they should be mentioned here, but the arguments that an accusation must be proved to be notable, and that acknowledging criticism that may be unfounded is libelous, are in no way true.--Djrobgordon 05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as libel is concerned, perhaps Wikipedia is not directly responsible...I think that is an area of the law that is still gray. Generally, however, institutions which host anything, do become liable for what occurs within their doors. So, if, in a store, there is a crazy person spouting hate speech, employees within that store can sue the store if the store does not take proper steps to remove that crazy person. Similarly, in this "store" of Wikipedia, I would guess that the law would require Wikipedia to make reasonable efforts to remove crazy hate speech, even if it is presented under the guise of an academic discussion. We have all seen these kinds of attempts at academic credibility by the Nazis, neo-Nazis and various other groups. It is akin to the junk science done by the tobacco industry to scam the public.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is apparently completely dictated by followers wishing to hide the controversy surrounding him. It is a shame that this is a sanitized version of his life and that people seeking information must seek it elsewhere.

Again, where is the proof that this is going on? There are articles by non-Sri Chinmoy sources. There is now his Nobel Peace Prize nomination by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Are these two great men merely dupes? This line of argumentation is not valid.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Weightlifting

From a non-Sri Chinmoy Centre source, from a New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/nyregion/13chinmoy.html?em&ex=1192420800&en=12597bbc1a6f10bc&ei=5087%0A

The article quotes US Congressman Gary Ackerman:

“I thought it was some magician’s trick, but it wasn’t,” Mr. Ackerman said yesterday. “He was running extreme marathons before people even knew what extreme sports were. When you were around him, you had the sudden realization you were in the presence of somebody very, very holy and very devout.”

Please take note, understand and respect the seriousness of this statement. A United States Congressman is saying that his weightlifting feat is not a trick. A United States Congressman is saying, directly, that he felt that Sri Chinmoy was "somebody very, very holy." That is the quote. Please take time to reflect upon the seriousness of that statement coming from so prominent a public official.

Congressman Gary Ackerman recieved thousands of dollars from Guru Health Foods a Sri Chinmoy Centre "divine enterprise" managed by Ashrita Furman, the Guiness World Record holder - this is avaiable on public record. This also violates the tax-exempt status of the Sri Chinmoy Centre Church 501 (c) religious non-profit organization.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

you are committing the informal fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. otherwise known as an 'appeal to authority'. the honorable congressman, while quite possibly a prominent public official, is not an expert on weightlifting, illusions, or holiness, at least not pursuant to his status or qualifications as a public official. the congressman's opinion is no more informed than the average person on the street. however, you are claiming that his opinion carries greater weight than that of others, simply because he is a 'prominent' public official. that's not a supportable position to argue from. Anastrophe (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you can use Latin words does not prove the truth of your line of argumentation. Perhaps I would be committing this offense to the discipline of rhetoric if it were true that this is the only proof of Sri Chinmoy's credibility. It is not. And I was not making the claim that it was. As far as academic standards are concerned, we would accept the written word of an author. So, taking that line of argumentation, the same intent is there in speech. If we can verify that someone of authority made a verbal claim, that is no different than a written claim. So, by that line of argumentation, when former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Archbishop Desmond Tutu nominated Sri Chinmoy for the Nobel Peace Prize..they were clearly "saying" that Sri Chinmoy was an superlative human being who had so contributed to world peace that he deserved this nomination. And that is their actual intent, however one tries to spin the logic otherwise. You ask for proof. Fine, but we are not trying to prove mathematics. We are trying to prove spirituality. There are volumes of evidence about Sri Chinmoy's spirituality. He never committed a crime in his life, yet here he is treated like a criminal.

As far as the Congressman is concerned, you are saying that he is not an expert on this, that or the other thing. Well, that is not entirely true. He was elected to Congress as a representative to deal with all the issues that government faces. To say he has no expertise is not the voice of the people. The voice of the people who elected him says clearly that he is indeed an expert. That he does not have specificity in the areas you mentioned is not a valid criticism. He is a Congressman! A Congressman making a statement about Sri Chinmoy's credibility. Is it a common experience that a US Congressman praises someone in this manner? Please cite the example of another Congressman praising a so-called "cult" leader. These lines of argumentation are an extreme reach, trying by whatever means possible to assassinate his character. They are not intended to seek and find the truth.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sri Chinmoy´s religion rumoured to be cult; accused of sexual abuse

I was appalled to read that this article didn't mention the multiple accounts of sexual abuse, dishonesty, and cult practices that Sri Chinmoy is accused of. Based on the accounts of how he 'teaches' his disciples, it's clear he rules at the very least a cult-type of religion. In addition, the high number of accounts of sexual abuse by both women and their male partners is prominent enough to be mentioned in this article.

Please address the accusations of sexual abuse, along with his controversial practices and teachings which are akin to cult-like training and control.

This is the link to the Rick Ross cult information website examining all the controversy: http://www.rickross.com/groups/srichinmoy.html

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.94.198.151 (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross is not a credible source.

Here is an article about Rick Ross's lack of crediblity:

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/false-experts/rick-ross/continuing-pattern-and-practice-of-criminal-activity/

The article references the fact that he is (by his own admission) a convicted felon, convicted of a major jewel robbery.

Quoting from the article, "Reports attached to court documents relating to the incident show that Ross was described as an individual who has sociopathic inclinations and cannot see that what he does is socially unacceptable and dangerous."

Please reference a credible source for criticism. Please reference a credible source, from a theologian, psychiatrist or other professional.

As far as accusations of sexual misconduct, please reference a court case, indictment or other legal proceedings against Sri Chinmoy. One cannot, because there have never been!!

This is just hate speech by people seeking to assassinate Sri Chinmoy's character without one single shred of credible evidence.

These accusations constitute libel and should not be allowed on Wikipedia.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with German version

Looking for serious information, I first read the German version and was pleased as this affirmed what I already knew from my own investigations. But I didn't find the specific number I was looking for, namely of the paintings he is said to have made, so I hoped to find it here. Instead I found a hagiography void of real information. What a pity! (Google came to rescue: The official Chinmoy site claims that he completed the first 100,000 in 1975 within less than a year: Sri Chinmoy’s Art.) --WernerPopken (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Where has the "controversy" section gone? It's perfectly legitimate to have it there. Isn't it vandalism by this guys "followers" to remove it? It's a valid section... WiccaWeb 04:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If nobody makes any significant comments, I'll put this section back, and undo and resulting reverts... Fair warning. WiccaWeb 20:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no justification for this pattern of blatant information suppression and removal of the controversy section, along with the unjustified removal of the POV tag. I will put the POV back and keep a watch to make sure it stay until DISCUSSION on the issue. I'll start working on a "controversy" section WITH references from established sources. WiccaWeb 15:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Far to much WP:SELFPUB, and suspect sources. While Chinmoy was notable and has undoubtably done good things, he was not beyond criticism and controversy, which is reliably sourced. This article should avoid such extreme POV and not read like a sales pitch or press release. --Dseer 03:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. My suggestion: Let's block users who are 1. Deleting content and 2. Making weak arguments on this discussion page(or no arguments at all). To put it another way, a strong argument should be required for content deletion. I am new to Wikipedia, so I'd like to know if there are better methods. William sharkey 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

material that is not properly cited may be removed without discussion per WP policy. ideally it is challenged first by applying the 'fact' tag to it. 'controversy' sections are generally discouraged; rather it's better that the material be incorporated into the body of the article. that said, 'discouraged' does not mean 'forbidden'. as long as the material is NPOV and properly sourced, it's okay to be there. Anastrophe 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Following the wave of edits after is death, I've noticed all controversial accounts have been deleted yet again from the article. I've rewritten some of the controversy accounts, incorporating some into the body of the article as Anastrophe suggested, and done a little cleanup on the article itself. The article is still largely glowing of Chinmoy, so controversies look very juxtaposed. For now, some remain in the Controversy section. -Fendersmasher (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Santana/Mclaughlin departure

Before simply deleting this section, please explain why. -Fendersmasher (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs work=

The format of this article is unsatisfactory. (grade of "D.") I haven't analyzed it much, but a couple of random comments: Labeling a prominent section "Kind Words" is rather odd and not much to the point. Would anything similar be found in a bio of Theodore Roosevelt, JFK, Michael Palin? Kirk Douglas, etc. etc. etc.? At best it makes the subject seem like a piker; like listing minor awards and telling people they amount to significant biographical information. If I happened to meet the Pope, I'm sure he'd say something nice about me, too.

A "controversy" section is also dissatisfying and as a structural part of the article, it's mere laziness. The material should be simply woven into his biography if it's significant. If it's not, then leave it out. The guy made lots of claims that can be evaluated on their own merits. It's not truly a "controversy" except perhaps among a few editors here, and labeling it as such is misleading.

I'm sure there is various stuff out there that serves to credit and discredit the guy and I think it's all part of his biography. It's not separate. Calamitybrook (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Improvements needed

I agree that ==Kind Words== must go. Over half of the sources referenced in this article were written by Chinmoy or published by his organisation. These sources all fall under the conditions imposed by WP:SELFPUB (part of the verifiability policy) which specifies that they may only be used if the material is relevant to the notability of the subject; if it is not "unduly self-serving"; and if the article is not based primarily on such sources.

In addition I can't find ISBNs or any independent internet references for two of the major sources that are used here: (1) Among the Great. New York: Aum, 1978. and (2) Dua, Shyam, ed. The Luminous Life of Sri Chinmoy. Delhi, India: Tiny Tot, 2005. The latter book appears to be one (perhaps unpublished?) of a large series[6] that includes the lives of such luminaries as Steffi Graf, Hitler and David Beckham. To my mind the absence of available information about the above two books raises extra doubts as to their reliability, but I'm happy to be proved wrong if someone can convince me otherwise.

As for more reliable sources, the obituaries (e.g. [7], [8], [9]) look good if inevitably rather effusive, and I've also found a few sources via Google books: I'll work them into the article. There are a number of other improvements needed as well: the short ==Death== section is unnecessary, there's a lot of overlinking and there are problems with the Nobel Peace Prize nom., for instance. On the other hand something should be said about his prolific painting and poetry, and his weightlifting "stunts".

So I propose to start a major tidy up to bring the article more into line with policy and guidelines. I hope that everyone interested in this article will cooperate!  —SMALLJIM  14:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes along the lines above - see the article edit summaries for details. Hope there's nothing controversial so far. More later, I haven't started on the references yet.  —SMALLJIM  17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been a number of concerns addressed within the last month (see above). It is going to take some time to address all of these concerns, which I can only address one at a time. In short, however, I do agree that the article is currently a work in progress and could use a lot of improvements. The first issue I would like to address is the sexual misconduct accusations within the Controversy section. To ensure that the article remains neutral, any mention of Sri Chinmoy's so-called sexual misconduct must be presented from more than one angle. I will be commenting further regarding this particular matter and others in the near future.

Celicabeach (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating the tidy up, Smalljim - I'm on board. I also couldn't find ISBNs or much else on the books Smalljim mentioned, after searching Google Books, Scholar and Web. The Luminous Life of Sri Chinmoy is the only source cited in the Artistic Pursuits section. If a verifiable source that references Chinmoy's artistic claims and achievements cannot be found, I think the content of the Artistic Pursuits section ought to be changed. -Fendersmasher (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Celicabeach, would you or another user provide a citation for the sentence "However, according to the Sri Chinmoy Centre, these are fabricated allegations of which the sources are acts of libel posted anonymously on Internet forums."? -Fendersmasher (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I will attempt to seek out a reliable source to include as a reference for that statement. In the meantime, I feel that this statement for which you request a citation should remain as long as there is mention of Sri Chinmoy’s so-called sexual misconduct within this article. This would be in accordance with my immediate previous comments.

Celicabeach (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Smalljim, for helping to tidy up this article. I agree that much of the information in this article that comes from original research should come from reliable sources. Some of the contributions I intend to make, gradually, include adding facts about this individual’s life from reliable sources. I also intend to cover some of the topics already covered in this article a little more in depth using some of the reliable sources that have already been referenced for these topics.

Celicabeach (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for those thanks. As you can tell, I'm only progressing slowly with this, so please continue making improvements yourselves. I've just changed the citation to the New York Times obituary (the title was wrong too) and used it at a reference to the large number of artistic works it's said he produced. Adding a sentence each on books, poems and paintings would neatly complement the existing details of songs and concerts, I think. // I've just spotted that there's only one remaining reference to the dubious Among the Great (see above), and it doesn't seem to be to a very important fact (under ==Teachings==, ref to Vilayat Inayat Khan) - do you think we can remove it?  —SMALLJIM  00:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That reference doesn't seem essential, so I would say remove. There are quite a number of references to Dua left, though. Can the information in ==Artistic Pursuits== about his musical performances and instruments played cite another source? -Fendersmasher (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I intend to find more reliable sources for information such as this. But i can only do this very gradually.

Celicabeach (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I’m okay with the entire sentence being removed (under ==Teachings==, incl. Mother Teresa and Vilayat Inayat Khan). Along with the dubious source, the sentence seems too vague.

Celicabeach (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)