Talk:Sri Chinmoy/Archive 4

intro

Since article is about Sri Chinmoy, it is better to start with Sri Chinmoy, with legal (born name) coming later. Adding dates after name also follows convention for peers. 'Founder of religious organisation Sri Chinmoy Centre inc.' Also, no evidence it is an inc. sounds a bit legal for an introductory chapter. Left out numbers, seems hard to ascertain and perhaps not important. Prolific seems to be more useful. 'including Sri Aurobindo's teachings' - not sure about that.

Hurin333 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Why "no evidence it is an inc"? It is easy to find it at http://www.nyc.gov/lobbyistsearch/search?client=Sri+Chinmoy+Centre+Church%2C+inc.

Also, there are references confirming religiuos status of Sri Chinmoy Centre Church Inc.

   http://www.taxexemptworld.com/organizations/jamaica_ny_11435.asp
   Organization Name --- SRI CHINMOY CENTRE CHURCH,
   Classification --- Religious Organization,
   Exempt Status As Of Date ---- 10/1970

   http://www.taxexemptworld.com/organization.asp?tn=180476
   Foundation Type --- Church.

--Agafon005 (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Agafon has a point, the 'Inc.' is relevant, since almost all religious organizations are corporations; otherwise they're not eligible for tax-exempt status. It also distinguishes it from other forms of business. Rhowryn (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

November Reversions

Instead of having an edit war, how about we all calm down and discuss what is appropriate to have in the article regarding JustDesserts' additions? Please keep in mind WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPPRIMARY. As noted in WP:BLPSTYLE, be dispassionate. Also remember that Wikipedia's goal is to document, not analyze. Rhowryn (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

awards

Added some awards with source. Moved section lower down, which seems to be standard on wikipedia articles.Hurin333 (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we have a Neutrality Box up top?

This article reads as though it was written entirely by cheerleaders. I looked in vain for any information that wasn't hagiographical or for any controversy that wasn't explained away or softened. Surely we should at least have a box up top that says "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Because I hereby dispute it. Even Mother Teresa's Wikipedia article mentions Christopher Hitchens's specific criticisms. This article can't seem to brush past the controversies fast enough. I call foul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.114.120 (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A box like that can only be shown if there are specific issues that have been pointed out on the talk page. If you saw the box template, you would notice it says "see the talk page". --Demetrioscz (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are such issues )in three points), which bring into question the neutrality of the article:

• The claim that Chinmoy Kumar Ghose is or was a "master" is put as given, rather than as merely an opinion of those connected to his particular cult.

• The claim that two domain names, connected to sites critical of Chinmoy Kumar Ghose and advertising services of cult-deprogrammers, were turned over the the cult is not well documented. Specifically, it is claimed this occured under paragraph 15 of WIPO rules. There are several sets of WIPO rules (general, mediation, arbitration); they are organized in numbered paragraphs, and in none of them do I find a "paragraph 15" which would have been the foundation for such a forced transfer (although such a paragraph is mentioned in the WIPO case decision, along with one other reference).

• The suggestion in the article is that WIPO somehow negated the claims made against Ghose. This was not so, nor could it be so. It was not so: The main reason for the transfer seems to be that the names represented the use of a recognized marque of the complainant (Ghose) without his permission and that the registrants of the offending sites had used inappropriate means to conceal their indenties. It could not be so: The panel would not have been competent to hear such a case.--108.1.116.237 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If anything has a reliable reference, it can stay in otherwise it can be taken out/edited. Edit as you like. --Demetrioscz (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

When do you mean with "some" ? Postiv quote from other person i found not in article only negativ from Santana.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say there have been negative and positive quotes from him. It seems to me, that there is someone needs to point only the negative side. Serah1112 (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• From other person quote truley from him gives --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

OT: How/why did he get so fat?

Regarding his later weightlifting photos: How or why did Chinmoy get so fat? He was an apostle of fitness and slimness up until that. What happened? Softlavender (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So, you think you can delete all my edits but this one is acceptable? Cut it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will McRoy (talk • contribs) 01:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my edits

This talk page is full of unsourced opinion. I was actually there, so my story is both relevant (pertaining the defamation already on this page) and accurate. Regarding my edit of the controversy section, how is it inaccurate? There is no confirmation of any sort for her story that Sri Chinmoy said she was from a virgin birth (or the "chosen one") and I, a person who was there, does not remember such stories- nor does anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will McRoy (talk • contribs) 01:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your personal observations are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that my opinion has been expressed on a talk page that is full of defamatory material. The only edit I made of the article is completely accurate; there is no evidence for Tamm's claims and no one who was there remembers them. Will McRoy (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Jayanti Tamm

Since her story is completely unsourced- and people who were there have no recollection of her version, I have added the following edit:

"However, there is no confirmation for the author's story. Disciples have no recollection of any virgin birth story or of anyone being the "chosen one," as she claims"

Someone, who has called Sri Chinmoy fat, keeps deleting this. Until independent confirmation of her story is presented, the editor has no business removing this. Will McRoy (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

And I've removed it as you need a source (not yourself) for, "However, there is no confirmation for the author's story. Disciples have no recollection of any virgin birth story..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who needs to provide evidence of the story. Until then, it is perfectly correct to point out that there is no confirmation of the story. Either the this needs to be pointed out or her claims need to be removed as not properly sourced. Will McRoy (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not Wikipedia works. The article says Tamm is claiming something. That is sourced. You need to provide a reliable source that says her claim is not confirmed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

She makes a claim and there is no evidence for it. How about we go to the page on Judaism and say "Many people claim that Jews are the secret rulers of the world"? It's the same thing. It needs to be removed completely or pointed out that it is baseless. Will McRoy (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

We have an entire article on that - Antisemitism. Note all the sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

How is that the same as someone making a self sourced claim that Jews rule the world on the actual Judaism page? Not even close.Will McRoy (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You went to my talk page and told me to discuss the edit to the article here. After the discussion not going your way, you decided to ignore your suggestion and simply edit the article without discussion. Why? Again, the claim does not have a reliable source attached to it. It needs to be removed.Will McRoy (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. I did not make any edits after warning you for WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hypocricy

People keep telling me not to post unsourced material while continuously posting unsourced material. Again, Jaytani's claims are self sourced, and therefore not reliable. More over, if you do want to go with the "she's just making a claim" argument (which does not conform to the RS policy, especially when the claim is defamatory towards someone), then why is my claim that I was there and know for a fact that she is full of crap not valid? Will McRoy (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You are edit warring, including the deletion of sourced content without reason. Find a reliable and verifiable source for your changes and seek consensus here. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

As explained many times, I am saying that the unsourced material, which it very much is, needs to be removed. Please explain to me how the book in question is a reliable source. Please explain to me why sources that do not meet the RS standard should be used on a bio page. Will McRoy (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tamm's books and newspaper article are reliable sources for her statements. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Will McRoy, if you believe the source is unreliable and you are not being heard, take it to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard for discussion. Edit warring is not the way to resolve an issue. Flat Out let's discuss it

Again, this is akin to allowing talk of how Jews secretly rule the world on the page on Judaism. Opinion pieces are not allowed as sources on bio pages.Will McRoy (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Controversy exists. An author made claims. The source of those claims is referenced. It's a non-issue as far as I can see but if you want to seek broader opinion go to the link above and commence discussion. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Controversy only exists based on self sourced claims. There is far more (false) controversy surrounding 911 (complete with opinions and so called sources), yet there is no controversy section there (fortunately). But seeing as how you people will just go to the board and shout me down, I won't be going there. Instead I will be buying a subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica. At least it is not full of people who pretend to be unbiased while making silly arguments (and even insulting the subject in one case). And again, I was there, so I know how full of crap the purveyors of this "controversy" are.Will McRoy (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

the article presents information to the reader, it doesn't present one side of the debate as fact and the other as fiction. It is important to let the reader make up their own mind on the balance of information available. We don't use censorship here. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If I made a controversy section on the Judaism page which claimed that a bunch of people think they're the secret rulers of the world, complete with references to books stating this opinion, it would be deleted (censored).Will McRoy (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, Jewish_conspiracy#Antisemitic_conspiracy_theories --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are controversial theories about Judaism published here. All editing at wikipedia is achieved by consensus. No-one can just impose their opinion here. For any subject, as long content meets reliability and verifiability and it's contextual it can be included. That's why we have systems like Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, independent review etc in place. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

NeilN, why do mention the conspiracy page when it has nothing to do with the Judaism page? But Flat Out mentions reliability standards. Since when does self sourced claims meet this standard?Will McRoy (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: it meets the standard when it is confirming the author's own position. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Not according to Wiki's page on RS: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" It does not say: 'Well, if it's someone's opinion on bio subject, it's okay to defame them with self sourced material.' What is so hard to understand about this? Will McRoy (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the policy. Primary sources are allowed when they are simply confirming what someone said. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not in Judaism because Judaism is a huge topic and not everything related to it goes in the main article. But we still cover claims "...that a bunch of people think they're the secret rulers of the world". And "self-sourced" does not mean what you think it does on Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Jayanti Tamm was in the center from birth till well she was 25, and she wrote a book on it, that was a NY Times best seller. These are facts. You can verify them. She wrote a books based on these facts. Why is this entry missing? --Kadjhgfkad

Photo from book (and "Criticism" section)

While I agree with (and have always fought for) the inclusion of the cited text with critical comments from followers, I think there are a number of problems with the Criticism section as it now stands. See WP:CSECTION. I think one main problem is the photo from Jayanti Tamm's book. That photo belongs in the article about the book (where it now also is) -- not in this article, where it creates far too much WP:UNDUE emphasis, undue weight, and is far too prejudicial in my opinion. I can think of no other biographical article on Wikipedia, of a person living or dead, where a photo (especially one from a book devoted to criticizing the person) is used that reflects such a critical weight. I think therefore having this photo in the article violates NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and possibly several other policies. I vote that it be removed from this article and kept solely on the article about the book (which is already discussed and wikilinked on this article). Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Since no one has opined otherwise, or objected, I'm going to go ahead and remove the prejudicial photo which is from a book critical of this article's subject, per the Wikipedia policies mentioned above. The photo is already on the article about the book. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, per WP:CSECTION, there shouldn't even be a section devoted solely to criticism or controversy, so I factored the material into the rest of the article (none of it was deleted). The Tamm paragraph sticks out a little and could possibly be moved later on if a section on Chinmoy's teachings gets longer and expanded more to include more details on things like chastity and vegetarianism, etc. (but right now the Teachings section doesn't really have an appropriate place for the Tamm material, because the subsections are too short). Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between an essay and a policy? You do see that big header on WP:CSECTION right? Here, I'll get it for you: "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints.". Why did you then say its a "policy"? In your edits you've basically censored information and toned the criticism down in trying to make the subject of the article look better. Why did Jayanti Tamm's picture make the article more prejudicial? Does everything in an article have to be positive? You're the one who violated NPOV because now everything looks too positive when it is obvious that the subject of this article is anything but. But I wont fight against it as there are more important things to do. This is similar to a previous attempt by another user to take out the picture. That picture was supposed to send a message that there's strong criticism that exists about Sri Chinmoy and there were other supporting criticisms in the Criticism section which have now been scattered here so they are less visible now.

Further, why have you removed the following referenced information?

Musician Carlos Santana was a known follower of Sri Chinmoy. He said, "Without a guru I serve only my own vanity, but with him I can be of service to you and everybody. I am the strings, but he is the musician. Guru has graduated from the Harvards of consciousness and sits at the feet of God."[75] Santana later told Rolling Stone magazine that when he parted ways with Chinmoy in 1982, the guru was "vindictive" and "told all my friends not to call me ever again, because I was to drown in a dark sea of ignorance for leaving him". Santana added, "It was a good learning experience."[75]

Next time dont attempt to pass off essays as policies. One of your interests on your user page is proof reading but I dont think it should be listed there because you completely missed reading an obvious header on that essay page. --Demetrioscz (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Demetrioscz, thanks for participating in this discussion. Here is Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which goes into detail about segregating material off into POV sections: WP:NPOV. Other than the photograph from the book, nothing has been removed from the article -- it has simply been moved to the appropriate section of the article rather than having an POV "Criticism" section. You can use Control F to find the Santana material, if you can't readily find it. Softlavender (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see the text now. Criticism sections are not POV (that was my point). CSECTION is an essay and not a policy so you cannot cite it as policy. But ok, the only thing I cared about more was the picture and I'm not in the mood to argue over it so that is that. --Demetrioscz (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sri Chinmoy is a controversial figure. Why is there no section reflecting this? I cannot see any mention of the Jayanti Tamm book, "Cartwheels in a sari", nor any mention of the numerous sexual allegations that have been made by a number of Chinmoys female followers. Does this not warrant mention? As it stands this entry is nothing more than a puff piece. Who is moderating and editing this page? --Kadjhgfkad

If you'll use Control F and insert the words you are seeking, you can find all that info, cited with reliable sources, and stated and placed in a neutral point of view, in the article. It's towards the bottom of the section called "Move to the United States". Softlavender (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You need to read the article more carefully. The Tamm book gets almost a full paragraph. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversy

Why is there no controversy section? There are 4 sentences on Jayanti Tamm, and that's it. Sheez not the only critic the heap of scum picked up. Also it's loaded that the page is headed "Sri Chinmoy" with "Chinmoy Ghose" pointing to it; it should be the other way round. This article isn't encyclopaedic, it's hagiographic. Let's get the POV shtick out of it. Froggo Zijgeb (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Froggo. In terms of your first question, see [1]. In terms of your second question, see WP:COMMONNAME. Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

tone and neutrality

Wow -- I really have just the barest information about Sri Chinmoy, but all of it makes it abundantly clear that he is a cult leader figure who exercised psychological control over his follwers. I'm pretty shocked that this Wikipedia entry is not more neutral - in fact, to even achieve neutral it would have to be more critical. There are abundant resources online and in the press that indicate that he isn't just some peace-loving meditation leader. This is a big Wikipedia fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.211.221 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard about this guru before, I think, and I have no opinion or preconceptions, but the article had clear pov issues and has obviously primarily been controlled by "followers". I have so far just tried to arrange the referenced content in an encyclopedic and neutral fashion.

One problem were the allegedly "official" sites listed under external links. "Official" of what? The man is dead and has no homepage he could control himself. If there is an actual organisation or trust which officially represents him or his legacy, there is no record of the fact in the article. There appear to be "Sri Cinmoy Centres" worldwide which continue to exist, but it is entirely unclear if or how they are incorporated. The article badly needs information about the structure and estimated number of his followers today.

Regarding what he should be cited as being "best known for" in the lead, a glance at the obituaries makes clear that this is his unique approach of advocating extreme athleticism as a path to inner peace. He is the "ultramarathon" guru. His drawings and music, and even his 1970s musician (former) followers by now come a clear second to that in terms of notability. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If User:Softlavender could take a minute to review the edits I have made before knee-jerk reverting and then perhaps even comment here on what he thinks might be the problem, that would certainly be helpful. --dab (𒁳) 09:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you have never heard of Chinmoy before makes it completely impossible for you to assert what he is or was best known for. Nor can a cursory glance at obituaries determine that. Making the lead overlong and inaccurate does not make the article more neutral. If something in the article appears non-neutral to you, then bring the issue to the Talk page rather than deleting it without explanation. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you supposing I have deleted? I edited the lead, for the thing he was most notable for. I don't need to be an expert for that. We are supposed to base content on secondary sources, remember?

I will tell you what makes the article non-neutral: "A prolific author, artist, poet, and musician as well". This is complete nonsense. He liked to draw birds. This doesn't make him "a prolific artist". I cannot judge on his music, but it is clear that he is not known as a musician. He is known about the guru who lifted celebrities. He also had hobbies, which apparently included poetry, drawing and music.

you also restored the "vegetarian" footer. What? are we supposed to slap this on any article that mentions vegatarianism now? "He asked his followers to follow a vegetarian diet" is the full extent of the impact on this article on the topic of vegetarianism. What is the deal here, are you some kind of "follower" of Chinmoy, or why would you restore the hand-waving and needlessly fawning content? --dab (𒁳) 09:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh I think I get what "removed content" you are talking about.

though followers who were married at the time they joined are allowed an exemption from celibacy

Conveniently unreferenced. The actual source has this:

I tell those are married, "Don't try to become celibate overnight. My philosophy is, 'slow and steady wins the race.' Slowly, steadily and unerringly."

so, he is "compassionately" allowing for the possibility that married meat-eaters cannot become celibate vegetarians over night, so he is telling them to take it slowly, obviuosly still with the aim of getting them to become celibate vegetarians. Nothing in this amounts to "allowed an exemption from celibacy". He isn't forcing anyone to become celibate, so you cannot say he "allows" people an "exemption". He is just making clear that this is what they have to aspire to if they want to be in his club. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note to new editor

Please see WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Primary sources (such as legal documents) cannot be used in Wikipedia to make statements of inference or original research. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"Criticism" section"

From WP:CSECTION: "Alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments". In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." Note also that articles about religious philosophies are specifically excepted from the general principle, for obvious reasons. Can someone give me a reason not to make this article easier to navigate for people who come to it looking for the controversial bits?Pokey5945 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"easier to navigate for people who come to it looking for the controversial bits?" Well, right there you've demonstrated exactly what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is for balanced neutral cited factual information presented in a balanced neutral cited manner. Please see the thread above. If you'd like to start a Reception section, we can gather all the plaudits and critiques together, but having a section heading solely for criticisms violates WP:NPOV. Softlavender (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Curiously, you omitted the opening sentence, "Articles on artists and works by artists often include material describing the opinions of critics, peers, and reviewers." (emphasis mine) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And Chinmoy is a person, not a worldview, philosophy, or religious topic. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If the current passage does not violate NPOV, then how does giving it its own heading violate NPOV? And please answer my question: Why should we hide the critique and make it harder to find? A heading makes it easier to find. I'm not married to any specific heading. Perhaps "Allegations of sexual abuse" would be more specific. Pokey5945 (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Asked and answered, Pokey. Read everything that has been written in this thread and the referred-to texts. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I have read it all. No one has commented on my suggestion for a "Allegations of sexual abuse" section. I would also note that there is significant support on this talk page for a segregated criticism section, which can be renamed to conform to the relevant texts cited above.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You have presented no valid argument as to why we should go against best practices. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't advocated going against best practices. I've advocated making the article easier to navigate, using the established header naming conventions.Pokey5945 (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Using "Criticism" (or a synonym) is not an encouraged convention, despite your attempt at twisting WP:CSECTION. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"I've advocated making the article easier to navigate, using the established header naming conventions." Those aren't established naming conventions, as we've repeatedly shown. Read Wikipedia Is Not A Soapbox and WP:CSECTION. Again if you want to start a Reception section, we can gather all the plaudits and critiques together, but having a section heading solely for criticisms violates WP:NPOV. This has been covered here in this thread and also discussed repeatedly on this Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I quoted WP:CSECTION in my initial post above. Perhaps you should read it. And again, no one has commented on my suggestion for a "Allegations of sexual abuse" section.Pokey5945 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You misquoted it, as Neil and I pointed out. Please read Wikipedia Is Not A Soapbox, and read WP:NPOV, and re-read WP:CSECTION. Again if you want to start a Reception section, we can gather all the plaudits and critiques together, but having a section heading solely for criticisms violates WP:NPOV. This has been covered repeatedly here in this thread and also discussed repeatedly elsewhere on this Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As an experienced editor you should know that every page in the format of "WP:XYZ" is not necesarily a policy. WP:CSECTION is clearly marked as an essay created and edited by some editors and is not a Wikipedia guideline that articles must adhere to. The essay header also says "Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.". So what you are suggesting could be a minority viewpoint and again is definitely not an official Wikipedia guideline or policy so you should stop linking to it. --Demetrioscz (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that you are a less-than-experienced editor, focused on the controversy section of this article, you might like to know WP:CSECTION does "represent widespread norms" and there's no reason to stop linking to it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Demetrioscz, you have already been answered on this subject, far up above in another thread. I will repeat my answer: Here is Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which goes into detail about segregating material off into POV sections: WP:NPOV. Softlavender (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN, no, it represents a "only a minority viewpoint" (as per Wikipedia:CSECTION). --Demetrioscz (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Demetrioscz, you have already been answered on this subject, far up above in another thread. I will repeat my answer: Here is Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which goes into detail about segregating material off into POV sections: WP:NPOV. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me if I discount the assertion of an editor who has 134 edits. Or decline to take advice on NPOV from someone who posts this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

New York Post

Is the edit from 27.2 relevant for the article ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Chinmoy&diff=649108847&oldid=645625564

The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review opined that "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Criticism
--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My own personal policy is never to use the NY Post for a citation. It's pretty much a tabloid like The National Enquirer or worse. The article used as a ref is a scandal-mongering sensationalistic hit piece, not reliable objective journalism. I recall this claim was in this Sri Chinmoy article a few years ago, but got deleted by someone, probably for cause. My view is that unless the claim can be found in some reliable objective source, then it should go. In any case, it's absurd for it to be a paragraph all by itself; if it is kept it should go into the paragraph above. The fact that the item was added by a drive-by IP with only one other edit lends further doubt as to whether this should even stay. Softlavender (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I found only one critical blog and two critical privat website to the NYP. With the search terms: Sri Chinmoy Alex Zwarenstein weightlifting. This should happen in 1989. To the New York Post in germany gives the Bild. Think in a few day i reverted edit. --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sri Chinmoy: A Distinguished Indian-American

I have the greatest respect for America, India, Bangladesh, and Sri Chinmoy. The purpose of my comment here is to clarify that the correct designation for Sri Chinmoy is "Indian-American." However, some Wikipedia sub-articles (e.g. births and deaths) refer to him as a Bangladeshi-American.

Sri Chinmoy was born in 1931 in Shakpura village, Chittagong, which was then part of Bengal, India. In 1943, after the death of both parents, Sri Chinmoy joined his siblings at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry, India where he resided from 1943-1964. From 1964 until his death in 2007 he lived in the U.S., where his body remains. He enjoyed dual citizenship: Indian and American.

It would be observed that Sri Chinmoy lived the better part of his life (43 years) in America. Of the 33 years he lived on the Indian sub-continent, 21 of those years were spent at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry, India. Only his first 12 years were spent in historical Bengal, prior to the time when Chittagong became part of East Pakistan (in 1947), and prior to the coming into existence of the independent nation of Bangladesh (in 1971), by which time Sri Chinmoy had already been living in America for seven years. At no time did Sri Chinmoy reside in the modern nation of Bangladesh, though he did help channel humanitarian aid to Bangladesh, and also worked with Bangladeshi singer Rezwana Choudhury Bannya toward the cultural enrichment of Bangladesh.

Sri Chinmoy enjoyed warm friendship with Bangladesh and with the Bangladeshi community in America, but it's clear from his writings and interviews that his own upbringing, education and identification connect him with "Mother India." See, for example, his books Mother India's Lighthouse, India and Her Miracle-Feast (series), and his commentaries on the Upanishads, the Vedas, and the Bhagavad-Gita.

Sri Chinmoy often referred to himself in published talks and songs as having an "Indian heart." One of the songs from his collection India, My India begins:

"Australia, do have my Indian heart! Therein abides the Vedic vision-start."

(Source: http://www.srichinmoysongs.com/song/view/australia-do-have-my-indian-heart/2749/?book=142 )

There is a universal quality to Sri Chinmoy's teachings. He was a citizen of the world, and many nations on which he showered his spiritual blessings may rightly claim him as their own. In a 1991 interview with the TASS news agency, he stated:

"I am an Indian; I come from Bengal. But for me there is only one country, and that country is the country of our heart. In my heart-country, you are there, she is there, everybody is there -- each and every human being. When I say you are my brother, I mean it. When I say she is my sister, I mean it. The heart is oneness. The mind is division. As soon as I think of you, my mind tells me that you come from another country. But in my heart you are absolutely, inseparably one with me." (Source: Sri Chinmoy Answers, Part 18, Agni Press, 1999.)

Nevertheless, when it's a question of which short biographical designation to use, "Indian-American" is correct.

There is sometimes a subtle tension between political correctness and personal biography. Here I feel we must respect Sri Chinmoy's own biography, and the facts which undergird it. Fencingchamp (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Salon article?

I was a little puzzled by the 2014 Salon article when I first read it, because of (A) its blatantly false and inflammatory title ("accused sex criminal", later changed to "alleged sex criminal" which is still not supported by the article as no crimes are alleged in the article), (B) a reader comment which rebuts the article's narrative of Ketan Tamm dying of AIDS at the Chinmoy Centre because he was supposedly deprived of medical treatment, and (C) all of the inflammatory innuendo and grossly inapt analogies for no particular good reason. Coincidently about eight months ago I saw an opinion on an intellectual forum that Salon has gone way downhill in the last few years.

Interestingly, a rebuttal of the Salon article has been published by someone named Michael Howard on his blog Ethics and Spirituality. It's a long investigative article that states that the story referred to in the Salon article was originally posted on the internet in 2009 under the name of literary agent Elizabeth Kracht, a disaffected former Chinmoy follower and childhood and post-2008 friend of the woman named in the Salon article (Celia Corona-Doran, a devoted Chinmoy follower through 2008 who went bankrupt in 2009 and sued her former Chinmoy-follower employer for back wages). It also states that the Salon author, Edwin Lyngar, is not an investigative journalist but rather a writer who openly and publicly advocates yellow journalism. It states that the story was posted in Salon by Lyngar as a favor to his literary agent (Kracht) so she would find a publisher for his memoir Guy Parts. I'm just trying to summarize there -- the blog post, though it has long tangents, is pretty compelling -- it goes into detail, has links to most of the evidence, and also says "all documents available on request". A Google search reveals that the author is among other things a Chinmoy follower; still, his research is compelling and he compares the Salon article to the fraudulent Rolling Stone reportage on the alleged gang-rapes at UVA. The blog post is called "Can Salon Learn From Rolling Stone’s Mistakes?" Worth a read. Thoughts? Softlavender (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Lyngar is a blogger. Michael Howard is a blogger. It's not clear that Lyngar should be given preferential treatment, especially since he has a reputation for throwing out wild accusations like "PHIL ROBERTSON IS A RAPIST". Lyngar is certainly not NPOV on religion. See his "Crucifixion Porn and Easter" and note the pugnacious language/atheist decals.

At this point in its history, Salon.com may trigger the directive from on high against using tabloids as sources. At a minimum, one should check whether something appearing on Salon.com is a piece of investigative journalism, or a blog post stating inflammatory opinions. I would suggest removing the reference to the Edwin Lyngar blog post from the Sri Chinmoy article. But if people want to include it, then they should also include a link to the Michael Howard blog post on equal footing. It's more detailed and cites numerous reputable sources. Fencingchamp (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Taking this out because a Chinmoy follower and a commenter on the Salon articles says it isn't true seems like using more biased sources to justify removing another less biased one. I am going to add the Salon reference back in and if you think this other source should be included, perhaps you should add it--although I am not sure if a blog post by a follower is a good source or not. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I also note that the New Yorker cites the same salon article in a similar way as wikipedia (http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/spiritual-life-long-distance-runner). I believe the New Yorker is widely considered to have solid journalistic standards--so this seems to buttress the Wikipedia citation. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The main issue is whether the blog post by Edwin Lyngar fits the description of "tabloid" or "yellow" journalism, and therefore violates Wikipedia policy against using such material in biographies. The link provided by Softlavender gives ample, verifiable evidence that such is the case, regardless of authorship. It's not necessary to take the word of a "Chinmoy follower," but simply examine the documentation, which is rich in reputable sources (e.g. The New York Times).

In addition, the links (in this Talk section) to other Edwin Lyngar blog posts which are crude, sensationalistic, and make wild charges confirm that he's not a reliable source for biographies of spiritual figures. His modus operandi is claiming that someone committed sexual crimes when there isn't any such complaint.

A sub-issue is: Who are reputable sources on Hindu teachers and philosophy? Usually, they're people who've studied the subject. While atheists or anti-cult activists may have some small role to play, encyclopedia articles on spiritual figures generally need to focus on factual biographical info, and accurate descriptions of teachings and philosophy. The Sri Chinmoy article already contains too many gratuitous swipes unsupported by fact, or based on dubious sources.

The anti-cult POV is already well-represented in articles on Jayanti Tamm, International Cultic Studies Association, and numerous other anti-cult groups or individuals by name. It's not necessary to add the same type of boilerplate anti-cult objections to every single article about an Indian guru. Print encyclopedias don't follow this biased practice, and neither should Wikipedia editors.

The question of whether to remove reference to the Edwin Lyngar blog post was left open in Talk for 3 months, and no one disagreed with removing it. RV Fencingchamp (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

They write about crime think it gives no court rulings or investigation from the police. The oppossite from 1994 gives a german judgment not to allow the Sri Chinmoy Group in a sect brochure. I think writer of this article have much fantasy and should rather not stand in a the Wikipedia.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

A few reactions. quoting salon.com as saying something seems to be generally accepted as a reasonable thing to do here on wikipedia (e.g. see [[2]], [[3]]. I don't think we should be trying to adjuticate the particulars of the truth of this matter, per WP:NOR. The quote says "inappropriate sexual conduct" it does not say criminal. If there are other reliable sources which contradict this, than let's add them in as well--but I don't think we can remove a source which is generally considered to be reliable based on our own original research. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Titel: The media’s love affair with accused sex criminal Sri Chinmoy --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course--but my point is that we are not quoting the title in the article, but a particular passage from it. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

To the content from a follower: False Salon Story: What was said at the time / Collecting good rebuttals to bad journalism

https://ethicsandspirituality.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/false-salon-story-what-was-said/ --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the Salon article's title, URL ("accused_sex_criminal"), and content, its takeaway is unmistakable. For WP editors to soft-soap its content as a pretext for including it seems disingenuous. Such mislabeling would be like linking to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a notorious anti-Semitic work) and claiming it's only "an alternate history of Judaism." Things are what they are. If a particular text is awash in hateful stereotypes and makes claims which are unsupported by the historical record -- claims which are contradicted by more reputable sources -- then it should not be used.

Broad WP policies necessarily yield to more specific WP policies. If a particular text comes under fire as biased and inaccurate, we need to look at the text itself and compare it to reputable texts on the same subject in order to gain perspective. This does not require original research, merely judicious selection of source material.

In addition, if the WP article is on an academic subject (e.g. world religion, Hinduism), then we need to assess the tone and style of the source material. If it broadly conforms to the definition of tabloid journalism or yellow journalism, then it should not be used for a WP article on an academic subject -- particularly if it contains non-neutral language likely to offend minorities.

Simply claiming that the parent publisher is "generally reliable" is no substitute for the careful selection process outlined above. Some publications contain a mix of material and don't clearly label their op-eds. Where questions arise, it helps to distinguish between investigative pieces by respected full-time journalists, and rants by part-time bloggers with few journalism creds.

Given recent changes there, it's not clear that Salon.com is still "generally reliable," but even if it is, that doesn't address the specific claim that blogger Edwin Lyngar is not reliable. Lyngar's day job is as a Boating Safety Instructor with the Nevada Dept. of Wildlife. He contributes about one blog post a month to Salon, and has a history of making wild charges and indulging in tabloid-style rhetoric, particularly on the subject of religion. See these blog posts by Lyngar:

"PHIL ROBERTSON IS A RAPIST"

"Crucifixion Porn and Easter"

"The Angry Right's Secret Playbook"

Atheists have as much right to sound off as anyone, and where Lyngar advocates "playing dirty," "rhetorical bomb throwing," and putting out "really crazy stuff ... even if you only half believe it," he may be tapping into a certain market. But WP policy incorporates the principle that you don't use the Socialist Worker as a reliable source that George W. Bush is gay, and you don't use WorldNetDaily as a reliable source that Barack Obama is Muslim. Similarly, after reading Lyngar's posts awash in pugnacious language and atheist decals, you don't use Lyngar as a reliable source that Sri Chinmoy is an "accused sex criminal" -- especially if this contradicts numerous articles in The New York Times and in reference encyclopedias. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

To suggest that editors must either treat Lyngar as a reliable source or commit the sin of original research is a false dichotomy. Editors routinely examine a number of sources in order to grasp the subject matter and gauge reliability. The New York Times has been covering Sri Chinmoy and Sri Chinmoy Centre since 1971 ("Many at U.N. Find Guru's Message Brings Peace"). There's nothing in their coverage suggesting that Sri Chinmoy or Sri Chinmoy Centre have ever been involved in criminal activity. To the contrary, their 2003 piece "Jamaica Hills a Tranquil Haven" states: "In the last decade, followers of Sri Chinmoy, an Indian spiritual leader who lives in neighboring Briarwood, have moved in. Residents say sect members are good neighbors because they are quiet and law-abiding. In general, residents say, crime is not a concern here[.]"

That view is echoed in a number of local Queens papers, such as this 2010 article in the TimesLedger. It includes quotes from Community Board 8 Chairman Steve Konigsberg and City Councilman Jim Gennaro (D-Fresh Meadows), who praise Sri Chinmoy Centre for cleaning up an area which the city had abandoned, turning it into a "utopia," and protecting it from illegal dumping and drug activity. The article states that the Community Board unanimously passed a resolution to de-map Glenn Avenue in Jamaica Hill so that the Centre could purchase the land.

Since Sri Chinmoy was a well-known teacher of meditation and yoga, there are entries on him in many encyclopedias and handbooks of religion, such as the following:

Encyclopedia of Hinduism

Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism

Columbia Encyclopedia

U.S. Army Handbook for Chaplains

These articles are broadly consistent with each other, and with The New York Times coverage, indicating no criminality. These articles use neutral language, and don't attempt to demonize or otherize Sri Chinmoy or his followers.

Moreover, in the 20 months since the Lyngar blog post (which appears to be an outlier), no news organization has been able to corroborate Lyngar's claims or to locate any criminal complaint against Sri Chinmoy or Sri Chinmoy Centre.

Of course one can't prove a negative, but Journalism 101 states that you don't claim a person is an accused sex criminal or that an organization committed crimes unless there's a criminal complaint. There are legal issues at bar, because while Sri Chinmoy is deceased, the nonprofit organization he founded, Sri Chinmoy Centre, is alive and active. The link provided by Richard Reinhardt (above) includes these quotes:

"The [Salon] article falsely and recklessly refers to Sri Chinmoy as an 'accused sex criminal,' notwithstanding the total lack of any complaint to that effect filed anywhere at any time in any jurisdiction with any body having relevant authority." -- Dr. Kusumita P. Pedersen, Professor of Religion, St. Francis College, and Co-Chair, The Interfaith Center of New York.

"I am an attorney and am writing you concerning a defamatory article originally published by Salon on May 9, 2014 entitled 'The media’s love affair with accused sex criminal Chinmoy' (the 'Article'). This letter constitutes a formal request to retract and remove the Article, together with any associated URLs. ... [T]he Article’s headline and associated URLs state that Sri Chinmoy was an 'accused sex criminal' or 'alleged sex criminal,' and the Article repeatedly states that Sri Chinmoy and the Centre were involved in 'crimes.' These statements are undeniably false, defamatory and malicious and, under New York law, are libel *per se*. ... Given that he was a world figure, Sri Chinmoy occasionally faced baseless and defamatory allegations. He did, in fact, categorically deny such allegations during his lifetime. Those who work to preserve his memory, and the Centre he founded, will continue to deny them, including through legal action. -- Karen M. Asner, Asner Law LLC.

That the Salon piece generated such complaints is relevant to gauging its accuracy and appropriateness for inclusion in an encyclopedia article on an academic subject.

While opinions about Sri Chinmoy and Sri Chinmoy Centre may differ among reasonable people, it was the late Senator Pat Moynihan who famously said that "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.". The facts don't support Edwin Lyngar's claims of criminality. Those predisposed to make the Sri Chinmoy article read negatively are pushing things beyond the breaking point, and damaging Wikipedia's reputation in the process.

There's frequent criticism that people use WP policies in a manner which defies common sense and undermines the purpose of the policies, which is to ensure that Wikipedia articles are fair and accurate, even when (or perhaps especially when) dealing with ethnic and religious minorities.

I'm willing to assume that the Salon material was originally added in good faith. However, the past three months of discussion have shown that it's simply not supported by facts, but is rather contradicted by reputable sources, e.g. The New York Times, the TimesLedger, and reference encyclopedias. In addition, a fair-minded analysis of the tone and style of the Salon piece indicates that it squarely fits the definition of tabloid journalism or yellow journalism. I would therefore ask fellow editors to kindly stop re-adding it.

Given the nature of the assault on Sri Chinmoy's character, it's relevant to examine material which speaks to his good reputation, such as this July 2006 "Tribute To Sri Chinmoy" by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D) printed in the Congressional Record and chronicling Sri Chinmoy's accomplishments. Mr. Ackerman's own WP entry indicates that from 1983-2013 he was the congressman whose district included Jamaica, Queens, and that he previously founded the Queens Tribune. He is a respected community leader with extensive knowledge of the Queens neighborhood where Sri Chinmoy Centre is headquartered. His unalloyed praise of Sri Chinmoy is testament to the good reputation which the latter earned in over 40 years of teaching and humanitarian activities. Fencingchamp (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Much of this still strikes me as original research--something which should not be playing a role here on wikipedia. If there are reliable sources which clearly discredit this source than they should be included and make this point. If not, than I think the point needs to stay and am re-adding it in. The fact that other sources don't list this allegation does not matter for whether we should list this in the wikipedia article. Please try to be more concise in your future replies on this topic. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Dan, my last comment spelled out more details in an effort to resolve the issues, which are about details. It's not original research to check whether unusual and potentially libelous claims made by a part-time blogger (Edwin Lyngar) have been corroborated by more reputable sources (they have not). Such checking will often be necessary when editing biographies. It's also not original research to carefully assess the tone and style of a piece. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives[.]"

WP policies concerning biographies of living persons also apply to some extent to existing groups. Suppose a fictional person named Bill Johnson is dead, but he left behind an organization, the Bill Johnson Foundation, which engages in charitable activities and relies on member contributions. If someone claims falsely that "Bill Johnson was a wife-beater and a heroin addict," this translates into a claim that "The Bill Johnson Foundation was started by a wife-beater and a heroin addict." That's why WP policy insists on multiple high-quality sources for claims which are unusual and may libel an existing group.

Contrary to what you implied, a careful reading of Wikipedia's Reliable Sources Noticeboard shows that material published on Salon.com varies in reliability. When in doubt, editors are encouraged to consider factors such as authorship and tone. "[Blogs] may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." (How would one know if the writer's a professional unless one checks?)

My prior comment was lengthened by inclusion of links to reliable sources on Sri Chinmoy, such as articles in encyclopedias of religion. I hoped to show by contrast in content and tone the difference between high-quality and low-quality sources. RV Fencingchamp (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Dan Eisenberg have again reverted edit with the comment: again. if you have reliable sources discrediting this, than add them to the article -> Presumption of innocence. Perhaps it is helpfull to contact a admin to decide this case.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The Salon article is backed up by the blog http://abodeofyoga.blogspot.no/ written by a California based lawyer. Some older and a new post there shed light on the topic of the article. Vivvvvek (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." The truth is of such importance that the discussion of libel and slander are part of the Ten Commandments themselves. As the above comments state, there have never been any allegations against Sri Chinmoy in any court of law. That alone should give those concerned with the truth some pause, before accepting accusations about him.

In 2007, Sri Chinmoy was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev!!!

Sri Chinmoy conducted meditations at the United Nations for about 30 years and at the US Congress for about 20 years!!!

Cult leaders do not get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Cult leaders do not get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by, among others, an archbishop of the Catholic Church!

Having conducted meditations at the UN for decades and the US Congress for decades means Sri Chinmoy was cleared by the security personnel of both the UN and the US Congress!!!

Cult leaders do not get cleared to do so.

St. Francis of Assisi and St. John of the Cross was both originally considered heretics. The Buddhist Zen Master Hakuin was charged with fathering a child (until, a year later, the mother confessed to the truth). The Hindu Yogi Paramahansa Yogananda had a paternity suit filed against him. In the 1990's, DNA results proved the child was not his.

People out of desperate fears, love to spew venom and hatred at religious people. This has been going on since the dawn of time. But there is something called proof. There is no proof here. If the UN and the US Congress suspected that Sri Chinmoy was a sexual predator, do you think they would have let him in their halls for decades? So, apparently, the professionals who protect the UN dignitaries and the US Congress, are so incompetent, that they would let a sex criminal in their halls? So, they are the ones who are wrong, not the accusers? They have a documented history of their professional work in security, in assessing potential risk. They cleared him. An archbishop of the Catholic Church nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize! There are a litany of prominent people who have only praise for him. But all of them are wrong and the accusers are right? Muhammad Ali, Leonard Bernstein, a US Congressman, Princess Diana, Nelson Mandela and hundreds of others are wrong and these accusers are right? Listening to these accusers is like listening to the Klan talk about Jews. It's ridiculous and sickening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki9898zzz (talk • contribs) 06:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Minor Edit to Meditation Section

Hello :) I have just made a minor edit to the second paragraph of the Meditation section of this article. The reference cited for the original edit of this paragraph is reference number [59] p 145- p 163 of Sri Chinmoy's 'Meditation (Man-Perfection in God-Satisfaction)' book. I have thoroughly read all pages from 145-163, and there is no mention at all of Sri Chinmoy requesting his disciples to meditate daily at 6am. However on p 151 of the same book, Sri Chinmoy writes in the last paragraph on that page that "If possible you should try to meditate before seven o'clock." I have adjusted the paragraph accordingly. Thank you. TrainGem (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello :) I have adjusted the line in the second paragraph of the meditation section of the article that previously read: ‘Reading Chinmoy’s writings, singing his songs and performing dedicated service were also considered forms of meditation for his disciples. ‘ I have read thoroughly the pages 145-163 of Sri Chinmoy’s 'Meditation (Man-Perfection in God-Satisfaction) book which is reference [59] and there is no mention at all of performing devoted service as a form of meditation. There are two brief mentions of reading spiritual writings and singing soulful songs through these referenced pages, one half way through page 154 – which refers to these activities as a good preparation for meditation, and another at the top of page 158 which refers to singing and reading as ways to stay in a meditative mood after meditation practise for a beginner who is not ready to lengthen their practise time further yet. I have adjusted the line to read more accurately to the reference given. Thank you. TrainGem (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Meditation Section - Paragraph One

Hello with regards to the first paragraph of the meditation section of this article, I have thoroughly read the pages 222-224 of reference [58] from Sri Chinmoy’s ‘Meditation’ book and have found no mention of what is explained over three lines or so in that paragraph about the “Transcendental black and white photograph” being a focus of meetings. The word “transcendental” does not appear at all in the reference [58] nor in that entire chapter or anything about ‘meetings’ or the ‘focus of meetings’. There is also no mention of the described “Transcendental black and white photograph” in reference [57] either which leads into the subject. I have edited those three lines then to be more in alignment with the subject matter appropriate for the section of Sri Chinmoy’s teachings about meditation. I have used the same book as a reference.

The only line in paragraph one that is accurate with reference [58] is the last line of the paragraph - "Chinmoy advised his disciples when meditating on his picture to feel that they are entering into their own highest part, that the picture does not represent a human being, but a state of consciousness". However as I am sure is understandable to editors, this line left on its own at that point in the article without any supporting paragraphs to explain the purpose or technique of using Sri Chinmoy’s picture for meditation is not easily understood. So for now I have edited that line out. TrainGem (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello I have edited the first line of the meditation section that previously read… ‘At bi-weekly formal meditations, the men wear white clothing, while the women wear colourful Indian saris’. – this line is taken from reference [57]. On closely reading this reference (which is column one, on page 30 of a United Nations ‘Religion and Public Policy at the UN’ publication-article in 2002), the mention of men wearing white clothing and women wearing saris is in a paragraph from a ‘researcher’ whom on a one-off occasion, attended one of the Sri Chinmoy Groups ‘Peace Meditation at the United Nation’ Sessions and observed that most of the women were wearing saris and the men were wearing white pants and shirts. The original first line (quoted above) of the meditation section, taken from this reference [57], could therefore be misleading the reader to understand that those clothing items are what is worn currently by attendees at all types of meditation occasions and sessions sponsored by the Sri Chinmoy Group/Centre around the world rather than just the one United Nations session that a researcher attended, so possibly the line needs to be clarified and more accurate by saying that:

‘At bi-weekly formal meditations at the United Nations headquarters, it was observed by a researcher in 2002 attending one of the meditation sessions that the men were wearing white clothing, while the women wore colourful Indian saris’:

The line would then be accurate to reference [57] but would obviously not really be an appropriate line to start off the topic of the meditation section of this article about Sri Chinmoy’s teachings on meditation so I have removed the line for now so that the meditation section stays true to the actual meditation teachings of Sri Chinmoy. However if that observation about saris and white clothing from reference [57] is thought to be important for this article then I would suggest that it needs to be in the United Nations section of this article not the meditation section, where there is more explanation specifically about the bi-weekly meditation sessions at the United Nations. TrainGem (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Move to the United States Section - Biography

Hi everyone. I have recently edited the move to the United States section of the Biography section of the article by adding a paragraph about Sri Chinmoy's university lectures. I noticed in doing so that the overall section of 'move to the United States' in the Biography is over 50% (5 paragraphs at least) referenced reports of 3 peoples varying experiences whom have followed Sri Chinmoy at sometime, rather than actually a flow about Sri Chinmoy's life or work which is usually what a good biography section is focused on.

I feel there needs to be two different separate sections for what is being currently represented in the 'move to the United States' part of the article, so that the Biography has a continuous flow about Sri Chinmoys life and achievements in the US from 1964-2007, rather than intercepted and intercut by 3 peoples differing reports which does not render well in the true style of a biography.

Possibly the 'move to the United States' section could be retitled 'Life and work in the United States' which would be a lot more accurate in terms of Sri Chinmoy's life, as his moving to the United States only really encapsulates the years 1964-1965 or so, rather than all of the years right through to his death in 2007. The other 5 paragraphs of the 3 peoples reports about Sri Chinmoy possibly could render and flow together better in another separate section in the article entitled as a suggestion: 'Those that knew Sri Chinmoy' rather than being in the biography. Any thoughts or feedback? TrainGem (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I personally disagree: I think the article and sections are fine as they are now. "Move to the United States" just means everything he did in his life after he left India. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Note to new editor

TrainGem, please stop adding text that is cited to anything by Chinmoy or the Chinmoy Centers and such. If you want to add information, it needs to be from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Furthermore, you are a single-purpose account, and all you have done on Wikipedia is to add promotional text to this article. It is clear you are a Chinmoy follower and therefore have a conflict of interest. All of these things prevent you from being an unbiased editor, and you need to be very careful or you could be blocked or topic-banned if you persist in adding these puffery claims to the article. Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello softlavender. Firstly I am not a follower of Sri Chinmoy at all and never have been so where has that assumption come from? I do admire Chinmoy's work, writings and life, that is true but a follower no thank you! This article and many other Wikipedia articles cite actual authors published books and official websites which could and often be the only sources of information available on a topic. For example: in this article, references 9 through to 19 are all from Sri Chinmoy's books and websites, that is 10 references alone and there are many more obviously. The references I have provided in my last two simple edits are also from Sri Chinmoy's published books and websites so I cannot see why they would all of sudden be rejected or deleted simply on a assumption of me being a 'follower' of Sri Chinmoy. That is simply ridiculous!!

If a so called 'puffery' claim which is actually a fact, is in a published reference then possibly it is simply true not promotional. I am not here to promote Sri Chinmoy or his achievements but have noticed as an academic that there are simply many aspects of his life missing in this article. I would ask that you check with someone first if they are a follower before assuming that they are as that is quite offensive! Thank you. TrainGem (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If you are not a follower, then I'm sure you will be happy to move on to editing other subjects on Wikipedia instead of this one. Your editing here is becoming tendentious and problematic. I'm giving you this advice before a formal report needs to be filed. Please find neutral, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Softlavender (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes softlavender I do have a strong interest in other Wikipedia articles primarily the Karma Yoga article and the Jnana Yoga articles that I am working on new edits for currently so yes I do have an interest in topics of Yoga and spirituality. If you have to know I am a Yoga teacher and Hindu academic. I have never met Sri Chinmoy before and have no conflict of interest in 'promoting' but have come across his writings and so forth as I am sure most people interested in Yoga and Hinduism have. Thank you. TrainGem (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB; exceptional claims; citations that do not confirm

Epson Salts, you are in error about the use of self-published sources, particularly when used to substantiate exceptional claims. The material you replaced makes exceptional claims ("Chinmoy played on 15-20 instruments at time") that are not even substantiated in the given self-published citation itself: [4]. Neither are two other of the claims in that paragraph substantiated in the citation: "Peace Concerts" (not mentioned); "the first one being in Germany attended by 8000 people" (not mentioned). All of those unsubstantiated statements need to be removed from the article. Softlavender (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

One of the statements you removed (and which I restored) was "During the 1970s Chinmoy began playing and composing on the flute and esraj" . There is nothing remotely exceptional about that claim, and a self-publsihed source is just fine for it. Another statement you removed (regarding he poetry) does not appear to be self-published at all. If you want to change your claimed reasons for the deletion of material from "it is self-published " to "it is not supported by the reference" I am open to doing that and selectively removing or trimming some of the statements, but you are edit warring on this page (indeed, have already violated the 3RR rule) , and need to stop. Epson Salts (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The following unsubstantiated claims need to be removed from the article: "Chinmoy played on 15-20 instruments at time"; "Peace Concerts"; "the first one being in Germany attended by 8000 people". Softlavender (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll remove them. Epson Salts (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Missed "Peace Concerts" -- should just be "concerts". Also, no indication that they were free -- that needs to be removed as well. Softlavender (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It is placed within quotes, indicating that's what he (or his organization) calls them, and its supported by the reference, so it can stay. Epson Salts (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Move to the United States Minor Edit

I have edited a few lines in the move to the United States section. The information in the lines that were in the article previously were not mentioned at all in reference (28) - the Rolling Stones Article about Santana's life. I have added instead information from that Rolling Stones article that are true to the reference about how Santana met Sri Chinmoy through John Mclaughlin.GrassRoots (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, in the future please explain that more fully in your edit summary, and avoid removing obvious statements of fact such as an album title and the name of McLaughlin's orchestra -- every fact in that paragraph does not have (or even necessarily need) a citation after it. I've replaced the deleted salient facts, removed the sentence you added (it's too promotional), and reworded and correctly cited the rest of that part of the paragraph. Softlavender (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi softlavender. Please can you explain why you would call something Carlos Santana described in an actual published magazine promotional? ie the line that you edited and cut down because you say it was so called promotional? Is it 'promotional' that Santana saw a photograph of McLaughlins (of Chinmoy) that he saw peace in? Is the quote that is currently in the article reference (30) promotional??... "Without a guru I serve only my own vanity, but with him I can be of service to you and everybody. I am the strings, but he is the musician. Guru has graduated from the Harvards of consciousness and sits at the feet of God." Please can you explain further? Thank you.GrassRoots (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's trivia/trivial and unencyclopedic. The Rolling Stone article contains 10 paragraphs and 725 words about Santana's relationship with Chinmoy. The wiki article must summarize and shorten that to only the relevant encyclopedic facts, and enfold them with the rest of the facts about Santana/McLaughlin from other sources. We don't repeat everything from every source; we only briefly summarize. Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Small Addition

Hello to all. I have just added an important line from reference(51) - (the Forbes book review), to the paragraph about Jayanti Tamm's book that balances the statements in this paragraph about the book and Tamms childhood perceptions. Tamm states also in her actual book 'Cartwheels in a sari" in the Authors Note at the very beginning of the book that her experience is not definitive of Chinmoy and others may have had very different experiences.GrassRoots (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, GrassRoots, that was a helpful and well-cited addition; I have moved it to the end of that Tamm section where it is more logical. Softlavender (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Note about removal of falsely referenced line.

Hey I have just removed a line from (reference 3) the paragraph in the latter part of Moving to the United States that used to read: ‘From the mid-1960s he lived among hundreds of his followers in Queens, New York City and ran a meditation center there.’ There is no mention at all in ref: 3 about Chinmoy ‘living among’ hundreds of followers in Queens, it only states that Chinmoy moved to New York City in 1964 and established a meditation centre there. The concept of Chinmoy living among followers is not stated at all in the article and is therefore falsely referenced.RabbitBucket (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This is correct information that can be verified by any number of sources. I have replaced it. Please do not remove it again. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi soft lavender, from the information I have researched it is obvious and clear that yes, Chinmoy lived in Queens, New York City and established a meditation center there. However 'living among' his followers suggests an ashram style of spiritual community which is not information that can be found anywhere about Chinmoy's organisation. Can you provide a reference that would say that Chinmoy and his followers somewhat lived on the same, land, property, or abode of any type because none of that information about 'living among' followers is in reference 3 at all. Thank you.RabbitBucket (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi soft lavender, I like your initial edit to change the line to Chinmoy living in his 'headquarters' in New York. However the remainder of the line that you rewrote to: 'surrounded by hundreds of his followers who moved to the area' is not information that is in reference 3 at all. Where did you read information about Chinmoy's followers moving into Queens to surround his house? I wouldnt mind reading about that actually. Don't you need to add that information reference in next to reference 3 if the line is to be accurate and factual? Thanks.RabbitBucket (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

New section - Controversy

Hi fellow editors, I have created a separate section called controversy, to separate the actual controversial paragraph of the article that was in the biography section, to its own section as that information is not biographical at all and not actually about Chinmoy’s life as such, so it is much more appropriate to have a different chapter of its own. All the information about the controversial stuff is still there and I have not edited anything out. This format of having a separate section for controversy works well in the following other Wikipedia people articles: Bikram Choudhury, Sathya Sai Baba and Eido Tai Shimano.Spinach444 (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Spinach444, I realize you are new and have no way of knowing this, but that's not appropriate and is against Wikipedia guidelines. Please see the first two threads in the following archive of this talk page: [5]. I am moving the material back into the body text. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Softlavender. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi softlavender, and thank you for letting me know and pointing me to the previous notes on the neutral point of view policy about segregating information off to be 'controversial' or 'critical' sections. As you can see I have seen this technique of creating controversial sections in quite a few other Wikipedia articles so I am not sure why that is allowed in those articles that I listed above plus quite a few others? I do feel that the paragraph that I recreated in a different section is not 'biographical' and is not about Chinmoy's life as such so could you comment on any of Wikipedias guidelines to do with unbiographical information weaved into a biograhy section? I feel that the paragraph is in the wrong place as it is mostly about someone elses (Jayanti Tamms) book about Chinmoy not about Chinmoy's life. I think there could be a better place for that paragraph. I am not arguing that it should be removed but just placed better. Please if you could comment that would be great and thank you once again.Spinach444 (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with softlavender on this. Nonetheless, you are probably right that there are better ways of organizing the article and you should feel free to suggest more specifics here and/or make changes boldly (although be prepared for others to disagree and undue your work--it's part of how this collaborative endeavor works). - Dan Eisenberg (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hinduism Today a reliable source?

This article is heavily dependent on the source Hinduism Today. Based on the wikipedia page for this source I have some concerns that this source may be more of an advocacy organization and should probably be used with caution and statements from it qualified at times. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Offhand, I haven't noticed anything controversial from it that wasn't appropriately qualified in the wiki article's statements. I see approximately four articles from the publication used as citations (some of them haven't yet been consolidated) out of well over 100 citations. Were there specifics that concern you? Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Do not revert other editors work without legitimate thought out stated reasons and proper discussions on talk page please.

Hello Softlavender and any other editors interested. Please do not revert other editors properly thought out edits without proper reasons stated in your edit change line and please follow Wikipedia guidelines and at least discuss the concepts on the Talk page. Thank you. Until a proper discussion is started with intelligence and dignity I will replace my previous edit. No-one is actually in charge of this article as such, so seeing as it is a public venture to edit - everyone has the right to edit. If you can provide a proper reason to revert someone elses edit then bother to type it rather than just reverting another editors edits (so arrogantly) without any reason stated and no discussion on the talk page. 123.100.82.186 (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't remove relevant cited information from reliable independent sources. It's that simple. Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No its not that simple. It is a question of content that is necessary versus unnecessary which is a collective agreement between interested editors about what is best for an article to read well. The 'Pix 11' news article line in the article contains exactly the same information as the previous line about the sexual allegations so there is an unnecessary repeat of information. If you do not agree then we need a third opinion or a Wikipedia administrator to overview the disagreement. 123.100.82.186 (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the sentence about the PIX 11 segments reports another, different, former follower who also alleged sexual misconduct. Two different followers, two different sources, two different sentences on Wikipedia, separated by a span of two years. It's not the same information at all. Any further attempts to remove the material will result in loss of the ability to edit the article. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

My reading is that, consistent with Softlavender this well sourced passage should remain and that this has already been extensively discussed. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)