Talk:Sri Chinmoy/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peace blossoms information

Hi Softlavender I think the information about peace blossoms programme that I just added to the article with 3 published news references that are from different countries is encyclopedia noteworthy and needs discussion on the talk page. The programme is internationally recognised by heads of state, Mayors and others who have chosen to put the plaques there.Maryanne881 (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Maryanne881 (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

None of those are mainstream news sources. Putting plaques with one's name in giant letters on various world sites is not encyclopedically noteworthy -- it's a form of self-promotion. Here is a mainstream news source that says one of those plaques was refused at the Statue of Liberty because it was felt that the Sri Chinmoy group was a cult: [1]. So no, I don't believe mention of these plaques should go in the article (unless we add that one was refused at the Statue of Liberty because of concerns the Sri Chinmoy group was a cult). Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure thing, that is a good point you have made so I will have a read of the article link you have provided about the Statue of Liberty. Thanks for your reply. Cheers.Maryanne881 (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Education topic.

Hi there Softlavender I just saw that the line about education has been reverted with a reason of not "true per se". What do you mean by that? During a quick search online just now I found another reference in one of Chinmoy's published books where he says "Studying is not an obstruction on the spiritual path". - Found on www.srichinmoylibrary.com I cetainly am not attempting "promotionalism" - isn't it just referenced information from a proper news source neither positive or negative? Maryanne881 (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Maryanne881 (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking a few words in a random article to attempt to make a ridiculously minor and unprovable point, which is clearly an attempt at POV. Please stop before you are banned from editing this article. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Photos of Chinmoy

It looks like the photos of Chinmoy may be incorrectly licensed on Commons. [2] If that's the case, either the Centre will have to change their license terms or we'll have to nominate them for deletion on Commons and upload the bare minimum here. --NeilN talk to me 02:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, good catch. If I were you I'd nominate them all for deletion due not having a license that Wikipedia can utilize. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Commons can't host them. Wikipedia can host a few under WP:NFCC. --NeilN talk to me 03:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
There are a few on Commons that are CC-SA-licensed: the ones that were taken and released by photographer Kedar Misani: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. NFCC doesn't apply because there are plenty of CC-SA photos of him available. I would remove all of the incorrectly licensed photos from this article and replace them with Misani's photos. Softlavender (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point. I should have thought of that. --NeilN talk to me 04:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, I've removed the ones on this article that are not CC-SA, and put in some CC-SA ones. Softlavender (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Then someone just now changed the licensing on that site. Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Apparently.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Should we reuse the previous images ? The discussion is finished and pictures were kept after changes.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Only ones that are properly licensed. The art images were/are not. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Recently there was discussion about art pictures.https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Art_from_Sri_Chinmoy --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
As long as each specific piece of art is either (1) Owned by the photographer. (2) Directly from the Sri Chimnoy website with a valid CC-SA license. Some of the ones in that overall Commons category are neither. Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Have pictures owner again contacted to solve this thing.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Updated license i insert pictures again in the article. Sorry about the circumstances. http://gallery.srichinmoycentre.org/jharna_kala/Selected-Jharna-Kala --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Picture is non neutral

The first picture at the top of the page is too hagiografic, too rich in light, non realistic, and therefore non neutral. If i look at this picture for more than 5 seconds, i am caught by the deep desire to become a sri chinmoy disciple, which is exactly the reason why he ordered the pictured to be manipulated by computer graphics with this purpose. There are also a lot of normal picutre of sri chinmoy, the fact that wikipedia uses puts this one at the top of the page is non neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.252.86.154 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Picture is "most valued image on Commons within the scope: Photographs of Sri Chinmoy" --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
It is standard to use a headshot of the individual for the infobox. If you would like to find another headshot on Wikimedia Commons, and get consensus to use that one instead, feel free. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Cartwheels in a sari paragraph

Hi there. Just noticing that the Cartwheels in a sari Wikipedia article is exactly the same paragraphs as the paragraphs in this article so is there any need according to Wikipedia standards to have all the same information here in this article when anyone wanting to read more can click the link? Could it be summarized better here in this article? Maryanne881 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason the two texts are similar is that the book article was gutted recently as a copyright violation, and so the text of that wiki article was replaced with wording from this article. What probably needs to happen is that the book article needs to be properly further expanded and cited to reliable sources, without copyright violation. We do not however omit pertinent material in a base article simply because it also occurs in a spin-off article (in this case, the book article). As to how much of the text in this article is pertinent, that has to be weighed by due weight. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Maryanne881 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Category Avatar

To the category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_considered_avatars_by_their_followers In the description from the category stand: who are considered to be avatars of a deity or higher being by their followers In the article is the word guru 17 fold used. The New York Times write : "Mr. Chinmoy is a spiritual guru" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/01/nyregion/they-re-not-heavy-they-re-his-people-72-year-old-sri-chinmoy-offers-uplift.html So need there additionally mentioned or cited in the article for the category.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

A category can only be added to an article if the facts claimed are cited and reliably third-party sourced in the article. Softlavender (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
From the article reference here are four sourced how used guru in the title or subtitle:

--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I try to add in the next time text with references. --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I have insert reference for category how before write in this discussion. Pleas explain why it goes on other site with no problem. And the intern Link on Nirvikalpi Samdhi is Nirvikalpa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvikalpa --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I oppose this categorization. It seems clear to me that calling someone an Avatar is a much more sweeping claim than calling them a Guru, so sources calling him a "guru" are of no value. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • A category can only be added to an article if the facts claimed are cited and reliably third-party sourced in the article. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
In the description from the category stand: who are considered to be avatars of a deity or higher being by their followers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_considered_avatars_by_their_followers --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
A category can only be added to an article if the facts claimed are cited and reliably sourced in the article. If you can find a source that states that Chinmoy is/was "considered to be an avatar by his followers", then it could (depending on the source) be mentioned in the article and the category added. We cannot extrapolate from other terms such as "guru", "Nirvikalpa Samadhi", etc. The citation must use the word "avatar". Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Have called with Sri Chinmoy Centre for her SC is a Avatar. In a Video he claime he have Sahaja Samadhi according to my understanding this coming same like avatar. But this not enough for a Wikipedia. In the Internet I found no Source or conection from SC to the word avatar. With the Intern Weblink you have right. --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

PIX 11 Links

The PIX 11 Links are no longer active. I think I'll delete it in the near future.

67. Murphy, Mary (24 February 2016). "Former 'Disciples' of Sri Chinmoy draw ire, by continuing stories about abuse". PIX 11

68. Murphy, Mary (25 February 2016). "Followers of late Guru defend his name". PIX 11.

You are mistaken. Both links are active. Even if they were no longer active, they would not be deleted; we would still retain the links as citations and provide archived versions. Softlavender (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry in my region not activ. --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No criticism, no controversy? Really?

Isn't there any criticism towards Sri Chinmoy's "movement" or himself? Anything? I don't want to dig up untrue or unjust dirt or throw any of it, but I find it rather odd, that there is no mention of any criticism or controversy in this article... as one would expect on any religious figure and organisation. --122.103.84.111 (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Check the article's paragraph that begins "Until his death in late 2007," (use Control+F if you need to). Softlavender (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I split the above mentioned criticism out into its own section but had it reverted based on a wikipedia policy. I have no objection to the revert for this reason but will continue to monitor this page to ensure neutral POV. In my opinion the tone is positively skewed compared other articles covering similar figures.Pgilliland (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we operate according to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, not according to what WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS on Wikipedia. This subject has been discussed exhaustively and repeatedly on this talk page; please check the archives, especially Talk:Sri Chinmoy/Archive 4. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
While I respect your credentials as an editor and wikipedian, are you willing to state that you are not and never have been a follower of Sri Chinmoy? Pgilliland (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not and never have been a follower of Sri Chinmoy, nor have I ever attended any Sri Chinmoy event. When I lived in Manhattan for 12 years, I frequently saw his flyers everywhere, which is how he came to be on my radar. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I can vouch for Softlavender following policies and guidelines here. --NeilN talk to me 07:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Where to begin? This man is the Bill Cosby of spirituality. I could point you to 5 or 6 discussion forums, blogs & printed book(s) where people use their full name etc. Here is one: https://abodeofyoga.blogspot.com/ Vivvvvek (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I think not that he is the "Bill Cosby of spirituality" it gives no court judge.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
A relevant case was settled out of court though https://www.scribd.com/document/63156309/Order-Dismissing-Case Vivvvvek (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Was it in your case to cancel a job? When yes in germany is this regulary made from the church right. From a german court gives a judge. That the Sri Chinmoy movment is not see as a sect. http://www.srichinmoyerfahrungsberichte.com/sites/www.srichinmoyerfahrungsberichte.com/files/urteil_sri_chinmoy_bewegung_keine_sekte.pdf --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Difficult to understand what you are saying due to English problems, sorry Richard.50.111.10.215 (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
IP users are used to disturb. On Ashrita his article was committed six times vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism_edits --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Wow! That is quite some contrast to the tone of the article. --Timtak (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I moved your answer because you insert in a wrong date. --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sri_Chinmoy/Archive_5&oldid=1067148637"