Talk:Sri Chinmoy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Hinduism / Philosophy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Hindu philosophy (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Bangladesh (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as High-importance).
 

Hypocricy[edit]

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

tone and neutrality[edit]

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)

Photo from book (and "Criticism" section)[edit]

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)

"Criticism" section"[edit]

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)

Controversy[edit]

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)

Note to new editor[edit]

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)