Talk:Ananda Marga

Complete revision

I have completely revisioned the page for a NPOV. I inserted new quotations expanding/refining all the sections including new References and Further reading. Hoping that now the page is better I remove the POV template.--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Transliteration methods are inconsistent in the article

The article is inconsistent in its methods for Devanagari transliteration. It would be nice if one standard method could be used throughout the piece. Personally I recommend IAST, which is already used for some words in the article but not others. Buddhipriya (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a preference for either use or avoidance of diacritics in this article? Some articles avoid diacritcs while others show them consistently. One approach for transliteration of Sanskrit is to show a standardized form in the lede or at first use of term, and then switch to simplified Western forms thereafter. For example "Ānanda Mārga" could become simply "Ananada Marga" after the first clarification. The non-standard diacritic Á is intended to show a "long A" which is Ā in IAST. I notice that the same non-standard diacritics are used often in all of the complex of articles on Ananda Marga, suggesting they were all developed by the same person or by various people citing some common source. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any previous consensus regarding this in the archives. I guess we are free to choose any method if we implement it consistently across all articles dealing with Ananda Marga. Using IAST transliteration for the first instance and switching to simplified western forms looks good to me. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that using IAST transliteration for the first instance and switching to simplified western forms seems best for this article. Let's give a couple of days to see if other editors want to express an opinion on this before making many changes. I will adjust the lede to use a format for first use that is similar to that found in some other articles. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I adjusted the brackets and noticed that there are four footnotes on the first two words. The references are OK but disrupt the reading flow in the lede. I recommend that the references be moved down somewhere where they can be used to support an explanation of what the name means. Then the first use of the name can have the diacritics removed if desired, since the Sanskrit version is explicit. Buddhipriya (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent rv of user bobrayner

I deleted some informations not directely related with Ananda Marga (but only with some of it's followers in the past): the acts of a person are the responsibility of that person and not of his/her religion. This is an elementary principle. Otherwise, all Christians should be considered pedophiles 'couse of acts committed by Cardinal O'Brien, all muslims terrorists 'couse of acts committed by Bin Laden and so on. If someone has done something wrong that does not mean that the Ananda Marga is responsible for this. The Crusaders do not show at all that Christianity or the Church are violent organizations. I should like to discuss this here after the recent rv of user:bobrayner.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. The article is not suggesting that all Ananda Margis are terrorists or that Ananda Marga is responsible for any of the acts by its followers. However, the events surrounding Sarkar's arrest and how his followers reacted to it are significant and integral aspects of Marga's history, which is why they are mentioned in many tertiary sources including WP. Other controversies which involved Ananda Marga but were not directly related to its history, such as the Purulia arms drop case, have been left out, even though an argument could be made for including all of them as well in a separate section. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok I understand your point. But following your logic can we insert the Cardinal O'Brien admissions on the article on Catholic Church?--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes we can. :) Feel free to include any cases of sexual abuse by Catholic church in Catholic Church#Sex abuse cases and Catholic sex abuse cases. We are Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED. Correct Knowledge ^«৳alk» 18:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

...and I'm sure the watchguards on this have already made those insertions. I'll have to look further at the Sydney bombings, but the other case is patently relevant. Mangoe (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well CK.. I was speaking about the article on Catholic Church and not on Catholic Church#Sex abuse cases of course:). Anyway the facts mentioned, in my opinion, should not be part of this article. Ananda Marga does not support these facts and URPF (I never heard about it) is absolutely not part of Ananda Marga. We can build a new article in this regard (If you really think it is so important) like for Catholic sex abuse cases. If this is your proposal I could support it. But I should like to hear also the users out of the "anti-Sarkarverse" group of course.--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There should be valid reasons for splitting out a new article from an existing one. What you are suggesting would be a WP:POVFORK which is obviously unacceptable. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Cornelius asked me to look at this discussion (via my Talk page). Frankly, I am not at all disturbed by this paragraph. In other words, it could stay exactly as it is, and I would not lose any sleep over it. However, any semi-intelligent person who examines the paragraph closely would realize that the language is not at all neutral.

• (1) The paragraph begins: "Some intiates [sic] of Ananda Marga, also referred to as Ananda Margis, undertook terrorist acts for the purpose of freeing Sarkar." And yet everything after that is just unproven allegations - "allegedly this" and "allegedly that". So the word "allegedly" should also have appeared in the first sentence as well, but it does not.
• (2) About mid-paragraph, one sentence reads: "Some non–Indian initiates formed a splinter group of PROUT, United PROUTists Revolutionary federation (URPF)." But there is no evidence that I have ever seen that this is so. Which "non-Indian initiate" was a member of the UPRF, and what evidence is there that the UPRF was a "splinter group" of anything?
• (3) Regarding Pederick, he later retracted his confession and was released early from jail, after it was observed in court that his account of events did not tally with the known facts.
• (4) The last sentence of the paragraph ends with "after which Ananda Margis ceased terrorist activities", but nothing in the earlier part of the paragraph actually establishes that any Ananda Margiis committed terrorist activities. (Of course, there might have been one or two confirmed incidents, but none are mentioned in this paragraph.)

If anyone would prefer neutral language and accurate information, then

• (1) the first sentence could be amended by inserting the word "allegedly" before "undertook terrorist acts",
• (2) the sentence in the middle of the paragraph could be changed by replacing "formed a splinter group of PROUT..." with "are suspected of forming the United Universal Proutist Revolutionary Federation (UPRF)"
• (3) and the final sentence could be amended by simply deleting the final clause (as clearly the alleged purpose of the alleged terrorist activities had ceased to exist). --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

reformatted for easier reading. Garamond Lethet
c 07:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing sourced content that looks negative, whilst keeping sourced content that looks positive, is whitewashing. In that light, Cornelius383's edit summary - "Deleted informations not related with Ananda Marga but with some followers: the acts of a person are the responsibility of that person and not of his/her religion. This is an elementary principle of law. Otherwise, all Christians should be c" - is an obvious fallacy. That is no more surprising than the usual canvassing of supporters. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to participate in this discussion. Being quite interested in Buddhism, Yoga and tantric traditions I have also read some books of the Indian philosopher Shrii Shrii Anandamurti (the founder of Ananda Marga). I read the whole article and in particular the section quoted by Cornelius. First of all I have to make a general observation, related with some logical inferences in the text: if we say that A is a thief, and that A is a member of the X religion, we certainly cannot say that X religion professes larceny. This section of the article makes statements and draws some conclusions: if some members of the Ananda Marga have made mistakes in the past this does not mean neither that it has been because of their religion/beliefs nor that their religion is responsible for these acts. Of course we can make this statement, but we have to prove it. And I can't see any evidence of that on the article. Otherwise we are making a false/discriminatory statement. In short: I think that we have to produce this evidence otherwise we should delete those claims.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Are there specific claims where you think the sources are inadequate? Garamond Lethet
c 07:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Knight of Infinity your opinion is clear to me. I propose to wait for other suggestions in addition to those already expressed by Correct Knowledge, Bobrayner and Abhidevananda.--Cornelius383 (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(1) See WP:ALLEGED, specifically: Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. I understand you to be saying that while we have a catalog of crimes that are attributed to Ananda Marga members, we don't have sources for which have gone through to conviction. I agree that this needs additional sourcing.

(2) Source should be VaNRM, pg 255.

(3) That needs fixing.

(4) I think VaNRM (255) is a better cite for this, as it has Sarkar condemning the terrorism and the terrorism halting before he is released.

Garamond Lethet
c 08:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

As I have said many times, Crovetto is not a very reliable source. Nevertheless, regarding (2), even Crovetto qualifies every one of her statements. Crovetto says: "Before Sarkar’s retrial, what appears to have been a splinter group of PROUT formed in response to Sarkar’s conviction. Some outraged non-Indian Margiis were suspected of being behind its creation. This group, the Universal PROUTists Revolutionary Federation (UPRF), claimed responsibility for acts of international terrorism, including assault and bombing, against Indian interests (U.S. Department of Justice 2007b). These incidents culminated in 1978 with the bombing of the Hilton Hotel in Sydney, Australia, in which three people died." However, if you check the records about the Hilton Bombing, it seems that the UPRF never claimed responsibility for that event. And, as for the rest of Crovetto's remarks, what I read is: "what appears to have been a" and "suspected of". There is nothing definite there - nothing to justify the categorical statement that Bob inserted into the article, i.e. "Some non–Indian initiates formed a splinter group of PROUT, United [sic] PROUTists Revolutionary federation (URPF) [sic]." And not just the name written by Bob, but even the name written by Crovetto is probably wrong. If my memory serves me right, it was either "Universal Proutist Revolutionary Federation" or "Universal Proutist Revolutionaries Federation". I doubt that it was ever "Universal PROUTists...", and I doubt that it had that strange capitalization either. Regarding (4) - Sarkar's statement and its connection with the end of terrorism for Sarkar's release - that is just Crovetto speculation. Indeed, the timeline is rather not just absurd but self-contradictory, given the fact that Crovetto implies that the UPRF was behind the Hilton bombing. The Hilton bombing took place four months after Sarkar's statement. And nine months after Sarkar's statement, the Yagoona event took place. Anyway, the simple truth is that Crovetto incorrectly describes Sarkar's statement, and she offers no source to back up her imaginative claims. From a historical perspective, all that anyone can really say for sure is: (1) After seven years in jail - during which time Sarkar fasted for five years, four months, and two days after having been poisoned - Sarkar was acquitted of all charges and released (2) After Sarkar's release, no further terrorist activities allegedly for the purpose of securing Sarkar's release took place. As to the Yagoona 3 (Alister, Anderson, and Dunn), seven years after they were convicted and incarcerated, the conviction was overturned, with compensation awarded by the State to all three men. But, having said all of the above, as far as I'm concerned, anyone can write whatever they like here. Fact or fiction, none of this is a big deal to me. The article is about Ananda Marga, and - in my opinion - this is way out on the periphery of that subject. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy to be here to express my opinion. I gave a quick look at this article, particularly at the part of it highlighted here. It seems that the statements contained in it looks very seriuos, particularly as they are referred to a religious organization. With a simple internet search I found that this organization has the "not-for-profit" status and the "religious designation" in many countries included the U.S. I asked myself: would the U.S. or the Indian government really recognize an organization as a religion if it was involved in criminal activities? Frankly I do not think this to be possible. And I cannot even imagine how the U.N. has been able to recognize since 1991 the Ananda Marga Universal Relief Team (an organization that appears to be a branch of Ananda Marga) if this was a criminal organization. I believe that in order to make such statements in an encyclopedia there should be a strong evidence of that. Various highly reliable and neutral sources should clearly lead to these heavy conclusions: without any doubt. Otherwise this part of the article should be changed. And we should find a consensus on the kind of changes to be made.--Goldenaster (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Abhidevananda, I do remember you saying many times that Crovetto was not a reliable source. I also remember taking the issue to WP:RS and establishing that Crovetto was indeed a reliable source, and you agreed. I understand you think Crovetto might be inaccurate, but that's a wholly separate issue from reliability.

Crovetto doesn't claim that UPRF claimed responsibility for the Sydney Hilton bombing, and in doing so she follows the several other reliable sources I consulted. The timeline issue you raise is interesting. Do you have another source for Sarkar's statement and these dates? Garamond Lethet
c 20:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I inserted here my proposal of change (of the second part) of the History section of the article. I propose to leave the first part of the section as it is. I'd like to hear your opinions and proposals. I ask you not to modify the draft. Please insert here or in another sandbox your proposals.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for making this proposal. There's are problems with disjointedness (The first sentence describes an attack on the headquarters: what happened? Anyone hurt? Any investigation?), summarizing sources (I think Crovetto only states the poisoning was alleged) and neutrality (you're working too hard to put AM in the best possible light).

While I don't know that the article needs a timeline, I think it would be helpful in establishing what the major events were (and also establish a taxonomy of events: conflicts, trials, accomplishments, etc). Perhaps start with that first? Garamond Lethet
c 21:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• You can't replace sourced content and references with your preferred version, which btw is unsourced or based on self–published sources with an obvious COI like Amurt for most part, without any policy based or source based arguments. Again, arguments based upon I don't like it, personal knowledge etc., like those in the section above, are not acceptable. If you think you can paraphrase a source better or add a new detail based upon a WP:RS you are, of course, welcome to share it here. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 22:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I saw the invitation to take part in this talk. I don't know exactly what to say. This seems an intricated topic. The article is a subject of my interest but I need to read it carefully. As soon as the subject will be more clear to me I will give my opinion.