Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mata Amritanandamayi

The mediation for the case will take place on this page. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Drajay1976 (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Amrit914 (talk · contribs) aka JamesRoberts
3. Abhayakara (talk · contribs)
4. Xrie (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mata_Amritanandamayi&oldid=597822764#Allegations_by_Gail_Tredwell

Beginning mediation

Before we start the discussion, could I ask the editors involved in this mediation to agree to the following:

• not to edit the article during the mediation
• to remain civil and constructive in your discussions with other editors
• and to make an opening statement that succinctly explains your position.

Thanks, PhilKnight (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Drajay1976's statement

Thanks for taking up this mediation.

1. The section was about some allegations raised against Amritanandamayi and the ensuing scandal. Amritanandamayi is a well known Indian spiritual leader and is a Public figure. The allegations have not been investigated or proven in a court of law yet. As of now, they are merely allegations, but allegations can be included in an article about a Public figure if it "is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented" (as per WP:WELLKNOWN - the removed section is in accordance with the policy in my opinion). The removed section was meticulous in terming the charges as "allegations" (nowhere did it claim that the allegations were facts).
2. The section in question was written in accordance with WP:NPOV. All the portions in the removed section met WP:V except a comment that the book by Gail Tredwell was self published ({{fact}} was added to the claim, as per policy). There was no original research involved. The section was neither "unsourced" nor "poorly sourced".
3. Amritanandamayi had issued a statement indirectly rebutting the allegations. The statement was included in the removed section with multiple independent inline citations supporting it. Her Ashram had issued another statement that they would take the matter to court for defamation. This was also included in the article.
4. In my opinion, the above points prove that the section in question was written in accordance with WP:PUBLICFIGURE (therefore, in accordance with the policy WP:BLP).
5. My request for mediation is on two basic issues.

• Is Amritanandamayi a Public figure?
• If she is, whether the section in question belongs in the article as per WP:PUBLICFIGURE? --Drajay1976 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Xrie's statement

My opinion is that Amritanandamayi is a well known spiritual person worldwide. This fact is evident from the sections Positions and Awards and honours in the article about her. So, the allegations about this person can be included in the article if those allegations are noteworthy. Now, the allegations were noteworthy for several reasons:

1. because the allegations are made by a person who was the close aide of the subject for nearly two decades.
2. because the subject herself came up with an explanation to the allegations (there have been several instances in which allegations were made against her by others, but it is very rare that the subject herself comes up defending her and her ashram)
3. because the allegations became widely reported and well known political leaders spoke for/against her making it even more controversial (See this and this).

So, I would like to have this section retained in the article, maintaining NPOV.

A word about the other books cited in this article - there are mentions of several other books written by other disciples of Amritanandamayi, by the names Ramakrishnananda Puri, Jnanamritananda, and Gretchen Kusuma McGregor. As of now, no objection has been raised to the inclusion of any of these sources or authors for the same reasons argued against Tredwell's book. The only difference I see is that those books praise the subject and Tredwell's book contains allegations. Tredwell's book has gained much more media and public attention than all of the other books combined, a fact that can be verified by a simple internet search. -- Xrie (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

James Roberts' opening statement

Neither the courts nor the police nor the media have done any independent investigations on these alleged crimes of money laundering, physical abuse, and rape. The media has merely reported that people have commented on the crimes alleged in a self-published book (I believe this falls under the WP:GRAPEVINE policy that states: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that...is a conjectural interpretation of a source." Especially considering that the conjecture is based on an unpublished source).

There is absolutely no evidence, let alone proof that supports Tredwell's claims. Not even a single person has come forward to corroborate Tredwell's accusations. More than one person who are mentioned in the book have written on a blog that Ms. Tredwell lied about them in the book. Furthermore, the book contradicts more than 50 articles written by Tredwell (that are published).

So far there is only a lot of "he said, she said". I believe that this controversy violates WP:GOSSIP. Furthermore, WP:BLPCRIME states that "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." The Indian media has stooped to this level of Tabloid journalism, but there is no need for Wikipedia to do the same. That's why I think this section is inappropriate and doesn't belong on a BLP. JamesRoberts (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Abhayakara's statement

I think that the controversy section as a whole smacks of WP:UNDUE. I don't think it can be said that the subject is not a public figure, but that alone is no justification for a controversy section based on hearsay reported in newspapers that may or may not be reliable sources, when that controversy section winds up being as big as the rest of the article. I think it is okay to briefly mention these accusations, for the reasons stated by User:Drajay1976, but this mention should be very brief in comparison to the rest of the article, to avoid undue weight. I speak about this more on the talk page. Someone proposed a more brief version in a recent edit to the article, which I reverted, because the tone was still very POV. Still, shorter is definitely better. I don't have a strong opinion about this, but have been asked recently and once a year or so ago to look at the article because I'm listed as an RFC volunteer, and this article does seem to me to have some POV pushing going on, and has had for quite some time. Abhayakara (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment by PhilKnight

Thanks to everyone for posting their opening statements. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Abhayakara, I'm interested by your idea of briefly mentioning these accusations. Could I ask you to draft a suggested version? PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Tomorrow and Saturday are busy days, but I'll give it a shot on Sunday. Abhayakara (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Abhayakara. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It is now four days past sunday. Abhayakara has yet to come up with a draft. Should we wait for a few more days? --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Abhayakara, are you going to be able to draft something soon? PhilKnight (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Abhayakara has been inactive since the 11th of March. What to do now? --Drajay1976 (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can continue to wait, and in this context, we should try to make some progress with the mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Drajay1976 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I had already added a version of the section in the article which was removed prior to the mediation. I can draft a new version of the section if needed, but I think it would be better if User:Xrie or user:Amrit914 comes up with a draft. --Drajay1976 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that Tredwell's allegations don't belong on the page since the subject has not been charged with any crimes. I think the rest of the controversy article is mostly ok, though a little long in some sections. If Phil likes I would like to present another statement about why the section about Tredwell shouldn't be included? JamesRoberts (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi James, if you want to make a follow up statement, then go ahead. To clarify my role the mediation process, it isn't my role to reach a decision, instead my role is to act as a facilitator to the parties, so that you can find a version that you all find acceptable. Very often, if not always, this involves some sort of compromise. Could I ask you, if you consider that a shorter mention of the allegations by Gail Tredwell could be acceptable? PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Phil - I may be open to a brief mention of the existence of the book. But I'm afraid that that would serve as promotion for the book and the alleged crimes.  My concerns are as follows:

1) The book is self-published. And Wiki says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." WP:VERIFY. It is true some media have picked up on the book, but the self-published book remains the foundational source of information. The media are not reporting the allegations as fact; they are merely reporting the existence of the self-published book. There is a big difference.

2) Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. WP:VERIFY. The allegations Tredwell makes are extremely exceptional. Amritanandamayi is a very respected spiritual figure and no one has made such allegations previously. A self-published book is not an exceptional source for such an exceptional claim.

Furthermore, Tredwell published more than 50 articles and gave more than 100 talks praising Amritanandamayi as compassionate and loving, etc. With regards to this, Wiki also says that exceptional claims should not come from "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended." 

Finally, with regards to exceptional claims having to come from exceptional sources Wiki says that claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. 

3) The book is a memoir, not a biography, which means it is even more concerned with emotional truth toward a particular section of one's life and how it makes you feel now and "less concerned with factual events."  Autobiographies are made up of detailed chronology events, places, reactions, movements and other relevant information that inhabited the life of the subject and are focused on facts - fact, above all, is the foundation. This is a memoir, and Wiki guidelines says WP:RSE: "On many historical topics there are memoirs and oral histories that specialists consult with caution, for they are filled with stories that people wish to remember—and usually recall without going back to the original documentation. Editors should use them with caution."

One of the reasons this is a memoir (which is what Tredwell herself calls it) is because Tredwell implies in the book herself that she may be an unreliable narrator. On page 372 she says that she "felt too much pain" upon leaving the ashram "to determine what had been real and what had been projection."  Furthermore:

• "I tucked the memory of these experiences into the dark recesses of my soul." (page 298).
• "I have now come forward with my story because, from the perspective of my recovered consciousness, I see how wrong it is for such information to be kept from the innocents..."(page 372).
• "A few years after leaving the ashram I began seeking intuitive counseling. One day during a healing session the lady counselor exclaimed, 'Oh, you have been sexually abused.' My body shuddered at the words and I became tense. I repelled the trauma of the memory. After all, it was buried so deep it could never be found. The lady immediately reassured, We don't need to deal with this now.' I breathed a sigh of relief. But I began to ponder the word abuse."(page 298).

A couple of the above statements seem to make references to some kind of recovered-memory therapy. This type of therapy is controversial in the scientific community because studies have shown that the therapy plants false memories (that's why people so often have "recovered" memories of satanic cults and other oddities).

I ask my fellow editors to be judicious. Considering that we edit of one of the top-five websites in the world, I believe we have a responsibility to be extremely careful when editing BLPs since there is so much potential for harm (wikipedia provides an enormous platform). In short, Wikipedia should not change the perception of a Living Person through one of its BLPs when the claims are self-published and not exceptional. JamesRoberts (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Amrit914 regarding the following point.

• If the book is self published, the book cannot be used as a source as per WP:SELFPUBLISH.

But these claims do not raise a red flag because they have been "covered by multiple mainstream sources". So we must confine the section to the controversy about the allegations with multiple reliable third party sources as inline citations. Lets not use the book as a source if it is self published. In my opinion, the book need not even be named. The author has made the same allegations in interviews as well, so we can mention only the allegations, not the original source.

The following information must be included to meet WP:WELLKNOWN

• The denial by Amritanandamayi and the statement released by the Ashram that a defamation suit will be filed against Ms. Tredwell.

The section must not be about the book, but about the controversy regarding the allegations.

It is not for us to analyze "recovered-memory therapy" and "interests defended earlier". If there are multiple reliable third party sources making these observations, the information can be included in the section as well. Since the allegations are noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, they belong in the article even if there is the probability that they are completely false. Here the "BLPs should simply document what these sources say". --Drajay1976 (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Drajay1976's statement. The allegations should get a place in the article, but need not be very detailed. The importance of the allegations have not died down. A few days back, the heads of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham (Jayendra Saraswathi), Uduppi Pejavar Mutt (Vishwesha Teertha), and Vishva Hindu Parishad (Ashok Singhal) defended Amritanandamayi in a public meeting organised to condemn the allegations against her. -- Xrie (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Drajay, Xire - I'm glad that we're all in agreement that the book is not a suitable source. But that brings up this question: if the book is not up to our standards, as wikipedians, then how come the Indian press found the book suitable as a source? This story has not come out in any U.S. newspapers. We've established that the allegations are highly questionable. And yet, no newspapers have done any fact checking or investigation of the extraordinary claims? That doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Perhaps we can wait until an investigation is done before posting this section? How do you guys respond to my points about Tredwell praising the subject for many, many years before inexplicable changing her mind? Can you respond to my point that exceptional claims should not come from "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended."? There's something very strange about this story. That's why I think we need to wait for some real facts and not rely on hearsay. JamesRoberts (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for a lengthy statement:

• I agreed that if the book is self published, it cannot be used as source as per WP:SELFPUBLISH, but the claim that it is a self published book needs be supported by sources. Lets go forward on the assumption that it is self published though...
• It is not our business to speculate on why (or how) news organisations found something as a source. News organizations will decide what is newsworthy. We need to confine ourselves to find sources which meet WP:NEWSORG

• None of the the news reports which I have read claim that these allegations are true by the way. The fact that the allegations were made is true. The news organizations had reported on this fact and the controversy that ensued.

• There is no wikipedia policy that I do not know which says that news organizations in the US are inherently superior to those from elsewhere. There is no wikipedia policy which says that we cannot use news articles as sources if they are from India or Kerala. Our policy even accepts news articles published in languages other than english.
• As user Xrie has pointed out, the allegations are very important. That is what matters to an encyclopaedia. As per WP:Wellknown, the allegations which are noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, in multiple sources, belong in the article. The inclusion of information on the controversy surrounding this issue and the denial of the allegations is most definitely encyclopaedic.
• We are writing an biography on a well known living person. We need not second guess the motives of someone who is raising allegations and exclude/include information based on our whims and fancies. We only need to write the article as per wikipedia policy. To me, the policy appears very clear. Let me quote the entire pertinent policy again....

“ In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

• Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."
• Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

”

• If the book is not used as a source and we are using only the third party news organizations as sources to create a section on the controversy surrounding the allegation, and not the factual nature of the allegations themselves, the question of "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended." does not arise. But if there are third party sources which have observed that these statements are out of character, we can include that information in the article as well as we must write this encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view. --Drajay1976 (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

PhilKnight, I took the liberty to introduce a draft section for discussion. I hope that having a draft section on the table is helpful for reaching a consensus. --Drajay1976 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for writing a draft. PhilKnight (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Phil - I'm a little frustrated with these negotiations. Wiki guidelines tell us to be extremely careful with BLP pages, especially in the case of exceptional claims against the BLP subject. That's why I've been doing careful examination of the claims and their sources. The reason why I'm frustrated is that I feel like I'm not getting a response to my questions. I thought this was going to be discussion. Rather than engaging in dialogue, I feel like my counterpart is merely copy-and-pasting extensive sections out of wiki regulations. I find this form of "wikilawyering" frustrating and pointless. How can we make this more of a discussion rather than a bunch of people talking past each other? JamesRoberts (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

PhilKnight, I had copy pasted the section WP:WELLKNOWN because I felt that Amrit914 was not acknowledging the validity of that policy and was policy shopping. The fundamental reason this issue was brought for mediation was because Amrti914 claimed that WP:WELLKNOWN did not apply in Amritanandamayi's case because she was a "relatively unknown" person. Even though every other party involved in this discussion has agreed otherwise, Amrit914 has avoided addressing the most relevant BLP policy applicable in this case. This is a bit frustrating.

I have prepared the draft section extremely carefully with our policy on BLP in mind because Abhayakara who agreed to do it did not come up with a draft and nonone else did. I want this to be a discussion too. I feel that the discussion needs to be based on a draft with the participants pointing out why something should be included/excluded citing wikipedia policy. --Drajay1976 (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Drajay, I don't think it would be productive for us to conduct a side-conversation on my talk page since our inability to communicate with each other is what prompted this mediation in the first place. JamesRoberts (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In all seriousness, unless you are willing to agree some form of compromise, then I would suggest mediation isn't going to work. I'm not criticising anyone, however I think we should face the situation that it seems we are at a stalemate. If that is the case, there are other options, for example a Request for Comment. Obviously, an arbitration case could be filed, but I'm not convinced this dispute requires arbitration. Finally, I'd just like to say that all of the editors involved in this mediation so far have conducted themselves to a very high standard, and to thank you for your diplomatic approach to this disagreement. PhilKnight (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel that this case falls into shady gray areas when it comes to Wikipedia regulations. I had hoped we could discuss those gray areas and potential pitfalls and examine whether this material belongs on this BLP. Since there doesn't seem to be a will here to do so, I will give up my efforts to engage in this discussion. However, In the spirit of cooperation, I will participate in the draft writing process. JamesRoberts (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

PhilKnight, shall we discuss the draft? --Drajay1976 (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll create a new section below for that purpose. PhilKnight (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Version (Draft)

I think the best way to go forward is to base the discussion on a draft. As Abhayakara has not come forward with a draft, I am putting forward a draft of my own (slightly modified from the version which was removed) for discussion.

Allegations made by Gail Tredwell

Gail Tredwell, a former disciple of Amritanandamayi made some controversial allegations about the Guru and the Ashram in a self-published memoir (2013) and subsequent interviews. She had made these allegations in an interview prior to the publication of the book as well. Ms. Tredwell claimed that she was sexually abused by a disciple of Amritanandamayi, was physically abused by Amritanandamayi herself, donations of devotees were diverted to Amritanandamayi's parents and six siblings and that Ms.Tredwell herself was complicit in covering up secrets.

Amritanandamayi had said in this regard that "Some people are saying certain things against the ashram when their plans did not materialise. I am trying to forget and forgive these issues. I don’t ask anyone to serve me. Instead, I am serving others." Devotees had filed a police complaint about the offensive content in social media in this regard. Initially, the Ashram revealed that they were planning to file a defamation suit against Ms. Tredwell in New York, but later it was clarified that no legal action would be initiated against her. At Kochi, the supporters of Amritanandamayi marched in protest against some Malayalam news channels (Mediaone, Indiavision and Reporter) on February 25th for allegedly running a vilification campaign against her. These newschannels had covered the allegations raised by Gail Tredwel. Some prominent Hindu religious leaders charged that the book by Ms. Gail Tredwell was a part of an international conspiracy to tarnish the image of Hindu spiritual leaders. Meanwhile police cases were filed against those who campaigned against Mata Amritanandamayi in Social Media and a petition was filed in the High Court of Kerala requesting a CBI probe into these allegations.

Notes

---

I have made some more minor modifications. I think the above draft meets the standards set by the policy WP:WELLKNOWN. All the sources are publications of reliable news organizations. The controversy itself is notable since the sources which cover the controversy are diverse (WP:DIVERSE) and are from the national media in India based all over the country as well as one source from outside the country (US) (WP:GEOSCOPE). The first source which outline the allegatsions is dated 16th August 2012 and the last from March 2014. It meets WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, so the media interest in the allegations is not a temporary phenomenon. Most of the cited sources give in depth coverage to the controversy (WP:INDEPTH).--Drajay1976 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

PhilKnight, I am always willing to have a dialogue and I want a consensus to be reached. Is User:Amrit914 willing to have a dialogue on the Draft? I would like someone to point out which section/S of WP:BLP apply in this case. I think the points which must first be addressed by us are the following

• Is the relevant policy WP:BLPCRIME as Amrit914 claimed here & here? Or is WP:WELLKNOWN the relevant policy?
• Does anyone think the above section violates WP:SELFPUBLISH? (I dont) The policy is "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.". In the draft presented above, self-published sources where NOT used at all (the book written by Gail Tredwell was deliberately not used as a source because it is suspected to be self-published). Only third party sources were used instead.
• Does anyone think that the above section violates WP:EXCEPTIONAL? I dont think so because "multiple high-quality sources" were used for almost every other statement. The section is only about the controversy regarding some claims which were denied by the person involved. And the section clearly states that these were "claims" and "allegations" only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drajay1976 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Will someone please point out which policy is violated by the above draft?
2. If some policy is violated, can you point out which sentence or phrase in the draft is the issue?
3. Can we correct the violation by making some amendments?
4. Is there any other suggestions to improve the draft? --Drajay1976 (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of the draft

In this section, could the parties give their thoughts on the above draft? Thanks, PhilKnight (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not having had time to work on this recently. The proposed text is mostly not about the subject of the bio (I will abbreviate MA)—it's really mostly about the person making the accusation. The first cite doesn't reach the article, which is not archived, so you can't use it unless you have an actual source for it. The second article doesn't say anything about MA—it's about a government official. The third article doesn't say anything about MA, just that the claims should be investigated. The Tehelka article is an interview with the accuser, in which she talks about three times she put MA's life at risk; no mention of this is made in the proposed text. I don't see why the interview would be any more reliable than the book. Do you? The fifth cite is also an interview with the accuser. I don't have time to go through all the cites, but these are incredibly thin so far. I would not consider any of these except the second, which says nothing about MA, to be WP:RS (by which I do not mean to say that the second is WP:RS, just that I don't have a reason to think it's not. The way these cites have been used, and the way you talk about the proposed text, sounds like you have a specific idea of what you want to write, and are looking for any cite you can find to back it up. This is not the right way to write a Wikipedia article. You should be looking at reliable sources and seeing if there is a story there, not writing a story and then seeing if you can find sources to back it up. Abhayakara (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Abhayakara, thanks for pointing out the error about the first reference. I have corrected the archiving error. Now the link goes directly to the article.
2. The first, second and third references are not supposed to say anything about MA, they are supposed to show that the book is controversial. The references definitely show that there was a "controversy",[1]; a "scandal"[2] and that the book was "controversial" [3]. All these references were given in support of the statement that the allegations raised in the book were controversial.
3. If you have a better way of giving supporting evidence for a controversy, can you suggest a modification please?
4. The three sites mentioned meet the standards set by WP:NEWSORG and hence WP:RS.
5. I do not have a specific idea about what I want to write. I read it in multiple sources that the book was controversial, so I put that information in wikipedia with supporting inline citations. If anybody has read somewhere that the book was actually not controversial, and have multiple independent third party sources to back it up, please do that. Did you actually have a preconceived notion that the book or the allegations contained in it were not controversial???
6. I feel that the way I have read the articles to understand that there was a controversy about the issue and the way I have used the articles as inline citations is the way a wikipedia article should be written. There I must disagree with you. --Drajay1976 (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Abhayakara got confused and misunderstood that the references were given in support of some other statement about MA. I have followed WP:INTEGRITY while giving references to statements. Since my sources specifically supported a phrase in the first sentence, but not all of it, I could not give the references at the end. From the way the references are inserted in the middle of the sentence itself, this is clear. --Drajay1976 (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I missed out the following statement in the previous posts. "I don't see why the interview would be any more reliable than the book. Do you?" The reliability or factual nature of the allegation is not something which should be proved as per WP:WELLKNOWN. For information about an allegation or a scandal about a well known person to be included in wikipedia, we only need to prove that the allegation was made; there was a controversy/scandal surrounding it and the denial by the party involved. The interviews published in reliable sources (meeting WP:NEWSORG and hence WP:RS) show that the allegation was actually made. Other sources show that a denial was also issued. --Drajay1976 (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Abhayakara's statement. My own concerns is that this section is inappropriately long which gives undue weight to the story. This issue has happened before on the "controversy" section of the Mata Amritanandamayi page. When people add tangential, reactionary material in the section, it makes the subject look guilty when it appears, in reality, that nothing of substance has happened (other than some unsubstantiated claims). JamesRoberts (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG does not equal WP:RS. The WP:NEWSORG article gives very helpful guidance on how to tell the difference. The particular articles I referred to clearly do not qualify as WP:RS regardless of whether the news organizations themselves are reliable sources when publishing fact-checked non-gossip articles. An interview that has been fact checked would show evidence of that. This one does not. I don't have time to evaluate further, but the fact that you think WP:NEWSORG implies WP:RS suggests that you are reading for support of the viewpoint you want to push, rather than reading for comprehension. I am not disputing that a controversy exists here: I am disputing the undue weight that you are proposing to give it. Abhayakara (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Abhayakara, I have many disagreements with your reasoning.

• I used three sources as supporting evidence to prove that there was a controversy. You say that these three sources are have not checked the facts and are just reporting rumors, thus not reliable.
• So if you did not mean to say that "there is actually no controversy and the sources are just reporting on a rumor that there is a controversy without actually verifying whether there is a controversy or not" what is the issue here??? To support the statement that there is a controversy, sources which meet WP:NEWSORG are sufficient.
• As per WP:WELLKNOWN, if there is an allegation about a well known person, you need to find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation if you need to include information about the allegation in the wikipedia BLP. You need not find sources which prove that the allegation is actually correct. I strongly urge you to read the policy WP:WELLKNOWN. The different standards for BLPs of well known and relatively unknown people apparantly has a strong basis in libel case law in the US, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
• Therefore, since MA is a wellknown person, as per WP:WELLKNOWN, the statement in the article that "GT (Gail Tredwell) has raised some allegations against MA" needs to be supported only by sources which have checked the fact that the allegations were actually made. The sources need not check whether the allegations were actually true or not.
• Many of the sources cited have included the information that the allegations were denied by Amritanandamayi and the Asharam. This information has also been included in the draft above.
• In the draft I have prepared, I am not supporting any viewpoint. I have written the draft with NPOV. I have presented both sides of the argument. and included information (the support MA is getting) which suggest that there are a considerable number of people who strongly believe that the allegations are false.
• I dont think that the draft would have undue weight in the article. This is a subjective assessment, of course - just like your assessment that it would have undue weight if included in the article. Pruning the controversies section is not the only way the weight issue can be managed (the other sections can be expanded too - as of now, I think the article is a bit lean and not very well researched).

Amrit914, which part/s of Abhayakara's statements were you agreeing with? Do you have any amendments to propose? --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, I was referring to the interviews. I never said that the controversy cites were not from reliable sources (I have no opinion about that). Regarding the second point, the issue with controversy is, as I have said, that it's given undue weight. I don't think there's any question that Gail Treadwell has raised allegations; the question is whether the allegations themselves are adequately sourced. If you take out all the Gail Treadwell material, including interviews, and just rely on the controversy cites, when we can have a discussion about whether what is left is encyclopedic, but right now we're not at that point. The draft you've written doesn't look neutral to me, and the vehemence with which you are defending it suggests that you have a strong opinion and are not just working on an encyclopedia article. As for undue weight, I've explained at length why I think the weight of the controversy section is undue. But since you agree that it's weighted too heavily, and you agree that the rest of the article needs work, why not work on that? That would easily resolve this problem. The fact that this doesn't occur to you again suggests that you are not interested in improving the article, but rather making sure that it says what you want it to say. To be clear, you are proposing a change that gives the controversy undue weight, and you have agreed that it does. So the onus is upon you to propose a change that does not give the controversy undue weight, and that change would have to include a substantial improvement to the rest of the article. You can't just say "well, someone ought to do that." Abhayakara (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I think that there is a very interesting story here that may be related to the story you want to tell. The reactions that are documented on the part of the government here are pretty scandalous. The government is circling the wagons to try to suppress a controversy and punish those who have raised it, rather than investigating the allegations and trying to get to the truth of the matter. Many of the allegations are easy to verify. Why haven't they been checked? If there is secondary source material that explores this, that would be the basis for a very good article about government in Kerala. But that would be the topic—the fact that it is MA who is being protected is incidental.