Jump to content

Talk:Sri Chinmoy

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fencingchamp (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 16 January 2016 (→‎Reliability of Salon article?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Photo from book (and "Criticism" section)

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

"Criticism" section"

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

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And Chinmoy is a person, not a worldview, philosophy, or religious topic. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
User:NeilN, no, it represents a "only a minority viewpoint" (as per Wikipedia:CSECTION). --Demetrioscz (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

New York Post

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

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

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

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

Sri Chinmoy: A Distinguished Indian-American

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliability of Salon article?

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

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

Edwin Lyngar is a blogger. Michael Howard is a blogger. It's not clear that Lyngar should be given preferential treatment, especially since he has a reputation for throwing out wild accusations like "PHIL ROBERTSON IS A RAPIST". Lyngar is certainly not NPOV on religion. See his "Crucifixion Porn and Easter" and note the pugnacious language/atheist decals.
At this point in its history, Salon.com may trigger the directive from on high against using tabloids as sources. At a minimum, one should check whether something appearing on Salon.com is a piece of investigative journalism, or a blog post stating inflammatory opinions. I would suggest removing the reference to the Edwin Lyngar blog post from the Sri Chinmoy article. But if people want to include it, then they should also include a link to the Michael Howard blog post on equal footing. It's more detailed and cites numerous reputable sources. Fencingchamp (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this out because a Chinmoy follower and a commenter on the Salon articles says it isn't true seems like using more biased sources to justify removing another less biased one. I am going to add the Salon reference back in and if you think this other source should be included, perhaps you should add it--although I am not sure if a blog post by a follower is a good source or not. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that the New Yorker cites the same salon article in a similar way as wikipedia (http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/spiritual-life-long-distance-runner). I believe the New Yorker is widely considered to have solid journalistic standards--so this seems to buttress the Wikipedia citation. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is whether the blog post by Edwin Lyngar fits the description of "tabloid" or "yellow" journalism, and therefore violates Wikipedia policy against using such material in biographies. The link provided by Softlavender gives ample, verifiable evidence that such is the case, regardless of authorship. It's not necessary to take the word of a "Chinmoy follower," but simply examine the documentation, which is rich in reputable sources (e.g. The New York Times).
In addition, the links (in this Talk section) to other Edwin Lyngar blog posts which are crude, sensationalistic, and make wild charges confirm that he's not a reliable source for biographies of spiritual figures. His modus operandi is claiming that someone committed sexual crimes when there isn't any such complaint.
A sub-issue is: Who are reputable sources on Hindu teachers and philosophy? Usually, they're people who've studied the subject. While atheists or anti-cult activists may have some small role to play, encyclopedia articles on spiritual figures generally need to focus on factual biographical info, and accurate descriptions of teachings and philosophy. The Sri Chinmoy article already contains too many gratuitous swipes unsupported by fact, or based on dubious sources.
The anti-cult POV is already well-represented in articles on Jayanti Tamm, International Cultic Studies Association, and numerous other anti-cult groups or individuals by name. It's not necessary to add the same type of boilerplate anti-cult objections to every single article about an Indian guru. Print encyclopedias don't follow this biased practice, and neither should Wikipedia editors.
The question of whether to remove reference to the Edwin Lyngar blog post was left open in Talk for 3 months, and no one disagreed with removing it. RV Fencingchamp (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

A few reactions. quoting salon.com as saying something seems to be generally accepted as a reasonable thing to do here on wikipedia (e.g. see [[1]], [[2]]. I don't think we should be trying to adjuticate the particulars of the truth of this matter, per WP:NOR. The quote says "inappropriate sexual conduct" it does not say criminal. If there are other reliable sources which contradict this, than let's add them in as well--but I don't think we can remove a source which is generally considered to be reliable based on our own original research. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Of course--but my point is that we are not quoting the title in the article, but a particular passage from it. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To the content from a follower: False Salon Story: What was said at the time / Collecting good rebuttals to bad journalism

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

Given the Salon article's title, URL ("accused_sex_criminal"), and content, its takeaway is unmistakable. For WP editors to soft-soap its content as a pretext for including it seems disingenuous. Such mislabeling would be like linking to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a notorious anti-Semitic work) and claiming it's only "an alternate history of Judaism." Things are what they are. If a particular text is awash in hateful stereotypes and makes claims which are unsupported by the historical record -- claims which are contradicted by more reputable sources -- then it should not be used.
Broad WP policies necessarily yield to more specific WP policies. If a particular text comes under fire as biased and inaccurate, we need to look at the text itself and compare it to reputable texts on the same subject in order to gain perspective. This does not require original research, merely judicious selection of source material.
In addition, if the WP article is on an academic subject (e.g. world religion, Hinduism), then we need to assess the tone and style of the source material. If it broadly conforms to the definition of tabloid journalism or yellow journalism, then it should not be used for a WP article on an academic subject -- particularly if it contains non-neutral language likely to offend minorities.
Simply claiming that the parent publisher is "generally reliable" is no substitute for the careful selection process outlined above. Some publications contain a mix of material and don't clearly label their op-eds. Where questions arise, it helps to distinguish between investigative pieces by respected full-time journalists, and rants by part-time bloggers with few journalism creds.
Given recent changes there, it's not clear that Salon.com is still "generally reliable," but even if it is, that doesn't address the specific claim that blogger Edwin Lyngar is not reliable. Lyngar's day job is as a Boating Safety Instructor with the Nevada Dept. of Wildlife. He contributes about one blog post a month to Salon, and has a history of making wild charges and indulging in tabloid-style rhetoric, particularly on the subject of religion. See these blog posts by Lyngar:
"PHIL ROBERTSON IS A RAPIST"
"Crucifixion Porn and Easter"
"The Angry Right's Secret Playbook"
Atheists have as much right to sound off as anyone, and where Lyngar advocates "playing dirty," "rhetorical bomb throwing," and putting out "really crazy stuff ... even if you only half believe it," he may be tapping into a certain market. But WP policy incorporates the principle that you don't use the Socialist Worker as a reliable source that George W. Bush is gay, and you don't use WorldNetDaily as a reliable source that Barack Obama is Muslim. Similarly, after reading Lyngar's posts awash in pugnacious language and atheist decals, you don't use Lyngar as a reliable source that Sri Chinmoy is an "accused sex criminal" -- especially if this contradicts numerous articles in The New York Times and in reference encyclopedias. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
To suggest that editors must either treat Lyngar as a reliable source or commit the sin of original research is a false dichotomy. Editors routinely examine a number of sources in order to grasp the subject matter and gauge reliability. The New York Times has been covering Sri Chinmoy and Sri Chinmoy Centre since 1971 ("Many at U.N. Find Guru's Message Brings Peace"). There's nothing in their coverage suggesting that Sri Chinmoy or Sri Chinmoy Centre have ever been involved in criminal activity. To the contrary, their 2003 piece "Jamaica Hills a Tranquil Haven" states: "In the last decade, followers of Sri Chinmoy, an Indian spiritual leader who lives in neighboring Briarwood, have moved in. Residents say sect members are good neighbors because they are quiet and law-abiding. In general, residents say, crime is not a concern here[.]"
That view is echoed in a number of local Queens papers, such as this 2010 article in the TimesLedger. It includes quotes from Community Board 8 Chairman Steve Konigsberg and City Councilman Jim Gennaro (D-Fresh Meadows), who praise Sri Chinmoy Centre for cleaning up an area which the city had abandoned, turning it into a "utopia," and protecting it from illegal dumping and drug activity. The article states that the Community Board unanimously passed a resolution to de-map Glenn Avenue in Jamaica Hill so that the Centre could purchase the land.
Since Sri Chinmoy was a well-known teacher of meditation and yoga, there are entries on him in many encyclopedias and handbooks of religion, such as the following:
Encyclopedia of Hinduism
Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism
Columbia Encyclopedia
U.S. Army Handbook for Chaplains
These articles are broadly consistent with each other, and with The New York Times coverage, indicating no criminality. These articles use neutral language, and don't attempt to demonize or otherize Sri Chinmoy or his followers.
Moreover, in the 20 months since the Lyngar blog post (which appears to be an outlier), no news organization has been able to corroborate Lyngar's claims or to locate any criminal complaint against Sri Chinmoy or Sri Chinmoy Centre.
Of course one can't prove a negative, but Journalism 101 states that you don't claim a person is an accused sex criminal or that an organization committed crimes unless there's a criminal complaint. There are legal issues at bar, because while Sri Chinmoy is deceased, the nonprofit organization he founded, Sri Chinmoy Centre, is alive and active. The link provided by Richard Reinhardt (above) includes these quotes:
"The [Salon] article falsely and recklessly refers to Sri Chinmoy as an 'accused sex criminal,' notwithstanding the total lack of any complaint to that effect filed anywhere at any time in any jurisdiction with any body having relevant authority." -- Dr. Kusumita P. Pedersen, Professor of Religion, St. Francis College, and Co-Chair, The Interfaith Center of New York.
"I am an attorney and am writing you concerning a defamatory article originally published by Salon on May 9, 2014 entitled 'The media’s love affair with accused sex criminal Chinmoy' (the 'Article'). This letter constitutes a formal request to retract and remove the Article, together with any associated URLs. ... [T]he Article’s headline and associated URLs state that Sri Chinmoy was an 'accused sex criminal' or 'alleged sex criminal,' and the Article repeatedly states that Sri Chinmoy and the Centre were involved in 'crimes.' These statements are undeniably false, defamatory and malicious and, under New York law, are libel *per se*. ... Given that he was a world figure, Sri Chinmoy occasionally faced baseless and defamatory allegations. He did, in fact, categorically deny such allegations during his lifetime. Those who work to preserve his memory, and the Centre he founded, will continue to deny them, including through legal action. -- Karen M. Asner, Asner Law LLC.
That the Salon piece generated such complaints is relevant to gauging its accuracy and appropriateness for inclusion in an encyclopedia article on an academic subject.
While opinions about Sri Chinmoy and Sri Chinmoy Centre may differ among reasonable people, it was the late Senator Pat Moynihan who famously said that "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.". The facts don't support Edwin Lyngar's claims of criminality. Those predisposed to make the Sri Chinmoy article read negatively are pushing things beyond the breaking point, and damaging Wikipedia's reputation in the process.
There's frequent criticism that people use WP policies in a manner which defies common sense and undermines the purpose of the policies, which is to ensure that Wikipedia articles are fair and accurate, even when (or perhaps especially when) dealing with ethnic and religious minorities.
I'm willing to assume that the Salon material was originally added in good faith. However, the past three months of discussion have shown that it's simply not supported by facts, but is rather contradicted by reputable sources, e.g. The New York Times, the TimesLedger, and reference encyclopedias. In addition, a fair-minded analysis of the tone and style of the Salon piece indicates that it squarely fits the definition of tabloid journalism or yellow journalism. I would therefore ask fellow editors to kindly stop re-adding it.
Given the nature of the assault on Sri Chinmoy's character, it's relevant to examine material which speaks to his good reputation, such as this July 2006 "Tribute To Sri Chinmoy" by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D) printed in the Congressional Record and chronicling Sri Chinmoy's accomplishments. Mr. Ackerman's own WP entry indicates that from 1983-2013 he was the congressman whose district included Jamaica, Queens, and that he previously founded the Queens Tribune. He is a respected community leader with extensive knowledge of the Queens neighborhood where Sri Chinmoy Centre is headquartered. His unalloyed praise of Sri Chinmoy is testament to the good reputation which the latter earned in over 40 years of teaching and humanitarian activities. Fencingchamp (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sri_Chinmoy&oldid=700172578"