Talk:Jasmuheen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

No one[edit]

None who had truly gone for years with almost nothing to eat would be dreaming of such complex, oversweet, and hard-to-digest foods as chocolate and cheesecake. +sj +

This woman is (censored). At least one of her followers won a Darwin Award by self-inflicted dehydration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.42.199 (talkcontribs)
Three people have died of breatharianism. See the article for details. — Omegatron 19:01, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yogis in India can transmute poison and people can transmute the negative affects of coffee, chocolate and cheesecake. (censored) She believes in self mastery and self empowerment and that the only guru is within.

I'd love to see them try. 76.19.22.80 (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Who wrote this?[edit]

Who wrote this drivel?? I think you'd be better off deleting the whole thing and starting over. At best this person deserves a footnote mention, anyway. She failed the 60 Minutes test. I would think that 60 Minutes would get much higher ratings (and other monetary rewards) if they could prove Ellen right. They could sponsor her world tour thereafter and clean up. But she didn't pass and the story is a Australian footnote of which most of the world is unaware.

How does one transmute poison? Who verified that the what the yogi drank or ate was poison? Did you just take their word for it? How does one transmute the effects of caffeine? (A new one to me.) If she isn't a guru, than she should keep her mouth shut (and get rid of her web site)so as not to expose anymore weak-willed people to (censored) merely to (censored).

Hey, I have some property off . . .er I mean ON the coast of Florida I think you will be interested in. It's a snake oil farm. Cures everything, except gullibility.

Added tag, will delete if article doesn't improve...[edit]

This article is more of an advertisement than anything else. If it is not cleaned up within a month or two, it's a goner. Sukiari 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it back to its pre-advertisement form. It seems this wasn't the first time it was like that. Does anyone think this article should be locked to prevent the advertiser from rewriting it again?

Uh, what's the point? If we're going to lock a whole article just because a few vandals then we might as well just lock ALL of the articles, since many of them have persistent vandals as well. In fact, let's delete Wikipedia...no the WHOLE INTERNET, to support our new policy of taking it up the arse from vandals. Jeez, DON'T LOCK IT. I VOTE NO!!!! Smith Jones 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ellen Greve is (censored). I have contributed regularly to this Wiki entry in order to ensure that the stupid vulnerable people who search her name on the net have accurate information on her activities and remarks. I've been accused of vandalism by someone who's written that I'm a man don't beleive in God. What does that have to do with anyhting! This woman is a (censored)


I taunted her into bragging that 1 billion people had heard her message, and that there are 64,000 'breathairians' in Europe, and that 'presidents and heads of militaries' have spoken to her about her plans. I succeeded in bullying her into closing her website forum, and I'm proud of that, because I think I may have saved lives. unsigned --- who is unsigned.


1) Your edits did constitute a violation of NPOV but, as they were apparently good-faith, would not constitute vandalism. Caution though: trying to re-instate them, knowing that they violate NPOV, actually would constitute vandalism.
2) The editor who reverted you was wrong to refer to your philosophical beliefs, but his statement is more nonsensical than offensive
3) I agree with everything you wrote, but it's still biased. It's biased to say the woman is preposterous in the same way that it's biased to say Hitler was a bad man. We explicitly don't allow the latter, so of course we don't allow the former. It's obvious from the article that she's preposterous. We don't make that kind of value judgment explicit, nor do we need to.
Cheers, Argyrios 05:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Argyrios, the unnamed unsigned says clearly that his ways are "bullying" living persons, what his mission statement is re Jasmuheen is. and he views those you give it a try as "stupid people" who he is to save.
I wonder, how in the world you did leave such libeleous statements, which are to be removed immediately. --Grazia11 15:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Censorship[edit]

Does anyone else find the censorship in the comments hilarious? Like the line, "If she isn't a guru, than she should keep her mouth shut (and get rid of her web site)so as not to expose anymore weak-willed people to (removed unsourced contentious material per policy) merely to (removed unsourced contentious material per policy). " I think that the censorship should either A.) stop, or B.) remove the whole line. Right now it's just ridiculous. By the way, feel free to delete this paragraph once the above censored comments are dealt with. fissionchips303 01:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(Above was moved[1] from top in older topic on 3 October, 2007.) - SummerPhD 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:TALK:
"Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: Editors should remove any negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.[1]"
"Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people."
SummerPhD 14:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


(Comment "not relevant to improving the article" by Comradeash deleted per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments - SummerPhD (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of censoring is a mere protection from libel. On the other hand, merely saying Ellen Greves is a fucking idiot is not libel, as it is expressing an opinion.Comradeash (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Besides, would you want some nut with access to a computer and the inclination towards trying her hoky shit looking on the internet and finding nothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.85.210 (talkcontribs) 17:26, January 22, 2008
cosigned (with Comradeash). The replacing of words on this page with links to policies is deeply unnecessary and rather silly. tomasz. 10:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jasmuheen Controversy[edit]

I ask the wikipedia team to check the source and regular changes to the article on Jasmuheen. Most of what is written and regulalry replaced is biased and comes from a few sources of people who wish to discredit her regardless of her research. The information is not balanced nor does it reflect her work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.95.184 (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We're always looking for more material based on reliable sources. Feel free tod add any you might have. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC
Discredit a murderer? Does people "discredit" Hitler or serial killers?

"fluids" sentence[edit]

Greve has also - confusingly - stated that she has not yet mastered the ability to be fluid-free for more than short periods.

Firstly, this needs a cite, though given that it appears to be consistent with her reported intake of tea and such, isn't unreasonable as such. (I'm skating lightly over any possible conflict between her reported and actual intake of nourishment, obviously.) But more importantly, why 'confusingly'? It sounds like editorialisation, and I don't even understand its thesis as to why this is confusing, given said self-reporting. But I might be misreading this, or missing something. Please clarify if possible. Alai (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


Her page is hilarious. Good job whoever wrote the first few paragraphs.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.86.60 (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection request[edit]

This article has a history of being used as a platform for advertisement, and a user with rollback privileges has repeatedly cited inapplicable policies as justifications for censorship of a talk page, in an attempt to shield the article's subject from criticism. Plenty of other notable Gene Rays have articles whose talk pages sport the idle mockery of passersby, and whereas that sort of editing is not necessarily constructive, not a single one of those other crackpot articles has had a power user policing its talk page, censoring material (in this ridiculous, inappropriate fashion).

I am not at all interested in deliberating on Jasmuheen's status, and neither is Wikipedia. But if a well-established user cannot be trusted to control himself, then surely we cannot expect the hoi polloi to show restraint either - and to date, they haven't.

For these reasons, I feel it prudent and necessary to semi-protect this article, either indefinitely or until such a time as Jasmuheen is no longer a bone of contention. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:41D7:E02F:7E42:5BDB (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

In addition to moving this new topic to the end of the page, I have reverted your restoration of the contentious material.
I will try to be brief, but you are incorrect in a few different ways. You state that I have "cited inapplicable policies as justifications for censorship of a talk page, in an attempt to shield the article's subject from criticism." In your first edit summary you state, "removed censorship; policies on NPOV and libel apply only to the article, not the talk page". I have removed contentious claims under our policy on biographies of living persons, which does apply to talk pages: "Contentious material about living persons ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". This was done to protect Wikipedia. If there are similar problems on other pages, we should edit them to bring them into compliance, not ignore concerns here.
Semi-protection of this article would be pointless. Semi-protection would prevent anonymous and new users from editing the page. It would not affect my editing directly. Further, as you have specifically identified my edits as the problem, you would do better to discuss the issue with me or, failing that, seek sanctions against me specifically. Given my somewhat lengthy history with the project, I'd suggest discussion first, followed, if needed, by taking the issue to another form of dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
In discussing the problem here, on my talk page or anywhere else, please do not quote the contentious material directly. It is strongly recommended that you instead provide a link to the material in question. Until such time as the issue is otherwise resolved, please do not restore the contentious claims I have removed. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at AN/I concluded that the material should remain hidden, but does not like the "(Censored)" [added by a third party]. While we do not seem to have a specific policy stating how this should specifically be handled, I feel "(BLP redaction)" seems to capture the spirit of the discussion. Comments before I make that change? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Why this woman is not in jail?[edit]

She's a murderer, I don't understand why she is still free. Can someone explain me. It's not against the law?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jasmuheen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)