Talk:Kripalu Center

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


Calamitybrook, I cannot help but assume that edits like this one have the dual purpose of (1) defaming Kripalu's past and current leadership (for example, by the spurious juxtaposition in "Residents took vows of celibacy and obedience to Desai, who admitted to having sex with followers and resigned in 1994") and (2) driving anyone crazy who dares to edit this article. You have treated this article as your own playground for too long. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for venting your hostilities. --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Amusing psychoanalysis, but begs question.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I know you've said you're not interested in actually reading the source. Yet I'd like to convey some enthusiasm. I find it the most remarkable of the hundreds I've found concerning this region (with the definite exception of "The Mohicans of Stockbridge" by Patrick Frazier).

Its literary sensitivity is remarkable. Obviously, it has nothing to do with Kripalu apart from its architecture' and perhaps a third of it concerns the daily life of Jesuit novitiates at Shadowbrook. The remainder concerns pre-1922 history of the site in its regional context, plus the 1956 fire and its aftermath. I used it to expand a Wikipedia article Shadow Brook Farm Historic District.

Shea was a remarkable authority on the Shadowbrook site and must be included, briefly, in an article on Kripalu.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I found Shea's book online and used it as one of several sources to write an article about Shea. The book is about Shadowbrook, not about Kripalu or the Kripalu Center. Moreover, Shea's book is about the building that burned down, not the building that replaced it -- and Shea died 6 years before the Kripalu group bought the property. Shea doesn't belong in this article. Furthermore, his book does not even include one of the two quotations that you attribute to it. Specifically, you misquoted Father Carroll. He called the plans that existed in 1955-1956 a "monumental mediocrity," not a "monumental mendacity." --Orlady (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Forest Legacy Conservation Easements[edit]

I removed the statement which said that conservation easements were "granted" to the Stockbridge Yokun Ridge Reserve. This is inaccurate and not reflected in the source cited. The Reserve--essentially a designated planning area, not a non-profit organization, government, or government agency--cannot have a conservation easement "granted" to it. If Kripalu owns the land in under easement, then the easement was granted by Kripalu to whatever holds the legal enforcing interest in the easement--the Town of Lenox or Stockbridge, the state, or some conservation non-profit. (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No 'Value-Added' Material Here[edit]

This article can now be supported in its entirety with exclusive reference to Kripalu's Web site, which is of greater utility to the reader.
Sole current exception concerns trade association's in-house award to a member, the notability of which could be questioned without reference to a third-party source. Almost certainly such reference is unavailable.
"Trivia" is in eyes of the beholder. Or at very least, no argument beyond this is presented here.
Shea's work, trivial or otherwise, has extensive historical material about Shadowbrook site & its wider context, & includes various comments on its current architecture at several different points within text. Also, to deem the opinion of 50+ residents "trivial" is itself a trivial opinion.
A couple of dozen or so outside sources I've located, a number of which are essential for in-depth research, now deemed irrelevant here by a single editor.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

For the time being, may limit further work here to trimming any redundancies from ref list.
I have trouble interpreting haiku, but I'll attempt to reply to the thoughts that might lie behind these comments.
The article has relatively few citations to the Kripalu Center website. The fact that reliable sources often have the same information as the website helps to validate the website's information.
I continue to contend that the 1950s (and earlier) history of the property has little relevance to the article about the yoga center that moved there in 1983. That history can (and is) properly covered in other articles linked from this one.
The fact that I am currently the only other registered editor discussing this article here may have something to do with the extremely exasperating nature of the discussions here. Please note that my involvement is related only to a general interest in Wikipedia's quality. --Orlady (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
It is in fact nonsensical to say that the Kripalu website should be used exclusively, as articles should be primarily based on independent reliable sources, and Kripalu Center clearly is not independent of itself. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Award-winning architecture image.[edit]

If the awards specify which parts earned the award, perhaps it might (I don't think so) be worth adding them, with reference.Unfriend13 (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

But the overall architecture of the building shown is in no way unusual... not award-winning.Unfriend13 (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the caption could indicate that the image represents the most dominate bit of several pieces of architecture at Kripalu, one of which, a 6-story building placed in a historically significant rural setting, received an award --as indicated in extensive detail by Wikipedia article.
I once tried to balance this information with brief citations showing that the entire campus has in fact been considered an (obvious) eyesore for more than fifty years -- citing relatively recent newspaper report of comments at a Stockbridge town meetings, as well as published comments by 1950s Jesuit residents. But this is disallowed by several Administrative Personnel.
Perhaps my skepticism of Kripalu's self-generated hype which this article largely reflects, amounts to an unacceptable "bias."

--Banned editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"Banned editor": That a building may be disregarded by persons in its community does not automatically make it "an eyesore". For example, there is the Orange County Government Center in the Village of Goshen, Orange County, NY that was designed by architect Paul Rudolf in his Brutalist style. The former county executive (who hated the building) mounted a campaign to have it demolished, but that executive is now gone and the building remains. Many in the architectural community consider it to be a masterpiece of Rudolf's work. The county legislature has voted to renovate it. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

awful building[edit]

If you can find ANY sources that praise the main building's architecture, then by all means include them.

The obvious awfulness of the building has been commented on since even before it was constructed more than half a century ago. It's particularly significant (as an eyesore) because (as Shea nicely establishes) the setting of the building is significant in many respects.

There were previously included here at least two sources stating the obvious: The head Jesuit guy, on reviewing the plans, called it (according to Shea) a "monumental mediocrity" and some townspeople in an open meeting, as quoted in an established newspaper, said something similar much more recently.

I'm not sure why this material was removed. Not even sure if any of Shea survived the Kripalu apologists. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:E942:1811:CA18:E94A (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

If there are any published, reliable sources that show this was a notable fact, it might merit inclusion. This article is filled with a mish-mash of trivia about a barely-noteworthy business and site. However, I have attempted to apply the editorial hatchet in the past and met harsh response. No one outside the organization needs to know, or cares, about how much people make or why they quit, or how ugly/pretty the building is a local business... it is wp:trivia and has nothing to do with wp:pillars.Shajure (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)