Talk:Kripalu Center/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Proposal - June 10 2010 - tags and content about retired wells.

Proposal 1 - Replace

  • "Kripalu's water supply as of 2009 consisted of purchased surface water, which at the time represented a recent change from its previous reliance on sub-surface wells", and the following paragraph


  • "Kripalu's water supply as of 2009 consisted of purchased surface water, a 2009 change from its previous reliance on problematic on-site wells."


  • Retain all the existing sources. Restore the EPA problem sources.
  • Since all water wells are, by definition, sub-surface, it seems ... odd ... to say they are.
  • There is an objection to the "private" wells, and I agree that a very stupid reader might confuse "private wells" with the "public water supply" they fed. I usually prefer to assume the readers are smart, but do not object to leaving it out.

Any objections? If no one objects, I will make this change, perhaps this weekend. If there are objections, I expect I will neither pursue nor immediately support the edit.- Sinneed 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

DONE - in an attempt to avoid more pointless nonsense.- Sinneed 04:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 2 - After this edit, unless more POV content is added, I propose to remove the POV and UNDUE tags. Any objections? If no one objects, I will make this change, perhaps week of June 17, 2010. I oppose removal unless the issue with the well content is resolved. If there are objections, I expect I will neither pursue nor immediately support the edit.- Sinneed 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Since POV misconstruction of my edits has continued and accelerated, I am withdrawing this proposal. - Sinneed 04:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 3 - If after several weeks (say... 2 months) of no further tendentious editing on either the talk page or the article page, I propose to remove the COI tag, though the long term pattern here is that the strong and odd slanting will return, and the flag with it. Any objections? If no one objects, I will make this change, perhaps week of August 17, 2010. I oppose removal unless the pattern of wp:tendentious editing here and the wp:POV in the article is broken for at least several weeks. We have tried this before. If there are objections, I expect I will neither pursue nor immediately support the edit.- Sinneed 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree to all that, reserving other matters.
"Public" water supplies are subject to testing & reporting requirements which "private" wells etc., are not. A significant & informative distinction.
To simply say "public health guidelines" is more direct and informative than subsituting that phrase with a generalized and probably inadequate scientific definition. Government guidelines are like law (though different, obviously), in that they are established by an informed, deliberative and accountable agency. One can study and review law, science & public policy ---- or simply follow guidelines, law, etc.
Why do you prefer to leave out the nine EPA violations?

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Above was edited by Calamitybrook after my response.- Sinneed 23:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • (reply to Calamitybrook of 23:23) - Well, I read your response beginning with "I agree to all that..." followed by what appears to be disagreement.- Sinneed 23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Your specific, somewhat fragmentary proposals are okay. Let's go with them.
Presumably they are not, however, intended as very last word on total content.
Why to you prefer to avoid the reported term "public health guidelines" and exclude EPA violations?
Do you regard their inclusion as reflecting a negative POV?

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict, above was edited by Calamitybrook before my response could post.
  • Response to Calamitybrook of 00:00. wp:TE seems to apply. Your discussion belongs in the appropriate sections, not here. I encourage you to read and follow wp:talk page guidelines.- Sinneed 00:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know about the guidelines, and am sorry!
I do like those proposals of yours, and so let's proceed with them on that basis.
Can you comment on preference to avoid the term "public health guidelines" in favor of comparatively dense verbiage, and to exclude EPA violations?
Does this "well-sourced" stuff concern opinion/COI tags?

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Response to Calamitybrook of 00:41 (which has been edited repeatedly for content by Calamitybrook). wp:TE seems to apply. Your discussion belongs in the appropriate sections, not here. I encourage you to read and follow wp:talk page guidelines.- Sinneed 04:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If you need further guidance, I will again be happy to provide it on your talk page, and will provide it there, with a warning, if you repeat this nonsense further.- Sinneed 04:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "I didn't know about the guidelines," is simply false. You have been warned repeatedly, here, on your talk page, at WQA, other venues to follow the talk page guidelines, and you refuse.- Sinneed 04:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "Can you comment on preference to avoid the term "public health guidelines" in favor of comparatively dense verbiage, and to exclude EPA violations? " - asked and answered repeatedly, your wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT wp:tendentious editing is unacceptable. Warning you on your talk page *AGAIN* on the next repeat.- Sinneed 04:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I do enthusiastically embrace (the) proposal to edit these few sentences, as specifically suggested.
Can anyone here discuss why the term "guidelines" and EPA violations (sourced to NYT and EPA), are best excluded as per editor's viewpoint?

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Redacted personal nonsense. Warned editor again.- Sinneed 12:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest tag

Long prior to addition of current COI tag, Kripalu's chief financial officer made editorial contributions. His conflict of interest was pointed out, the contributions removed, and he went away.
Current editors don't have COI.
Template says "clear connection" exists.
Clarity is generally easy to summarize. Please explain if restoring template.
Lacking specifics, a third party's personal intuition or feelings is less than "clear connection."Calamitybrook (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
See this talk page, wp:COIN, wp:WQA. Restored tag. No consensus to remove. Long history of damaging edits, tendentious editing, mis-construction of sources, etc.- Sinneed 23:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
If you believe this repeated addition of the COI tag is inappropiate, you might protest at wp:WQA, wp:COIN, wp:ANI, or open an wp:RfC, or follow wp:dispute resolution.- Sinneed 23:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I support the current NPOV tag but a COI tag bears a much heavier burden of scrutiny and proof.
Doesn't hold up here, apparently.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

yes there are some apparent COI's listed: an author working on his biography, an advertising agency working for a client. your
complaint isn't easy to find. It centered on use of Web site's honorific names of executive couple in Sanskrit as evidence of COI, which was presented by you merely as "knows staff nicknames."
Is good evidence that I've read the Kripalu Web site while working on this article.
Regardless, is long gone from content.
Calamitybrook (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Will try to answer some (redacted) questions from above.

"Are you withdrawing your insistence on the revenue belonging in the lead?"

reason to keep: it's a concise measure of size.
reason to remove:? none suggested.
(redacted) can take it out.

Are you withdrawing your insistence on the fees and trademarks in the training section?-

Yes, although teacher training etc. is probably significant to Kripalu, and to equate trademarks with advertising is apparently an uninformed view.
BTW, I've been asked to explain my tags: I don't believe the article needs any tag.

I can't explain them & don't use them. Calamitybrook (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

  • (response to Calamitybrook of 02:09) Again, please see talk page guidelines, and follow them. TLDR but that most looks like it belongs in previous sections.- Sinneed 04:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
"I can't explain them" - that I believe
" & don't use them." - false. If interested, I will link examples at your talk page. Just let me know.- Sinneed 04:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I moved (redacted) tags from the middle of brief section, to its top, a distance of several lines, via cut & past.

Tag summary

While (redacted) that I cannot explain the various tags.... I can merely explain how they are ill-considered and inappropriate.
There was certainly no "consensus" about the tags when added.
If "no consensus" means unexplained COI tag can't presently be removed, does that mean sourced material about Kripalu's EPA violations, etc., now removed, can be restored. like tag, for same reason?
COI tag "evidence" is zero, as is undisputed.
Based on article's current info., up to 250,000 people passed through Kripalu during period in question '98-2008 (and it got "Spa of the Year" Award!! (see lede). Some of those people ( and others) may, or may not, find EPA info significant. To "know" otherwise is impossible. To delete is unreasonable.
One cannot/must not speculate on why the neutral facts of EPA violations etc., were removed from Kripalu article, but may be related to POV tag.

"The POV tag, perhaps akin to idea that George Bush was issued DWI ticket in 1978 (?see source "xyz"). Neutral unembelished fact sans POV. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand.

To editorialize that "This reflects poorly on his character," or "Was meaningless indiscretion," that'd be POV.

(post edited to summarize)

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

  • (response to Calamitybrook post of 16:27 12 June 2010, as modified 15 June 2010) - Please follow wp:talk page guidelines, thread posts, respond to posts at the post, rather than in oddly-headed sections later in the article, focus on content, remove focus from other editors. Redacted personal nonsense.- Sinneed 14:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • An editor seems to be arguing that the POV tag should be removed... yet seems to be arguing that there was no consensus to "remove" the content about the wells. However, I find the posting style and complex wording almost impenetrable, so I could easily be misunderstanding. I don't see any specific proposed edit(s). Should the POV about the wells be restored, the appropriate flags will be restored with it. If the blatant misconstruction of the NY content is restored, I will again correct it to include the quotes, so the readers can draw their own conclusions.- Sinneed 14:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Further, since the wells are retired, should much more content be added about them, I'll UNDUE-flag it all.- Sinneed 14:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
If consensus is required to remove flags (as has been argued), then logically, consensus would also be required to add flags, or remove sourced material.
Nothing is POV about bare, well-sourced facts, briefly treated. Claims to contrary aren't credible, & haven't, in any case, been articulated.
An argument might be made for Undue, but hasn't been articulated, & would be dubious unless relevant content became voluminous.

(Edited to fix typos & tighten) Calamitybrook (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

  • "If consensus is required to remove flags (as has been argued), then logically, consensus would also be required to add flags" - No. wp:article tags might help. The article tag shows that at least one editor believes the tag belongs. If there is a consensus that the tag should be removed, then the editor adding the tag must either yield or change the consensus. The tags have been removed more than once. And wp:POV edits, wp:disruptive editing, wp:tendentious editing, resumed. wp:RfC, wp:COIN, wp:WQA, wp:dispute resolution might offer avenues to sway editors to your view.- Sinneed 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "...or remove sourced material" - This section is about the POV and COI flags. wp:talk page guidelines may help.- Sinneed 17:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC).
Okay, but objective & unadorned facts are, by definition, unaffected by POV. One might suggest that 2+2=4 isn't notable; is given undue weight, is somehow irrelevant or even, for some editors, is "O.R."
But not, however, "POV."
Use of two "honorific" yoga titles for president and CEO (see Kripalu's Web site usage), is neither evidence of "familiarity with staff nicknames," nor a plausible reason for the incorrectly placed COI tag.
Alternate viewpoint here is lacking description, & presumably impossible to formulate.

(edited for punctuation & tightening) Calamitybrook (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion (paltry) is summarized with care and shown threadbare.
Zero dispute available of brief & careful tag summary (in this proximate space here, & elsewhere).

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A short distance above, see four-sentence summary of why tags are wrong.
A briefly summarized counter-argument would be more relevant here than lengthly accusations regarding the various Wikipedia policies.

Calamitybrook (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for possible COI removal

Propose to remove the COI tag if the only other active editor:

  • Goes to the wp:COIN page, and asks for community input and assures the community that the editor intends to do better by strictly avoiding wp:SYNTH, following wp:talk page guidelines, avoiding wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and strictly avoiding wp:personal attacks
  • Shows good faith by indenting only the editor's own posts in the immediately preceding section to standard
  • Begins immediately following wp:talk page guidelines for future talk page posts, again formatting to standard
  • Attentively reads and courteously responds to guidance, without wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT responses (not needful to agree to all, simply to read and courteously respond)
  • Stops creating new sections about existing issues and instead begins responding in the existing sections on the talk page
  • Stays *strictly* with the content in the sources, firmly avoiding wp:SYNTH however obvious the "truth" might be - for at least 4 weeks
  • Treats other editors with courtesy, welcoming other editors to the article, rather than driving them away - Sinneed 14:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative idea. It is certainly possible that there is no problem with the other editor. In that case, the editor might simply open a case at wp:COIN and argue that the tag should be removed. But I don't think that will find much support.- Sinneed 14:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is current tags as related (?!) to content:
Tags are in error because bare facts are NPOV by definition, and no editor has COI.
Brief summary of countervailing view (if any) regarding tags? Calamitybrook (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Wrong subsection. This subsection is about a pair of proposals to possibly remove the COI tag. See and follow wp:talk, avoid wp:disruptive editing- Sinneed 17:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Conflicts of interest, where they exist, should be tagged for readers' benefit, regardless of editor's demands concerning talk-page indentation, perceived slights & etc. The proposal in itself, seems to provide further evidence that COI tag is improperly applied here as "punishment" for perceived issues that are unrelated to template's actual & narrow meaning. If there is indeed a theory about why tags are being correctly applied, a great deal of energy has gone into avoiding its description. Calamitybrook (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
(resp to Calamitybrook of 18:54) Indented to standard.
It does seem that you have still not read, not understood, or that you simply continue wp:tendentious editing. See wp:COI:
"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor."
You have previously insisted that this is not the definition of wp:COI, but found no support for your argument.
The proposal was to gather consensus that there is no wp:COI. If each of the suggestions is met, I, personally, will be willing to withdraw my firm objection to attempting to remove the tag again, so long as there is no broader community objection to removing it. Of course, if the broader community simply agrees that I am wrong and the COI tag does not belong, I will accept its removal. It seems clear that at the moment, there remains a wp:COI.- Sinneed 19:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The term "conflict of interest" is widely understood. To remove a COI tag based on an editor's demands concerning indentations on talk page & various other perceived concerns & preferences that are unrelated to narrow purpose of tag... would indeed be a disservice to readers (& ironically, perhaps, a very mild conflict of interest in itself). Removing a COI tag because of inaccuracy serves readers well. Calamitybrook (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course, if the broader community simply agrees that I am wrong and the COI tag does not belong, I will accept its removal. It seems clear that at the moment, there remains a wp:COI.- Sinneed 20:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Trying to avoid digressions to Wikipedia policy, we note third sentence of its WP essay:
"[If] advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."
COI tag's accuracy (lacking) would be unaffected by the "proposal." Calamitybrook (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)At this point, I expect to defer to the community for further response, and simply wp:DENY the editor proposing removal any further attention, unless a warning on the editor's talk page is needed. Tags stay in until there is wp:consensus to remove. Removals without wp:consensus I will simply revert. POV edits I will simply revert. An editor unhappy with this is invited to seek support at wp:ANI, wp:COIN, wp:WQA or anywhere else they deem appropriate. Without consensus, I will deem removal of the COI tag as simple vandalism.- Sinneed 21:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal is counter to aims of Wikipedia

Offer ("proposal") is to remove COI tag in exchange for various actions unrelated to whether or not COI tag is properly applied.
Proposed actions would be with reference to talk-page conventions regarding graf indents; (perceived) courtesy, & various other matters, All are worthy concerns, maybe (?), but none relevant to COI tag.
Proposal thus would (is to) create editorial motivation based upon reasons (interests) "outside" (apart from) the soley relevant question of tag's accuracy. (It's inaccurate).
Proposal is fundmentally unsound and serves to further undermine the current (incorrect) COI tag.

(repeated edits for clarity)

Calamitybrook, you might read some of the many, many responses made over time about these issues. You might consider wp:dispute resolution, wp:COIN, or wp:RfC to gather support for your position. However, your abusive behaviour is not likely to draw much in the way of help: see again, guidance on your talk page, this talk page, wp:COIN, wp:WQA. Please follow it.- Sinneed 16:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Expansion & restoration coming

will soon add very brief summary of material on completed construction project that is sourced here: [[1]] Not sure I can once again find citation on state bonding authority financing related to this project (an editor unhelpfully deleted this), but is rather vaguely (& inadequately) referred to in one or more of the IRS docs. Will soon restore much of the water supply material also. Is certainly well-sourced, & at least as significant as/than "Spa of the Year" magazine award from ten years ago, & various other details that are currently included. edited for clarity & typos) Calamitybrook (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"I do enthusiastically embrace (the) proposal to edit these few sentences, as specifically suggested." - above, by Calamitybrook.- Sinneed 03:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC
Actually, I missed the little clause about stripping significant content. Proposed re-phrasing of a sentence was trivial & nearly without meaning. Hence my agreement.
Going back to read this "proposal" in detail, much irrelevance that had nothing to do with article's content: effectively amounted to:
"Do X & Y (mostly unrelated to content) & I'll take away the (incorrectly placed) content tag." This notion resembled (was like) attempted extortion, rather than any reasonable & reasoned approach to edit discussion.
Regardless of unsound editing suggestions, we will be moving on very soon with content improvements, adding still more reliable sources, and restoring notable content stripped by ill-considered & unexplained edits.
Aimelessly removing well-sourced content is harmful. Don't agree, least of all when no reason is offered, valid or otherwise.

(Edits ++ for clarity) [User:Calamitybrook|Calamitybrook]] (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Calamitybrook, you might read some of the many, many responses made over time about these issues. You might consider wp:dispute resolution or wp:RfC to gather support for your position. However, your abusive behaviour is not likely to draw much in the way of help: see again, guidance on your talk page, this talk page, wp:COIN, wp:WQA. Please follow it.- Sinneed 17:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Points regarding expansion & water system content

Added new information about recent construction, newly sourced to Boston Globe.
Adding reliable sources is probably the primary & most basic key to improving Wikipedia content. Removing them may be dubious.
Also, sharpened & shortened the section on water supply, which another editor believes should be removed.
Globe says annual visitorship is 30,000. Problems with water system run from 1998-2008, according to sourced material. That's 300,000 people exposed to potential health problems?
Why delete these few sentences, or tag them as a conflict of interest or otherwise somehow inappropriate?
NYTimes headline, in a carefully reported project, was "Below legal limits but above health guidelines."
An editor, who prefers to eliminate entire topic, wants secondarily, to cut phrase "above health guidelines," and substitute lesser, and perhaps incomplete details, without the most salient fact.
Newspaper principal of "inverted pyramid," puts the most significant available information in headlines, followed by details & context, in descending order of significance.
Whatever thinking may be behind this Wikipedia editor's preference to remove the source's judgment of most significant fact... is here unavailable.
It is, in any case, a significant misunderstanding of the source.

(edit for error) Calamitybrook (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Some rather wild & inexplicable deletions were made without discussion. Will keep restoring material sourced to NYTimes, fed EPA, & state health regulators.......Justified of course.
Perhaps there is a Wikipedia essay about discussing edits?
Is there some thinking here?

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Calamitybrook, you might read some of the many, many responses made over time about these issues. You might consider wp:dispute resolution or wp:RfC to gather support for your position. However, your abusive behaviour is not likely to draw much in the way of help: see again, guidance on your talk page, this talk page, wp:COIN, wp:WQA. Please follow it.- Sinneed 16:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Material & Kripalu P.R. Staff

Sadly one editor, (recently subject to 48-hour block for "personal attack or harassment" related to this article) insists on deleting five sentences, neutrally factual, & carefully sourced to federal & state environmental agencies and the New York Times. Same editor makes unsupportable accusations of "Conflict of Interest." Ironically, Kripalu article was also somewhat recently edited by a Kripalu executive, who similarly objected to well-sourced & neutrally presented material from IRS documents.
So, it may be that the Kripalu P.R. people are watching.

Here are, simply, the deleted five sentences:

The state had reported in 2003 that this subsurface [public drinking water] system was subject to a "high threat" of contamination from possible pesticide overuse or potential fuel spills.[9] The federal Environmental Protetion Agency listed nine reporting and monitoring violations for that same system between 1998 and 2001.[10]
A 2008 report said Kripalu's well-based water-supply system contained one form of uranium and two forms of radium, in amounts below legal limits, but above federal health guidelines.[11][12][13]
In 2007, the state set an August 2009 deadline for retirement of one of Kripalu's wells, due to health hazards exacerbated by a construction project in the area of the well.[14][15]
Removing neutrally presented, factual & relevant material is, of course, contrary to the interests of Wikipedia readers.

(to be edited).

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Calamitybrook, you might read some of the many, many responses made over time about these issues. You might consider wp:dispute resolution or wp:RfC to gather support for your position. However, your abusive behaviour is not likely to draw much in the way of help: see again, guidance on your talk page, this talk page, wp:COIN, wp:WQA. Please follow it.- Sinneed 16:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputant "retired"

Following a ban for personal attack or harassment, the sole, known disputant with regard to COI/NPOV tags and above water-supply info has abruptly "retired" afer 24,000 edits, according to his talk page & analysis pages.
Since there are no known editors at the moment objecting, I've removed the tags and restored the disputed info (five well-sourced sentences).
"Retired" disputant nonetheless leaves highly positive mark on this article, not least due to his insistence on finding and refining many, many sources (though he actually added none).
His vast contribution pages appear to show particular interest in defending many random Hindu figures, a clear fascination with various computer games, & also many instances where he might "enforce" many abstract Wikipedia policies & guidelines, according to his personal viewpoint by use of various tag templates and aggressive "warnings" on user pages.
Regarding this article, I have also recently reorganized other existing information into a much-simplified scheme of four sections:
1) "Recent operations," (term is from standardized SEC Form 10K requirements designed for investors). This contains economic information & enables informed intelligent reader to relate Kripalu to various recent and well-known national trends. Plz understand that non-profits report this info to IRS & public in October for preceding calendar year.
2) "Facility" 3) "History" and 4) "Kripalu Yoga." Terms are self-explanatory?
If this is problem, plz discuss.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Self Magazine

Am not personally going to change this reference back.
But "has been featured as a travel destination in numerous national magazines and newspapers" simply conveys more information than "was named "Best Spa" in 2000 by Self (magazine)."
Nothing against Womens' magazines, but the presently 11-yr-old article is, in itself, far less significant than the sizable accretion of similarly fluffy press coverage taken as a whole, & appearing both before and well after the year 2000, often in publications of greater consequence than Self.
This is especially true in lead intended to summarize information.
Foot-noting countless examples would be neither practical nor I think, desirable. Skeptics can confirm the statement with ease, using Google.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I made that edit because the statement "has been featured as a travel destination in numerous national magazines and newspapers" was unacceptable on several counts: It's unsourced, it's a glib generalization, it's fundamentally a bit of puffery, and it appeared as part of the WP:lead section. In contrast, the statement about Self magazine (which is also puffery-ish and probably doesn't really belong in the lead section) is both sourced and specific.
Wikipedia is not a yoga-spa travel guide, which is where a statement like "featured as a travel destination in numerous national magazines" belongs. If, however, you wish to establish (for encyclopedic reasons) that this Center has been widely discussed in print media, the place to document the various different articles about it would be deep in the body of the article (not in the lead), with citations to sources for all statements. --Orlady (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet a legitimate goal for any lede is to establish notability. A brief (glib) & highly generalized reference to fact of this extensive press coverage could help in this regard.
None of these many articles, taken singly, is in my view, significant (but the aggregate is telling). Why among them, is a decade-old "Self (magazine)" item seen as uniquely notable?
"Columbia Journalism Review" (or similar) article analyzing long-term fluff coverage of Kripalu, ain't gonna be available and I'm unwilling to bore myself with burdening article with rather vast list of citations to fluff coverage...

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Puffery" challenged & non puff material removed

Difficult to understand this perspective: Article is criticized & edited for "puffery," while a trivial, specific puffery reference is restored to lede in favor of wide-ranging & generalized comment.
At same time, well-sourced and well-balanced critique on recent architecture, is inaccurately reduced and distorted to a pure endorsement, based on one editor's peculiar judgment of source content.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The vague comment above regarding reduction and distortion of a "well-balanced critique on recent architecture" refers to my removal of the sentence "The same critic observed that most or all of the reported 30,000 annual visitors to Kripalu arrive in the rural area via automobile, and suggested that sustainability aims would be better achieved in an urban setting." Yes, that commentary was part of a long piece about the architecture of a new building at this center. The addition of content from that piece to this article was highly selective. For example, the architect is described in the source as "a native of Canada, [who] teaches architectural design at Harvard"... and is "best known for designing the home of the Canadian Centre for Architecture, a museum and research facility in Montreal," but the Wikipedia article selectively states only that he is "an adjunct professor at Harvard University." That is the opposite of puffery. The selection of content from that review article looks to me like a case of cherrypicking content to convey a particular nonneutral point of view (i.e., one disparaging of the Kripalu Center) in a Wikipedia article. I removed that one sentence because it is jumped off the page as a statement that was not information about the building, and in fact was a nonnotable comment that could be made about any number of institutions (not "encyclopedic" in any context), There are other problems with the article, but I cannot fix all of them at once -- I happened to choose that one. --Orlady (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
That an architect is from Canada (great place!), is less notable & relevant here, than that he teaches architecture at Harvard.
Unclear why you disagree. His entire CV is available here [[2]] for inclusion, although I'd advise some selectivity.
The Boston Globe architecture critic's comments weren't about any institution, but about a particular example of architecture & application of "sustainable technology."
The Globe article was a fairly brief, balanced commentary, as is typical of professional, main-line critics; generally positive, & a bit negative.
But this I gather is no longer reflected by Wikipedia article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying that the architect is an "adjunct professor" at Harvard (particularly when the adjunct professor status is a detail that isn't even in documented the cited source) impressed me as denigrating his status, particularly when compared with the description in the cited article.
You say that the deleted comment by the Boston Globe architecture critic wasn't about any institution, but about a particular example of architecture & application of "sustainable technology." I guess that means that you can agree that the comment doesn't belong in the Kripalu Center article which is about a specific institution and the buildings there -- this is not an article about criticisms of sustainable architecture. (And if even it were, that particular remark would not qualify as a notable criticism of sustainable architecture.)
As for the comment that the Boston Globe article was 'brief', I'd say that it was pretty long for a modern newspaper, at 977 words. --Orlady (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Recent edits: Mostly I support them. It may be reasonable to ask that you seek to justify & discuss them here, however.
A journalistic approach would probably put "recent operations" at the top, seeing it as most immediately relevant and significant and history at the bottom as "old news."
But if you want to "start at the beginning," that's okay.
Must say that I disagree with removing the critic's negative comments. Result unfairly represents what was presumably a carefully composed personal viewpoint.
And yes, the article wasn't about the institution "Kripalu" but rather about the architecture and technology of a structure that is part of its facility.
As for your comments here about architect's background as Canadian, & his status as adjunct professor.... this stuff does escape me.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your request that I come to this page to ask your approval for my edits before making them, let me point out that you do not own this article, and I don't need your permission to try to fix the problems with the article. For background, I came to this article because there have been reports on various noticeboards regarding long-standing concern about lack of neutrality in this article, and a quick read-through revealed a lot of anti-Kripalu coatrackery plus a little pro-Kripalu puffery. I see that you removed some dispute templates from this article after Sinneed retired; I considered replacing those templates, but I concluded that it would be more useful to work at improving the article to eliminate the issues.
Regarding the architect, he's the subject of a separate Wikipedia article, which I have linked from this article. As for the detail that he's an adjunct at Harvard, if you want to say that in this article, this article should cite a source that includes that information. The fact that the information would be findable via a Google search does not justify ignoring Wikipedia policy on verifiability.
As for section sequence, you are correct that the journalistic approach might start with "recent operations." However, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a news media website, and this is not an article about a current event. Wikipedia has flexibility in article structure (see Wikipedia:Writing better articles), but the general principle is that article structure should be logical and Wikipedia articles should not surprise the reader. Also, I think that Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines provides some good general guidance on structure for articles for organizations such as this one. Regardless of guidelines, starting the body of an article about a 27-year-old institution with information on its revenue growth in fiscal 2008 did not impress me as particularly logical, and it seemed rather likely to confuse the reader. --Orlady (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Plz Discuss Edits" doesn't equal "Ownership"

Request that talk page be used to discuss edits is made in good faith, and doesn't imply as you suggest, "ownership" nor demands for "permission" to edit.
Needless to repeat that I support most of your edits thus far.
A reviewer (non-Canadian?) carefully composed some positive and negative comments about an architecture project. These were summarized in article and you've removed the negative comments as summarized, because, you say, these comments don't pertain to subject under review.?
The reviewer prefaced remark in question with this statement: "There’s one fairly obvious objection to Kripalu [project] as a sustainable building..." Perhaps you personally disagree with the reviewer, but your edit distorts his (to me obvious) effort toward balance & coherence, and is thus -- for whatever reason-- unfair and disresepctful to the source.

One might also reasonably ask that outlandish Wikipedia jargon such as "coatrackery," be avoided, or at the very least, be carefully explained within specific context of this article and this discussion.
Also, how and why are "guidelines" on articles about colleges and universities pertinent to article on a Yoga vacation spa/retreat?

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the architecture review, the notable topic of this article is the Kripalu Center. The review in the Boston Globe is a source that is cited in the article. The review is not a subject of the article, and the reviewer's opinions (good, bad or indifferent) are not in themselves notable topics for this article. Ideally, the article would focus on the description of the building, and not his opinion of the building. Fixing that will take a little bit of work. However, his philosophical opinions on the sustainability of resorts in remote areas clearly did not belong and were easy to remove -- his opinions are not notable in themselves and his opinions on sustainability are clearly not relevant to the subject of this article.
Regarding "coatrackery," you might notice that somewhere in my comment the term was linked to a Wikipedia essay on the topic. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of "coatracks," read the essay at WP:Coatrack.
I cited the guidelines for articles on colleges and universities because I happen to be fairly familiar with those guidelines and because the recommendations there regarding article structure appear to me to be broadly applicable to this article. Wikipedia does not have a large community of editors working to coordinate the editing of articles on yoga retreat centers, but there is a large community that is trying to coordinate editing of articles on colleges and universities, which appear to share some attributes with yoga retreat centers. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I think it makes sense to borrow their good ideas. For what it's worth, I see the following as being some of the shared attributes of universities and yoga centers (or at least this yoga center):
  • They are organizations
  • They typically are strongly associated with their physical facilities (a.k.a. campuses)
  • They conduct educational programs
  • They have organizational histories that often are of encyclopedic interest
  • They derive their revenue from students and donors
  • They can arouse a lot of passion in people (passions both pro and con)
  • They often may have particular traditions and subcultures. --Orlady (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Your thinking on colleges & universities is reasonable. Many such guidelines might equally apply. Of course, Kripalu is not a college.
Yes, the topic of Globe's architecture review article is -- architecture! That's why it's written by architecture critic and not a travel or news, or business or editorial writer, etc.
As such, it's not an appraisal of Kripalu the institution, just as appraisal of Painting X in Museum Y is not an appraisal of Museum Y.
Contrary assertions seem bound to be unclear.
If a critic's appraisal is to be quoted, it'd be decent to try for accuracy & balance.
Perhaps you've considered question of jargon in the abstract, & do realize its frequently corrosive influence on language & discourse. "Coatrackery" is unhelpful & always best just to stick with good & plain language when possible.

Just say what you want to say. Calamitybrook (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


Repeat: I support most of the fairly extensive recent edits.
As compromise, temporary or otherwise, on reviewer question, I propose removing all reference to review and to use its citation merely for bare verification of completion of construction project.
As I've mentioned, am reluctant to do this.
Campbell's writing on this structure is good proxy for its significance and in some measure, reflects well on Kripalu. Campbell has won Pullitzer Prize for architecture criticism.
Yet according to one editor here, Campbell's negative comments on the Kripalu project aren't at all notable or relevant, while his positive comments are, according to this editor, worthy of summary.
One frequently encounters in advertisements for film for example, unbalanced & distorted summaries of reviews.
It's not, however, a useful practice here.
Removal of Campbell summary harms balance of Kripalu article & denies the reader significant information.
Yet rather than present distortion of Campbell's work, I do feel it's best to ignore it entirely, thus "splitting the difference."

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[EC] Oh, so the reviewer is Robert Campbell (journalist)? I had no idea that he was a notable critic who is the subject of a Wikipedia article!
I vehemently oppose your proposal to ignore the review entirely.
That review is one of the best sources in this entire article. It's substantial coverage of the Kripalu Center in a respectable (WP:RS) publication that is totally independent of the subject. It includes a great deal of objective, factual information about the Center and the new building (which seems to be very interesting architecturally). This article should cite it as a source of objective, factual information (for example, the name of the architect, which is one of the things I restored to the article). It also would be appropriate to describe or quote the reviewer's appraisal of the building, but the focus of the article needs to be on describing the Kripalu Center, not on describing Robert Campbell's opinions. As for his opinions, I think the reviewer's summation at the end of the review is the part of the reviewer's opinion that is most deserving of being quoted or paraphrased. The potentially quotable quotes, IMO, are "a daring and serious building," "an experiment in the best sense of that word" and "This is the kind of architecture we need more of, in a culture that’s become too often wedded to whatever is banal and familiar." I hasten to add that not all three of these should be quoted; my own preference would be for the article to say: "Boston Globe architecture critic Robert Campbell described it as 'a daring and serious building.'" (YMMV) --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't want to shoot from hip here. But criticism at its very best, isn't actually personal "opinion."
Is rather, in theory at least, a deeply informed & objective comparison of given work with cultural history and current trends.
Not quite sure what to make of your respones. (What's [EC] ?) Are you saying your previous edits were uninformed?
Campbell noted "obvious objection," which you removed from summary. He thinks it's obvious, & you've said is neither notable nor relevant.
In passing, I'd note that the great majority of sources on reference list are independent of the subject, and do provide as you say much "factual and objective" information.
For the moment at least, "splitting difference" & ignoring Campbell is unfortunately, a good & reasonable compromise. Throw in any "fact" you like from review.

Calamitybrook (talk)

"EC" is a wikipedia locution for "edit conflict." (Considering that you have over 2,000 edits in Wikipedia talk spaces, I'm surprised you've never encountered that locution.) It means that when I tried to submit my comments, I was notified of an edit conflict, because some of your comments that are tagged as having been made at 0:24 were actually made in between about 03:29 and 03:32, while I was typing my comment. In that instance, "EC" may be interpreted to mean "I didn't have a chance yet to read some of what I appear to be replying to right now, but I'm posting the reply anyway instead of starting all over again."
As it happens, I still haven't figured out how your comment changed between the time I started replying to it and the time I finished, nor have I digested the various non-time-stamped comments you made today. --Orlady (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Is "Wikipdedia locution" a needless form of jargon for needless "jargon?"
I can reasonably assume you are capable of discussion using actual English, which is widely regarded as highly adaptable medium.
Good luck in this project!!

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Locution" is a 3-syllable English word found in any decent dictionary. Wordnet defines it as follows:
Noun S: (n) saying, expression, locution (a word or phrase that particular people use in particular situations) "pardon the expression"
Glad to be able to help you expand your personal knowledge. --Orlady (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm embarrassed by my peevish comment. Sorry. ("Coatrackery" is, however, an absurdity.)
Certain editors have become abusive here with endless, supposedly insider references, that are at most, only dimly relevant. I'm thus sensitized..
My theory is that Wikipedia's genesis is with computer geeks, who don't understand language & thus encouraged growth of needless & illegitimate lingo. This comment, correct or otherwise, is off topic and not relevant to content. Sorry again.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Stockbridge Bowl

"Lake Mahkeenac" is according to the USGS Board on Geographic Names, a "variant." Maybe this link works: [[3]] .
Board defines variant as "any other name by which a feature is or was known. Such names can be historical or no longer used, or can be in use, but less widespread. Only one official feature name is allowed for Federal usage. There are no exceptions to this rule."
Of course Wikipedia, not being a federal agency, needn't be bound by this. But the local group that involves itself in "managing" the lake is called the "Stockbridge Bowl Association." It appears their Web site never refers to Lake Mahneenac.
I haven't checked it, but I gather Kripalu people prefer "Lake Mahkeenac" for reasons open to mere speculation.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Have taken an editor's suggestion & created article on Stockbridge Bowl.
I don't personally believe Kripalu is sufficiently relevant for any mention in this new article.
Despite five sources for 12-sentence article, it was speedily tagged as "unreferenced."
I've deleted this tag.
I expect & hope it will be cross referenced and sources can be converted etc....Will probably put note on Mass. project page seeking help.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear that "Stockbridge Bowl" is the primary name for that lake, but that's not what the source called it, and most readers would not recognize that as the name of a lake. (My first guess on encountering the name would be "bowling alley".) For purposes of this article, it seemed best to use the Lake Mahneenac name first and link to the article about the lake.
It's good to see that you created the article about the lake. The reason it was tagged as unreferenced is that there's no "References" section and you didn't format your sources as reference citations. Bare internet links embedded in the article don't qualify as citations. I feel a bit silly saying this to someone who's been here 2 years and has more than 5,000 edits, but I suggest you take a look at WP:Citing sources (and other Wikipedia pages linked there) to learn more about adding reference citations to Wikipedia articles. I also notice that the new article is uncategorized; I'll go add some categories, but you may know of others. --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Am incorrigibly lazy about formats. Seems like bots, or much more dilligent editors, generally will take care of this.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you put a bare URL into the "ref" format (i.e., <ref>URL</ref>), a bot will eventually come by and insert the webpage title from the URL's meta tags, but that doesn't happen when bare links are inserted in an article as external links -- and anyway those bot-generated descriptions are a very poor substitute for a human providing a description of the source they relied upon for the article content. --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Water supply (again)

NOTE: I tried to add this comment to an existing talk page section on the topic of the water system, but the previous organization of this talk page seems to be best described as "chronological", rather than topical, so I thought it best to start a new topical section.

I finally read the various sources cited in the section on the water supply. I found that the article content on the water supply was based almost entirely on primary sources, specifically data tables in online databases (even the New York Times citation was an online database). More significantly, it was my perception that the entire section represented undue emphasis on a relatively minor aspect of the Kripalu Center's story -- quite possibly selected to cast the article's topic in an unfavorable light.

The main point regarding the water system seems to be that Kripalu Center formerly relied on groundwater from onsite wells for water supply, but it has now converted to using purchased water, apparently from the Lenox water department. Details of this story include that they didn't do a particularly good job of complying with various regulatory requirements for operating a public water supply (this is in one of the databases cited) and the state regulatory agency had concerns that there were potential sources of contamination in the wellhead protection zone around the Center's well, leading to the state issuing a couple of consent agreements under which the Center agreed to resolve the situation by a particular date. A largely irrelevant fact that was inserted into the story based on information extracted from an online database is that the water contained naturally occurring radioactive substances at levels that meet EPA standards (and are, in fact, typical of groundwater from granitic terrain) but are higher than the maximum contaminant level goals for these substances (levels below which there is no known or expected risk to health).

To eliminate the WP:UNDUE problem and the odor of a WP:Coatrack that I detected, I have edited the article to describe this story more succinctly, eliminating minor details such as the dates of consent agreements, and eliminating all mention of the radioactivity (which apparently had nothing to do with the state's interest in getting them to change their water source). In so doing, I have inserted more accurate wording (e.g., "groundwater" instead of "sub-surface wells"). --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You say you've eliminated a problem of undue cutting content to three sentences, from five....Perhaps you're merely objecting to inclusion of a few facts that some may see in unfavorable light.
That a "new age health" center gets cited multiple times over a long period by state and federal environmental agencies for drinking water violations is interesting & relevant bit of info. Supposedly, about 300,000 people passed through there during 10-yr period in question.
New York Times found it worth while in 2008 project to publish data about the Kripalu water system & note that a couple of contaminants were "above health guidelines." In what way would this be "irrelevant" to the Kripalu system? Do you personally feel NYT was wrong? Why would the info be unusable in this article?
Objectively speaking, it is very far from clear based on what you've said, why information from notable sources (i.e. the New York Times, fed EPA, Mass DEP) ought to be excluded.
Lacking rationale to the contrary, assumption is these few facts would be reintroduced.
Let's do it in four sentences, as a reasonable compromise.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

[EC] As I stated above, these "notable sources" that you refer to are largely database output -- raw data. There is no indication that anyone (other than Wikipedia contributors) has ever suggested that there is something particularly significant about the fact that a state environmental agency had concerns about the water supply at a New Age health center. It appears to me that the conclusion you state may be based your assembly and synthesis of information from multiple WP:primary sources -- a form of original research.
As for the individual violations, nothing that I find in the records[4] indicates that the health of those 300,000 visitors could actually have been harmed. All of the violations are identified as "non-health based." The database lists 8 monitoring violations on the same date in 1998; the database doesn't indicate exactly what the violations were, but the worst possible interpretation of the information provided is that they failed on one occasion to perform required monitoring for 8 specified monitoring parameters. The ninth violation entry was for failing to publish an adequate "consumer confidence report", which is an EPA-required annual public notice regarding monitoring data for the water system. Those are hardly serious violations that could have jeopardized the health of thousands of visitors.
As for the New York Times, you state that the newspaper "found it worth while in 2008 project to publish data about the kripalu water system & note that a couple of contaminants were 'above health guidelines.'" Assuming you are talking about the 2010 New York Times ref that was cited in the article, that is a significant misrepresentation or misinterpretation:
  • The data were not published in the newspaper; the data were merely posted on their website.
  • The newspaper did not just post data for the Kripalu Center water system; it posted all the data it could find for every public water supply system in the United States.
  • If you peruse the data from around the country on the Times website, you will find that many public water systems reported concentrations that were "above health guidelines" but below legal limits, and more than a few reported concentrations above legal limits. (For examples close to Kripalu Center, see Lee's water and Stockbridge's water.)
I could go on with additional examples of the problems I saw in the text, but the bottom line is that the two-paragraph "discussion" of the Center's former water supply represented undue emphasis, original research, and selective use of information with the intent of disparaging the subject of the article. --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm.... It looks like you made several changes to your last statement between the time that I read it and the time I completed and posted my reply. The most substantial of your changes were the addition of the following two sentences:
Lacking rationale to the contrary, assumption is these few facts would be reintroduced.
Let's do it in four sentences, as a reasonable compromise.
I have plenty of "rationale to the contrary"; I hope you will read what I wrote. As for "reasonable compromise", you won't find a much support around Wikipedia for compromising Wikipedia policies on original research and WP:NPOV. --Orlady (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Disregarding Notable Sources

Editing out a very few simple bare facts from notable sources, including the New York Times, federal EPA and Mass DEP, probably cannot be supported.
My speculation is, that you object to including these few objective facts merely because they are in your unstated view, too "negative." Inexplicable criteria. These are just bare and simple facts.
You do state objection because NYT didn't publish data on paper, but on its Web site?....No logic here...obviously very ironic for Wikipedia editor...
We simply cannot understand any of this, because you don't offer actual and reasonable explanation.... You do mention essay on "Coatrackery," but provide no further comment regarding this (sorry to say, quite silly) word.....Based on all this, one may actually wonder whether there is any serious thought going on here at all.
The sources temporarily removed, are each highly notable and reliable. This information can therefore, and obviously should be, legitimately restored.
Please note discussion. My recent request that edits be discussed, resulted in a couple of demonstrably false assertions; in particular that I believed that I "own" this article...and perhaps another incorrect and equally unpleasant, assertion, whose nature I don't now recall.
All seems needlessly aggressive and perhaps ill-considered.
Do note that I've supported many extensive recent edits to this article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have seen from the history of this page (where you have made nearly 700 edits) that you have frequently expressed your disdain for Wikipedia policy pages. However, if you wish to contribute on Wikipedia, you need to respect policy. Your refusal to read the policy does not entitle you to ignore it, nor to taunt other Wikipedians for quoting policy, treating that policy as relevant, or using the terminology that is used in Wikipedia policy pages, guidelines, and essays.
Having said that, I feel it necessary to point out to you that sources aren't "notable" at Wikipedia. It's subject matter that notable (or not). There is, however, a guideline on reliable sources. That guideline says, in part: "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. ... Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. ... Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." In discussing "notable sources," I think you are focusing on the NY Times. When the New York Times posts a compendium of data compiled from government sources on its website, it is not adding any editorial value or interpretation to the content; its raw data. Your interpretation of that raw data is an instance of "synthesis" which is contrary to Wikipedia policy barring "original research".
If you choose to ignore Wikipedia policy (perhaps because it interferes with discrediting the Kripalu Center), I suppose that's your choice. However, remember that Wikipedia is not obligated to provide a platform for people who choose not to abide by its policies. --Orlady (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Some sources are better than others. The NY Times did indeed, in this case, analyze the material it reported.
But really, the problem is quite simple; the few bare facts you removed are verifiable from reliable sources; i.e. NYTimes, federal EPA and Mass DEP.
Policy lecture is red herring.
Calamitybrook (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Pray tell, where and when did the New York Times publish editorial analysis of the reported material regarding the Kripalu Center? The Kripalu Center is not mentioned, much less discussed, in the long article that is associated with that database. The generic information about "what the data mean" that accompanied the NYTimes web-posting of the data compendium does not qualify as editorial analysis.
"Bare facts" from WP:primary sources are not, as a general rule, supposed to be the basis for Wikipedia articles.
Wikipedia policy may be a red herring in your mind, but it's kind of important for Wikipedia. If you don't want to be bothered with Wikipedia policy, you might want to consider taking up a different hobby.
PS - Seeing your interest in telling the world about the "bare facts" in the NY Times compendium of drinking water data, I'm a bit surprised that you have not discussed the town drinking water situations in the articles about Stockbridge and Lee. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Under the circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to request that the specific information regarding the NYT source, such as date of publication, page number, and article title (if any) be produced. WP:V requires that in the event material is ever challenged. And I have to agree that wikipedia's policies and guidelines are to followed in all content, whether individuals agree with that or not. And the matter of WP:UNDUE certainly could be raised about this matter. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
NYTimes' analysis is explicitly outlined here: [[5]]. It differs significantly from analysis presented by its source here: [[6]].
"Primary source" for Mass DEP consent orders, would be...the consent orders. These are neither cited, nor readily available. Point similar about the various federal violations. References are to public information sites, not to primary documents.
Policy lecture is red herring; i.e. something true, but not relevant.
A few simple and reliably sourced facts have been removed from this article, for reasons that remain unclear and perhaps unstated.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Convenient New Hedder

Could someone please provide diffs for those of us who have come to this discussion a bit later? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This diff is the short series of edits (i.e., my changes that Calamitybrook doesn't like) that are in contention. --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much, sorry to be slow in responding here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Is dancing on head of a pin to suggest that sparing use of New York Times, fed EPA and Mass DEP on water topic are impermissible sources. Some might see it as "Wikilawyering" in support of some unstated, unknown viewpoint.
Argument for their removal apparently is, first that they are "primary sources." NYT extensively analyzed data it obtained from a prominent NGO, which obtained and analyzed the data from Mass. DEP. Argument is further, that NYT didn't analyze this data. (It clearly did, see again [[7]]).
So main point regarding removal of NYT as source, is based on mere misunderstanding of source. But NYT source is still missing from article.
Mass DEP source concerns consent orders. The "primarly source" for any consent order, is the consent order itself. The cited source is NOT the consent orders, which are primary documents. Source is rather, Web pages designed by public information office of state agency.
Same is true for federal EPA. No primary documents are cited; merely a very clear public information Web page.
IF these several sources were primary documents (actually, they are NOT) they could be carefully incorporated as three among several dozen sources; and certainly would not, as such, form the "basis" of the article on Kripalu. Thus, they are well within norms of Wikipedia, without regard to whether they are primary or secondary sources; not least because no conclusions are artificially drawn, and because the extremely terse material is a mere compilation of relevant and verifiable facts.

Secondary argument for removing material is WP:UNDUE. It's been said that this problem is now solved, in present version, by reducing five sentences to three. In context of this fairly extensive article, this is insignificant percent-change in total coverage (current 51 sentences = 3.7% change?) and rather than significantly changing "weight," the so-called solution merely changes content and character of coverage. So if this is viewed a "solution" to some perceived problem, then this problem isn't undue weight.

The article has developed a problem of WP:NPOV through removal of terse and objective references to these few facts.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is what does the article say on this topic, and how important is it to the overall article. Since it is not a spa (people do not go to Kripalu to "take the waters"), I think most people would agree that it is a relatively minor issue. My reading of the sources cited (all of them originally in) is that the levels did not exceed the legal limit (though some did exceed health limits, which in some cases meant anything aboive zero), and that the EPA violations were mostly or perhaps all failures to report test results (or perhaps to test). For comparison, the $15 million addition from 2008 gets two sentences. I would argue it will likely have more impact on the center long term than the water system. I have some suggestions on the text which I will try to add tomorrow - calling it a night. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You are misconstruing what should be higly focused question.
Issue is simply whether NYT, fed EPA and Mass DEP material can be briefly mentioned in couple of sentences. Am open to slight modification of earlier version.
If you want to go farther afield, how is sex stuff from 15 or more years ago, more significant than verified federal and state drinking water violations that extended over a much longer period ending in 2009?
For the readers' general edification, Ruhrfisch (and "John Carter" above) has been solicited by Orlady specifically to contribute to this article. Orlady has offered a very specific viewpoint.
This is a bit like a political poll question: "X politician hates white people; you are white, so do you support X politician?"
Answer is suspect.

Calamitybrook (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes! Calamitybrook has made 589 edits to this article and 646 edits to this talk page over the past 1-1/2 years (more than 20% of his total contributions to this Wikipedia), and has argued strenuously (on this talk page and others) for (1) inclusion of information that presents the article subject in a bad light (such as the content about the water supply) and (2) removal of information that might be considered positive (such as positive commentary on the architecture of the new building). Meanwhile, Orlady, who is a Wikipedia administrator, first touched this article a little more than 3 weeks ago and subsequently has made 37 edits to the article and 22 edits to this talk page (mostly interactions with Calamitybrook), and asked several other users (mostly administrators) who previously edited these pages to start paying attention again. Apparently it's supposed to be obvious that Orlady is POV-pushing, while Calamitybrook is a completely disinterested person who is nobly defending the integrity of Wikipedia. Sorry, but I don't buy it, and I doubt that you will get very many "takers". --Orlady (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
We don't want to bite the "newbie" and sarcasm is not needed, but Calamitybrook would do well to listen to advice from experienced editors. As I remember it, there was a bit of a rumble here between one editor who wanted to include some PR-fluffy material, and another who wanted to include some muckracking, bordering on mud-slinging. Neither type of material is needed, but there's not that much of it left, and in some ways it balances out. Accusations and personal attacks don't help; a bit of calm, thoughtful editing would. Then I suggest the 2 original editors step aside and take a break from editing this for a month or two. Smallbones (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Presently at issue is merely whether a couple of sentences on material from NYT, EPA and state can be reasonably added to the article. The whole "primary source" argument does appear specious (please see above). As far as "undue weight," lengthening the article by 3-4% doesn't seem to present obvious difficulty..... It's unclear where the problem may actually lie.
One notes that Smallbones, too, was solicited by Orlady.
Regarding earlier architecture controversy, I added the source; a review by a Pulitzer-winning critic, and what I felt was balanced summary of the critic's views.
Given this critic's prestige, the mere fact of this review reflects on Kripalu in a highly positive fashion.
It was argued that only the critic's positive comments be included. As compromise, omitting an unbalanced summary was suggested. This seemed to be accepted and attempts to summarize the review were abandoned.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You certainly know how to phrase things to get across the idea that you are trying to insult people. Wouldn't it be better to use that knowledge in order to NOT insult people? See WP:DBAD.
Smallbones (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
My language above is neutral, accurate and appropriately focused.
Calling someone a "dick" is something that, unless you'd advise otherwise, we can ignore.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Smallbones didn't call you a "dick". Rather, that link is intended as a recommendation that you not act like one. --Orlady (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Whatever.
Please stay on topic with accurate, neutral and focused language, & refrain from dubious individual solicitations.
Then please remain on topic yourself, rather than making clearly false and misleading statements. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
In fact, recent discussion engendered by your WP:Canvass has proven sufficiently counter-productive, that I suggest a new hedder, in effort to quickly move beyond the unsavory and personal genitalia issues raised by one of your respondents.......
And it appears people have to be told twice in a row to cease making false and misleading statements. Having read the comments, there was nothing violating policy or guidelines in them. If individuals find it impossible to not overdramatize any and all opposition to them, then I think it is reasonable for them to cease making such clearly false assertions. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Current Issue

Presently at issue is merely whether a couple of sentences on material from NYT, EPA and state can be reasonably added to the article. The whole "primary source" argument does appear specious (please see above). As far as "undue weight," lengthening the article by 3-4% doesn't seem to present obvious difficulty..... It's unclear where the problem may actually lie.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Individuals are of course welcome to have their own opinions, but the fact that WP:PRIMARY, relating to primary sources, is an official policy of wikipedia leads one to perhaps question whether certain editors consider their own opinions to be more important than wikipedia's policies. If that were to be the case, then perhaps they might be better able to achieve their goals elsewhere, where such policies might not exist. I of course believe all editors should be at least acquainted with such policies and guidelines. The problem probably relies in the matter of WP:CONSENSUS, which indicates that there should be a consensus for all changes. So far as I have seen, there is no such consensus; in fact - the consensus might be to oppose such changes. Regardless of any individual's opinion regarding that, or inability to grasp that, the article, like all articles, should adhere to consensus opinion provided matters of policy are not involved. I have suggested that perhaps an RfC might be the way to go here elsewhere, and I believe that is probably the logical next step. However, one individual's failure to grasp the concerns of others is not itself just cause for making changes against consensus. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than merely noting the existence of policy on primary sources without relevant comment, a fairly detailed explaination of this policy's relationship to material at hand is available above.
Since you've only arrived here by responding to a WP:Canvass situation, perhaps you're unaware of this. I can repeat it here if you'd like. Reading it would enable a more focused and relevant comment. Am eager to hear any reasoned analysis.
Optimally, perhaps, editors should ignore canvassing requests, given potential to severely muddy "consensus," a concept which you've raised, perhaps oddly, in light of side talks with your canvasser.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

But let's start with question whether NYTimes source can be related to Wikipedia's policy concerning the accepted use of primary sources.

The Times obtained its information from an NGO, which obtained and analyzed the data from many individual testing reports filed with state. NYT then analyzed this data according to extensive criteria it selected. [[8]]. Its published analysis is quite different from NGO analysis. The primary sources, i.e., the various testing reports, of course didn't include any analysis at all.

To call the New York Times analysis a "primary source" is at best, a misunderstading of the term, the source, or both. In fact source has no relevance at all to this policy.
If anybody wants to answer these clearly verifiable facts responsibly, I can continue, sequentially, to address sourcing questions.
Otherwise one might suppose that silence equals consensus.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times material is not an "analysis." It is a data dump. They got data (from an NGO that got the data from state governments) on water quality monitoring results for every public drinking water system in 45 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, and they posted the data on their website. You say they "analyzed the data according to extensive criteria" that the Times selected. In fact, those criteria were simply the water quality standards in U.S. government drinking water regulations, supplemented by some non-mandatory recommendations from other sources. (The non-mandatory recommendations that you cited in the deleted portion of the Kripalu Center article were state of California "public health goals.") The New York Times data dump shows automated (i.e., done by a computer) comparisons with those criteria. For your information, I am very familiar with the drinking water regulations and the interpretation of water data, and I can assure you that this was a perfunctory automated comparison with criteria that are readily available to anyone.
Both the NGO and the New York Times published some evaluation and commentary about the water quality of certain suppliers (the Times wrote about several cities in Southern California and the NGO wrote about some large U.S. cities). I have seen no evidence that anyone (other than you, in Wikipedia) has published an evaluation or commentary about water data from the Kripalu Center.
The data dump on the New York Times website is a primary source. The interpretation that you provided in the article text was original synthesis, which is a form of original research. --Orlady (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, the NY Times states clearly and in plain language, that it analyzed the data. It explains this in detail, and its analysis is clearly different from NGO analysis of the primary sources.
You say the NY Times, in fact, DIDN'T analyze the information, and moreover, base your statement primarily on your personal expertise. You may be correct, but relevant topic is merely verifiability, and the question of primary versus secondary sourcing.
NYTimes obtained info from NGO, which assembled information from many state records, which in this case, are the "primary sources."
NYT is secondary source, by definition, as is also the NGO, actually without regard to analysis question. (See major NYTimes story today on "Wikileaks" info on Afganistan for rather distant but relevant comparison).
Now, if there is issue of "original research" whether based on your expertise, or other matters, that may be a separate discussion. Let's first settle question of WP:PRIMARY. That will help focus the discussion.
Calamitybrook (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... I did omit one element of "analysis" that the NYT did. They "verified the data" from the NGO by "comparing a randomly selected sample with records collected from [the] states." Verification of a random sample of data was a valuable piece of "analysis", but there is absolutely no indication that any human associated with the Times even looked at the Kripalu data. Raw data is a primary source. --Orlady (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Assembling raw data from a variety of sources (what you say the NGO did) is not the same as evaluating the information. In particular, note that all of the Kripalu Center data (I use the word "all" loosely -- this is a grand total of 37 measurements -- concentrations of 7 constituents measured at various times over a 5-year period; not nearly enough data to base a decision on) would have come from the same source in Massachusetts. The fact that Kripalu Center water records are now filed in the same data compendium as thousands of other records from all over the United States does not somehow make those water records anything more than raw data. --Orlady (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Orlady is correct here. Simple repetition of primary source material by a secondary source is not in and of itself enough for the material not to qualify as per WP:PRIMARY. Raw data from a primary source is still primary source data. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that the NY Times and EWG websites were just collections of data measured by Kripalu and collected by the state. If the article were named Kripalu Center water supply, I could see including this in the body of the article, but I do not see that it belongs in the main text here. Since Wikipedia is often useful as a starting point for further research, I see nothing wrong with including at least the link to the NYT site in a footnote with some sort of brief neutral explanatory text. Since the EWG site is linked from the NYT and is the same data, I do not see the need to link it separately. I think the Massachusetts DEP websites could also be linked in the same footnote. Perhaps something like For the results of water tests on the former wells and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's agreements with the center to change water supply systems, see [refs]. How does that work for everyone? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no mention of the water quality data in the Massachusetts DEP sources that address the replacement of the Kripalu Center water supply. (It is reasonable to assume that the state of Massachusetts did not see a need to take regulatory enforcment action against a water supply for not meeting the state of California's nonmandatory "public health goals.") The Massachusetts DEP action was based on not having a large enough wellhead protection zone around the well -- regulations require a minimum distance between public water supply wells and things like parking lots and buildings, and Kripalu's well didn't have that. The water quality data that Calamitybrook has been wanting to include in the article were not relevant to the change in water source -- at best, this is mildly interesting trivia that has apparently never been commented on by any published source other than Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The three Massachusetts DEP web pages are still referenced in the article. However, two of the Wikipedia reference citations formerly contained the full text of the information in those sources, and I did remove the full text from those two citations. --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Primary Sources"

This [[9]] is different from this [[10]] because of what is explained here [[11]].
That the New York Times' rather long-winded explaination of its analysis could be merely the publisher's private fantasy is, to say the least, unlikely in the extreme. Yet apparently, you sincerely believe this.
So yes, uh, let's move on.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletionists' focus of late has been mainly on use of primary sources, which (a peculiar) consensus of three WP:Canvas editors/admin here, defines to include The New York Times (!!) So, in full acceptance of this demonstrably questionable, and perhaps wholly novel "consensus"... let us by all means now review....
Relevant policy:
"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."
On this basis, deletion unjustified.
Barring plausible suggestions to the contrary, the material could be reasonably restored.
Silence is clearly consensus.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You say "Silence is clearly consensus." Not so. Over the last 2-1/2 hours, you have made five different edits on this page. In the previous ~24 hours, you made 11 edits. In the course of those 16 edits, you have made remarks, edited those remarks, added new remarks, and deleted some of your earlier remarks. My impression of the various statements is that are arguing with yourself (how else to explain the frequent revisions to your remarks?) and you are not saying anything new. Not everything you wrote makes much sense, but to the extent that I can figure out what you are saying, I am pretty sure that what you say has been responded to here at least once already. I have better things to do than continually try to say the same things over and over to you, when it is clear that you aren't interested in listening to anyone other than yourself.
You did succeed in getting Sinneed to quit Wikipedia by subjecting him to months of similar unproductive "discussion", but you can be very sure that his quitting did not mean that he agreed with you. --Orlady (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to edit your comments above, as much as you like, so that they might become more relevant.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I also do not see silence as consensus. Although I was asked to comment here, it was because I peer reviewed this article some time ago (I already had a connection). I regret that I did not comment here sooner - I was aware of the user talk page back and forths between Calamitybrook and Sineed, but did not bother to check what the root cause was. I am very sorry that Sineed has left over this issue. Calamitybrook, if you are concerned about canvassing, perhaps a WP:RfC on this question (what to include in the article, both content and sources) should be opened. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Not the place here for pure speculation about a former editor's entirely private motivations.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who raised the silence is consensus issue - Sineed is silent as he left. Be that as it may, what do you think of the footnote idea I raised above, or the RfC idea (surely these are not off topic, so would you please comment on them)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Some plausible reason for deleting these sources could form a useful basis for compromise, and/or RFC.
You say that because the New York Times material is a "collection of data," it therefore must not be referred to in the article. Can you elaborate on that point? I don't want to put words in your mouth, and am probably not understanding your thinking.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm quite mistaken, Orlady recently argued on a different page, with some vigor, in favor of including a source, which Orlady called a "database" of federal agency: the National Park Service (Natl Registry of Historic Places?). Yet Orlady strongly favors here deletion of the federal Environmental Protection Agency page, which plainly totes up Kripalu sanctions.
We must not speculate about this contradiction, if it is one, not least because it isn't explained.
One might, however, reasonably request some plain-spoken thoughts.
Am thinking "sources" isn't really the issue.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Resonable proposal?

Okay, am suggesting an expansion of "water" material from current three sentences, to four, which would expand existing article's total coverage by slightly more than 3% ??? and effectively, "splits the difference," while retaining significant information sources; i.e. New York Times, federal EPA and state DEP, which, at least some readers with curiosity, may find of interest. Earlier, there were five sentences on this topic.
Perhaps this could form basis for compromise, or alternative routes.
Here is suggested four-sentence text:
Until 2009, Kripalu's water-supply system relied upon onsite wells, supplemented by water purchased from the
Lenox water department[20], from which Kripalu currently obtains all of its drinking water.

[foregoing slightly simplfies existing text; what follows makes explict a very vague reference in existing text:]

A 2008 analysis by The New York Times said Kripalu's water supply contained two contaminants in amounts below legal limits, but above federal health guidelines.[21][22][23] In a separate and unrelated matter concerning the system, a consent order issued by the Mass. DEP set an August 2009 deadline for retirement of one of Kripalu's wells.[24][25
Earlier, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency listed nine reporting and monitoring violations for Kripalu's water
supply system, occurring between 1998 and 2001.[20]

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The number of sentences on a topic is not the sole measure of the balance of an article's content. However, even in its current form, this article gives more space to the Center's disused water supply than to its new $15 million building that has been acclaimed by architectural critics. A disinterested observer (in which capacity I stumbled upon this article a month or so ago) would say that the water supply is receiving more attention than it deserves and/or that the new building is receiving less attention than it deserves.
As for your sentences:
  • Until 2009, Kripalu's water-supply system relied upon onsite wells, supplemented by water purchased from the Lenox water department[20], from which Kripalu currently obtains all of its drinking water.
I have not seen any source that says that the Center gets its water from the Lenox water department. That seems to be your inference from combining information from other sources. That's synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is thus a violation of Wikipedia policy. I also have seen no source that indicates that the Center used wells until 2009; that also seems to be your own inference. The reliable sources indicate only that in 2007 the state gave them an August 2009 deadline to address the wellhead protection problem,[12] and as of 2009 they were using purchased surface water.[13]
In addition to its including original research, that sentence includes several different ideas strung together. If this sentence were the whole discussion of the Center's water supply, that sentence might be OK, but for the intro to a longer discussion, it's not good writing.
  • A 2008 analysis by The New York Times said Kripalu's water supply contained two contaminants in amounts below legal limits, but above federal health guidelines.
That statement is incorrect. The New York Times did not do an analysis. The New York Times posted data from 45 states and the District of Columbia on its website, including several years of available water quality data for all public water systems in those jurisdictions. The Times did not "analyze" the data -- rather, output from their database includes is an automated comparison between the numbers in the various data sets and several sets of other entities' numerical criteria for judging drinking water quality. If there had been an analysis of Kripalu Center's by The New York Times, it would have been published in the newspaper, but there is no hint of any published analysis (by the Times or anyone else) of the Kripalu Center's water quality. Additionally, the guidelines exceeded by the three substances (not two) are not "federal health guidelines", but instead are "California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Public Health Goals" (nonmandatory criteria established by the state of California).
Additionally, please note that this database on the NYTimes website is the item that I have labeled "raw data" and a "primary source" (the fact that the data are on the NYTimes website and not the place where the data originated doesn't change this). The absence of any indication that anybody (for example, the Berkshire Eagle) ever published comments on the analytical data makes it extremely hard for me to imagine why these data would even be considered for inclusion in an encyclopedia article.
  • In a separate and unrelated matter concerning the system, a consent order issued by the Mass. DEP set an August 2009 deadline for retirement of one of Kripalu's wells.
It looks like we agree on at least one thing. That is, it is true that the Massachusetts DEP actions were "separate and unrelated" to the data in the database posted on the New York Times website. However, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of what is significant to say regarding the DEP. It seems to me that, if anything about the change in water supply source deserves to be mentioned in the article, it is that that DEP had concerns about the water source and the Center changed its water source. I don't think that the name of the agency (Massachusetts DEP) is particularly important, I am sure that the specific data in the final consent decree is unimportant trivia, and I think the fact that there was a "consent order" is a minor detail that would be meaningless to most readers. As it happens, a "consent order" is not so much an "order" as it is an enforced agreement -- in this instance, it means that the Massachusetts DEP and Kripalu Center reached agreement on a set of stipulations, which the DEP then documented in the "order." My sentence (which is currently in the article) that says "There were regulatory agency concerns about the water supply's potential vulnerability to contamination" avoids getting into the details of the enforcement process, but explains the reason for the consent orders, as documented in the Mass DEP's report on the water system[14], which I think is probably the only truly reliable source in this whole mess and in the 2006 consent order.[15] And, in case I need to say this again, the fact that the state's actions regarding the well system were completely unrelated to the data in the NY Times database is just one reason why I contend that the NY Times database information is irrelevant to the article.
  • Earlier, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency listed nine reporting and monitoring violations for Kripalu's water supply system, occurring between 1998 and 2001.
Oh, dear, where to begin on this one? Yes, you got the information from an EPA website (one that provides some information about environmental violations documented by states that have primacy to implement federal environmental regulatory programs), but the fact that this is an EPA website does not mean that you are correct in saying "earlier, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency listed..." -- it's the state DEP (not EPA) that determined that these were violations, and neither you nor I has any clue as to when EPA added these to its database (presumably this is what "listed" means), since the webpage doesn't say...
Now, for the content of the webpage... You are basically correct in calling these "reporting and monitoring" violations, but I note that EPA's database output] does call them "monitoring and reporting violations." EPA also says these violations are "not health-based"; your omission of that factoid, and your proposals for juxtaposing the "violation" count with the other information about the water supply lead me to think that you are trying to suggest a relationship that does not exist (see WP:COATRACK). According to the EPA webpage (which is another raw data dump), there were 8 violations for 1998 and one for 2001; I suppose that could be described as "between 1998 and 2001", but your choice of wording seems misleading.
The 8 violations in 1998 are essentially one violation: The Kripalu Center did not submit monitoring results for 8 analytical parameters (photon emitters, radium-226, radium-228, strontium-90, gross beta particle activity, gross alpha particle activity, and tritium) that it was supposed to monitor for some time between October 1, 1998 and December 12, 1998. The cryptic database output on the EPA website is difficult to interpret and does not provide details on any of the listed violations, but because there is no indication that Kripalu Center was hauled into court for these omissions, I have to assume that they later did the analyses and submitted the data to the state. So, we are left with the factoid that an EPA database indicates that 12 years ago the Kripalu Center was late in submitting data required by an environmental permit; I have extreme difficulty imagining any reason for including this detail in an encyclopedia article about Kripalu Center.
The violation in 2001 is "CCR Inadequate Reporting" and is further described as related to the "contaminant" called "Consumer Confidence Rule." This kind of cryptic database entry never should be the basis for an encyclopedia article, but for purposes of this talk page I'll provide my informed interpretation of it. EPA regulations require all public drinking water suppliers to report annually to their customers on the results of monitoring on the water quality of the drinking water they provide. Water suppliers with retail customers are supposed to mail the report to all of their customers by a certain date each year, and non-municipal-type suppliers like Kripalu center are supposed to post the information on their premises. Apparently, Kripalu Center's report in 2001 (which I think was the first year of this requirement) was judged "inadequate" (the database doesn't say what the means; my guess is that they didn't post a report that year, likely because it was a new requirement that they hadn't paid attention to). The EPA database output indicates that a notice of violation was issued on August 1, 2001, and compliance was achieved on August 20.
Although all of these violations were important for the state to pursue (so they would not be repeated), their encyclopedic significance is effectively summarized by the slang expression "Big Whoop". There's nothing here of any significance, and the only source is too minimal to use as a basis for anything. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing in part, that in your personal analysis, certain provisions of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and aspects of its current means of administration, are insignificant.
You may be correct, but we mustn't here seek the status of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Also, a consent order is a significant judicial act of law enforcement, and am unsure what argument might be presented here to the contrary.
The New York Times reports "three contaminants above health guidelines;" EWG reports five. This is because NYT performed its own analysis (as it describes in detail) before publishing.
You may be reading too much into a single proposed and verifiable sentence. The EPA's Web page lists nine, separately numbered violations, which occurred during 1998, 1999 and 2001.
These were described as "reporting and monitoring violations." Describing that which violations were not would require extending the sentence into the infinite.
Also, to clear up a further bit of uncertainty regarding current status of water supply, see this source: [[16]]

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

1. It's not just my personal analysis that these "monitoring and reporting violations" are insignificant. EPA's website calls it a "non-health-related" violation. That is supposed to be understood to mean that it has less significance than a health-related violation would have. A footnote on the data output page indicates that this kind of violation is very common: "In fiscal year 2005 (the last year for which EPA has complete data) based on information reported to EPA by the states, 1.5 percent of all systems reported a treatment technique violation, 6.1 percent of all systems reported an MCL violation, and 24 percent of all systems reported a reporting/monitoring violation." Moreover, it happened once, 12 years ago. I submit that almost all reasonable people would agree that that fact that a particular organization was late in submitting data required by an environmental permit once, 12 years ago, is not the type of information that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article about the organization. Drunk driving and parking tickets are both violations of motor vehicle law, but that doesn't mean they are equally significant. The same principle applies to environmental law.
2. Hmm... That Wikipedia article about consent orders that you linked to is deficient, in that it incorrectly states that consent orders are only issued by judges, and does not acknowledge the existence of administrative consent orders. The Mass DEP consent order regarding Kripalu Center was not a court order, but rather was a consent order issued by a government agency. This is the meaning of the sentence in the source that begins "MassDEP entered into a Consent Order with...". If a court and judge had been involved with the process, the court would have been identified in that sentence. See for a broader definition of "consent order" than is currently in the Wikipedia article, and see for another state's explanation of administrative consent orders are used in environmental enforcement.
3. You say "The New York Times reports 'three contaminants above health guidelines;' EWG reports five." This is because the Times database does not list the EWG's very stringent "guidelines" for acceptable levels of several chemicals that are known generically as "byproducts of drinking water disinfection". I haven't figured out where the EWG got its "guidelines," but it is useful to note that almost all public water supplies derived from surface water sources exceed the guidelines that the EWG used -- and the Kripalu Center water supply had lower levels than many water supplies. For example, the public water supplies in Stockbridge, Lenox, and Lee all reported higher levels of these chemicals than the Kripalu Center reported. (Lee and Stockbridge even reported levels that exceeded legal limits.) Regardless, the fact that the Times did not include all of EWG's "guidelines" in its online database does not indicate that anybody at the Times so much as looked at the data for the Kripalu Center.
4. You say "You may be reading too much into a single proposed and verifiable sentence. The EPA's Web page lists nine, separately numbered violations, which occurred during 1998, 1999 and 2001." No, you are misinterpreting -- and reading way too much into -- an extremely minimal source. The page that you describe as "EPA's Web page" is not a conventional webpage, but a page of database output from EPA's "Envirofacts Warehouse." EPA did not generate the information on that page -- one of the headings says "The tables below list all violations that the state reported to EPA for this water system." The data output on that page is very limited and cryptic, but I firmly believe that you have misinterpreted the cryptic information on dates. Each of the violations that are listed with dates in 1998 and 1999 has 3 dates: Sampling Period Begin Date OCT-01-1998, Sampling Period End DEC-12-1998, and St Formal NOV issued MAR-02-1999. The notes on the page don't explain what those dates mean, which is one very strong reason why that database output page is not a good basis for a Wikipedia article. However, for your benefit I will explicate those dates. The first two dates are under the heading "Violation" field and they are the beginning and end of the time period for compliance, which seems to be the period during which the Kripalu Center was supposed to take one sample of its water and get it analyzed, then send the data to the state. Apparently they either didn't collect the sample or they didn't send the results to the state. If you click on the link for the third date (the one in 1999), you will find that EPA classifies that date under the heading "Enforcement", and it is the date of an action taken by a regulatory agency (not the date of an additional violation, as you incorrectly interpreted it to be). Although the EPA source does not seem to define the abbreviations, I know that "St Formal NOV issued" means "State Formal Notice of Violation issued."
As for the number of violations that occurred in 1998 (there were none in 1999), you are correct that the database lists 8 violations in 1998, but that is because failure to submit monitoring results for each individual chemical analysis required on the permit is treated as a separate violation. Although these were treated as 8 violations, it would be seriously misleading to state that Kripalu Center violated the law 8 times in 1998 when even the cryptic information in the data output clearly indicates that these 8 violations represented only one act of omission. --Orlady (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I failed to comment on the link you offered "to clear up a further bit of uncertainty regarding current status of water supply." That link is already in the article as a reference citation. As I stated last evening, that source indicates only that as of 2009, the Kripalu Center water supply came from "purchased surface water." --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Orlady. Not sure if this helps or not, but here is an analogous situation. Cherry Springs State Park is an FA and has a section on public astronomy programs held there. Newspapers near the park publish notices of upcoming programs, though these are press releases (the newspaper is reprinting material from the park / Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources - for an example see this newspaper article search). Although the article discusses the astronomy programs, it does so using sources discussing the programs, not these reprinted primary sources. It is also not appropriate / encyclopedic for the article to list every program or even summaries of the programs each year. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Lots of thoughtful, personal analysis here from Orlady. Thanks! Impossible to evaluate much what she is saying, other than on the basis of subjective opinion & preference.
Apparently, Kripalu agreed with Orlady...but this didn't work out too good for them.... as they ended up with nine EPA violations and two consent orders from the state.
Better to stick with a few, verifiable sentences & leave aside the personal interpretation of environmental law, NYT's publishing practices, & etc.
If nine EPA violations and two state consent orders are analagous to an evening program of astronomy at a state park, then how or why is unstated.
The Kripalu article doesn't, & shouldn't offer much detail on its many and varied programs.
Much of the article is, however, drawn directly & appropriately, from Kripalu's Web site, which is quite analagous to a press release, in that both are public relations, communications & marketing devices. Balancing this with material from other reliable sources is a useful goal.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)