Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi

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

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.


A few users/IPs are regularly removing the Controversies section from the article. Everyone must understand that Wikipedia is not a place for veneration or hate speech. Article must be written in a neutral way. This is an encyclopedia, so it should cover all aspects. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


I have serious doubts about the appropriateness of the various components of the Controversies Section, as per the Wiki Guidelines for BLP. See Wikipedia:Verifiability -- specifically the section "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources."

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
  • surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
  • challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
  • reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
  • claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream
assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when
proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence

Mata Amritanandamayi Math and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India figure in the list of 240 cases in which irregular tax exemptions to the tune of Rs 248.39 crore were given. "ITD (Income Tax Department) has not taken uniform stand in allowance\disallowance of the depreciation to Trusts and allowed irregular depreciation in 240 cases involving tax effect of Rs 248.39 crore," said a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report tabled in Parliament. Referring to the Mata Amritanandamayi Math case, the CAG said the claim of depreciation of Rs 138.46 crore during assessment years (AYs) 2007 to 2009 as application against income from property held under Trust was "not in order". The auditor further said the Math "has not added back the depreciation for any of the AYs for which it already claimed deduction for acquisition of capital asset as application money involving potential revenue impact of Rs 46.77 crore". [1]

Gail Tredwell's Holy Hell: A Memoir of Faith, Devotion and Pure had created a nationwide furore. The former disciple of Amrithanandamayi, who in her book alleged that she was raped repeatedly by the chief priest of the Mutt , Balu in mid-eighties and physically tortured by the God woman Amrithanandamayi.

Now, In a recent chat show with John Brittas , Tredwell repeated her allegations against the ashram and went on to narrate her experiences during her role as Amrithanandamayi's personal attendant.

Gail Tredwell reveals that she receives many hate mails and it took 15 years to write the book. "I was emotionally disturbed for long and wanted to write down the incidents to forget my past and come out from it." [2]

[3] I would think Sreeni Pathathanam's book would fall under the category of an unexceptional source. It should be stressed that the author is attributing conspiracy of multiple homocides to Amritanandmayi--a worldwide respected humanitarian and spiritual leader. In the 20 years since his book was first published (by a small Malayalam press, basically self-published) no one of any legal authority has ever taken these claims seriously.

Furthermore in the BLP guidelines it also says:

  • :Persons accused of crime
  • :See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Criminal acts and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators
  • :Shortcut:
  • :A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively

unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[5] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[6] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.

Furthermore, On September 24, 2002, Deshabhimani, a Malayalam newspaper, officially apologized for an article that had appeared in a similar vain in its pages. The retraction, titled "Report that Suspicious Deaths at Amritanandamayi Math Are Growing Was Incorrect," states: "We now state with conviction that there was nothing suspicious about deaths that happened in the Math. Some of the deaths mentioned in the article did not even take place at the Math." The retraction article goes on to describe how relatives of the deceased had personally contacted Deshabhimani in order to correct the misinformation conveyed in the article. In several cases, the deaths were of elderly people, and the editors explained how the relatives had contacted Deshabhimani and explained how they were the bedsides of the people who supposedly had died suspiciously during the time of their passing. ("Report that Suspicious Deaths at Amritanandamayi Math Are Growing Was Incorrect," Deshabhimani, September 24, 2002, Page 6).

I wish someone with more experience with Wiki than I could make some sort of judgement in this issue and remove this entry from the section.

Furthermore, I feel that this recent addition to the section, regarding the death in prison of someone who attacked Amritanandamayi, has no business in Amritanandamayi's Wiki page. It has been put their in order to insinuate that the attacker's death in prison was somehow the work of Amritanandamayi's organization. Allowing this to be placed in Amritanandamyi's section is akin to putting as a controversy on Walmart's page that someone who'd been caught shoplifting at Walmart was killed in prison. It really should be removed. (Please check this link to a Times of India report: The controversy has nothing to do with Amritanandamayi.) It is clear this is a prison/mental hospital controversy and in no way relates to Amritanandmayi or her ashram.

Even the AIMS Strike controversy would be more appropriate on the Mata Amritanandamayi Math page than on the page of the hospital's founder. LanceMurdock999 14:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Even though I feel it is inappropriate as the source is just some editorials, I would be open to having the inquiry into source of Foriegn Funds moved to Mata Amritanandamayi Math page, as it is about Math's funds and not Amritanandamayi's funds. I think this would be similarly acceptable with the AIMS strike. Satnam really must be deleted as it is not a controversy regarding MAM but a controversy regarding the mental hospital where he was beaten to death. According to multiple news reports, wardens there have been arrested already. I hope someone will concur on this talk page and do the needful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceMurdock999 (talkcontribs) 06:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The controversy is about the death of the person, I agree, but the incidents happened in the ashram and when he first attempted to disrupt the prayer and darshan of Amritanandamayi. So I feel it is worthy of mention there. It can be stated pretty clearly in the section about what happened thereafter. I think I have already put contents there justifying the views. The point is simple - the incidents that resulted in the death of the person started from them ashram when he attempted to attack Amritanandamayi. Hope you are clear about this now.
Regarding the foreign funds accusal, it is a widespread allegation against the ashram. It would be nice if the sentence about the worth of 400 crore can be removed from there. But the points by eminent people such as Sukumar Azhikode must stay as they have only demanded to audit her funds.
If everything is to be attributed to the Math alone, then the very existence of the sub sections such as Charity, Bhajans, Books and Publications etc should also be removed from the page, as it's all done by the Math and not Amritanandamayi. One more, Amritanandamayi is noted for other things, and not her bhajan. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, what I see in the article is a deliberate attempt to remove anything and everything that comes against Amritanandamayi. Everyone must understand that this is not a place for veneration or hate speech. Things must be presented here, in a neutral perspective. There have always been reverence and criticism against holy men. We must not be judgemental as to what is good and what is bad. I am FOR removing deliberate praise and deliberate hatred. The retained contents were subject to vandalism many times in the recent past. It even resulted in legal threats and blocking of an IP. The corrective measures were implemented by people who were NOT involved in the edits. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
LanceMurdock999, I see that you attempted vandalism by modifying the content in the section "Demand for probing source of foreign aid". The reference links already given in those section clearly state (in local language Malayalam) that the demand for the probe is against Amritanandamayi. I see that you tried to tone it down by changing it "against her organisation" and not against her. Please refrain from such deliberate attempts in the future. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sreejith, I only added "Math" because that's what it says in the cited article ( ("Eminent litterateur Sukumar Azhikode on Saturday wanted the government to probe the source of foreign aid received by the Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt as part of the ongoing drive to expose spiritual rackets." Furthermore, "Amritanandamayi" when used in this sense can only be referring to the Math as Amritanandamayi has no personal income. If they have referred to the Math's income has "her" income, we should not pass on the poor journalism. I still feel these so-called controversies go against the BLP guidelines. I think perhaps we should seek guidance from an administrator at BLP. LanceMurdock999 09:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceMurdock999 (talkcontribs)

There are a couple of other links on the page which shows the controversy is about the person. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Lance, attributing alleged controversies pertaining to organizations connected to a person don't belong on a person's BLP page. Including the AIMS controversy is akin to posting an article about employee suicides at FoxConn (apple manufacturing plant) on Steve Jobs' BLP page. -- JamesRoberts1949 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRoberts1949 (talkcontribs) 04:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Maintaining a neutral perspective is key here. That's why I think the the edits LanceMurdock made are in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Unsubstantiated controversies which are poorly documented do not fit in a biographical page like this one. Pritivarma1985 (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)PritiVarmaPritivarma1985 (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It is surprising to note that both the IDs above (Pritivarma1985 and JamesRoberts1949 are newly created with the only edits on this page. While you are free to create new IDs on Wikipedia, request you to use it responsibly. There is not poorly documented unsubstantiated controvery written on this page. Whatever is written in the Controversy section has been backed with proper third party references. You may also note that there is no wilfull intent to damage a BLP as evidences are present. The versions of the Math are also given in the respective places. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I edited out the subsection about the hospital as it does not pertain to the person this page is dedicated to. Sreejithinfo it is clear to me that you are including these articles in a defamatory manner. Please refrain from violating Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRoberts1949 (talkcontribs) 16:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
@Sreejithinfo, FYI a newly created ID does not discount the fact that one might have been editing without an account. I have done numerous edits for academic work without an ID. I wanted to sign my name with this edit therefore did so through my Wikipedia account. Please keep conversation relevant. Thank you. Pritivarma1985 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)PritiVarmaPritivarma1985 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The reason I asked is because you said the controversy section is unsubstantiated. Didn't you see the authentic external references? -- SreejithInfo (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we add an article about the catholic priest sexual abuse scandal on the Wiki Page for Jesus Christ since he was the inspiration behind the founding of the church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRoberts1949 (talkcontribs) 20:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not fair. There is a deliberate attempt (as reported by many other editors in the past) to keep the contents of this page only to the praise of the person. The BLP guidelines of Wiki clearly mentions that whatever praise or criticism can be added to the BLP page provided authenticated by verifiable and authentic references. I have produced many such references to the two sections in the Controveries part, but the people who have been engaging in an edit war have been removing it unwantedly. They say that the cricism against her organisations cannot be attributed to her. In that case, I see that the sections Bhajans and Charity given in the artcile do not deem fit there as the bhajans and charity programs are organised by Mata Amritanandamayi Math and not the person. How can one justify the inclusion of the praise activities by her organisation and completely ignore the criticism against them. I hope some admin will look seriously into this issue. If the Amritananadamayi controversy regarding the hospital is to be removed, the same law should be applied to the Bhajans and Charity sections too. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, as the person who protected this page cited, there is high probability that sock puppetry accounts are used in this page. The IDs that disrupt the editing and remove contents without discussion, issuing warning on my talk pages, legal threatening etc are being done with newly created accounts which are used only for the purpose for editing this article. It may be noted here that certain account which used to remove the contents I added were blocked from editing by Wiki admins. You may note the actions and comments by User:ViriiK and User:DMacks on my page. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am glad someone is looking into this Controversies section. It's not my intention to control the content of this page. I only want to make sure that it is adhering to BLP Guidelines. I did not want to get into an edit war, so I had sent a request for review of this section on the BLP Noticeboard, but until now nothing had happened. It seems other people are upset about the postings. I would expect so. Wiki is a prime source of information, and many people who respect this world-renowned humanitarian (whose organization consults with the United Nations) will investigate/chime-in when someone starts attempting to make the Controversy Section 50 percent of the Wiki Page. I am hoping this block will allow for some time for some oversight by administrators. My main concern is that this Controversies section is being used to create a sort of Slambook against Mata Amritanandamayi. Regardless of whether or not various subsections in the Controversies section have citations or not, do they belong on Mata Amritanandamayi's page? Many subsections are accusing the subject of the page with serious crimes. My understanding is that this goes against BLP guidelines. Currently many of these citations are news reports about someone's fringe theory or simply reporting someone's opinion/editorial. The case of Satnam Singh Mann's death in a government mental hospital after being arrested in the ashram four days earlier does not belong on this page. It has been put there to insinuate a connection between his death and Mata Amritanandamayi. In this way citations are being used to subvert the reality and, in some cases, the original spirit of the news report. Other citations are from provincial reports by small presses or are even from self-published books. I have stated my qualms with these subsections already in this section. I hope they will be reviewed on an individual basis and considered for deletion.--LanceMurdock999 (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole point here is that the article should stay impartial. I wonder the people who are eager to delete the well sourced sections about the controversies, do not even care to look into the praise sections. The contents in those sections are merely copied from her own websites and are not sourced at all in most places. I have added a "citation needed" tag to many places there. Such people who want to keep Wikipedia clean do not bother to correct them and instead accuse that the controversy section references are mere personal opinions or editorials. Point out which of those references are editorials or personal opinions. Those links are given based on the Wikipedia standards, from authentic neutral links. Whereas most of the contents in the praise section are/were taken from her own websites or books. Those do not present a neutral point of view. Additionally, I am glad that the person who protected this page observed that newly created accounts are being used for engaging in edit wars. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that an encyclopedia should be impartial. However, in my opinion, what you're doing is not impartial. Much of the controversy content that you're posting is not directly related to this person. But that's my opinion. The biggest problem here is that you're not allowing anybody else to edit this page. Any time somebody makes even slight changes, you revert them back to your version. Furthermore you have violated the 3 reverts rule repeatedly. I may be a new user, but I have just as much rights as you do when it comes to opinons on what should be included and shouldn't be included. JamesRoberts1949 (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
A sockpuppet case is reported against your username. The matter that you issued a warning on my Talk page is also being discussed there. Let the admins decide it. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Do not carry on your content dispute on the SPI page. It is disruptive. Your warning about edit-warring was deserved and would have led to a block, but the presence of SPAs caused me to protect the article from further disruption instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Amatulić: I understand that reverting vandalism does not fall in the category of edit-warrning as per 3RR, as stated on the page Wikipedia:Edit warring. The other accounts have been blanking pages instead of discussing them. The last occasion on which I undid someone else's edit was when I reversed a page blanking. You may please check the 4th condition under the section "3RR exemptions" which clearly states removing page blanking does not fall under 3RR. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Amatulić:You may also note the revision history of the article. I made 5 reverts on the accused day (14 August 2012) and all of them were vandalism removals, as clearly stated in the change summary during reverts. As I mentioned in the comment above, reverting vandalism does not fall in the "3RR exemptions" and an account that tries to eliminate vandalism cannot qualify for blocking, as per the conditions mentioned at Wikipedia:Edit warring. Hope you will stand corrected on your statement that it was "deserved". -- SreejithInfo (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not stand corrected. this was a revert of an edit that had a valid explanation,[3] yet you characterized it as "vandalism". This is a content dispute. Characterizing a content dispute as vandalism indicates a failure to assume good faith, and combined with repeated reverts in a content dispute, constitutes edit warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The accusation was that it was an editorial. What is the editorial here? It had valid references to Tehelka, Sify, OneIndia, and WebDunia news portals. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm exempt under the 7th exemption from the 3RR: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." JamesRoberts1949 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

But the section that was blanked, was not poorly sourced. It was properly sourced with reference to reliable external sources, which were verifiable. Additionally, it was not biased. I had given versions of both parties included in the controversy and I had given proper references in both. Controversy, if properly sourced, can stay on BLP pages. This is clearly stated on the BLP guideline page on Wikipedia. You may please refer to pages such as Chhagan Bhujbal, Sharad Pawar, and Julian Assange. If we are to discard them citing that those are related to her organisation then we would have to discard the sections Bhajans, Charity etc as these are also done by her organisations and should be mentioned on those pages only. Hope that is clear. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Amatulić - my apologies if I violated etiquette on the SPI page that was not my intention, I thought it was a fair defense. As this is the first time I'm seriously editing on Wikipedia, I'm still learning the ropes. JamesRoberts1949 (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

I'm here in response to the third opinion request, which I think you should take down, because this really isn't an appropriate discussion for a third opinion request. Having said that, there are some structural problems with this article. First of all, is it a BLP, or an article about Amritanandamayi's organization. It shouldn't be both, because by making it both you make it impossible to follow BLP rules, which must be followed. If the article is about Amritanandamayi, then some of the things that are brought up in the controversy section are clearly inappropriate, because they aren't about her, but rather her organization. And they are quite problematic in a BLP about her because they establish a sort of guilt by association simply by being mentioned, even though no overt accusation has been made.

This is further complicated by the fact that the government's behavior is clearly corrupt, and that corruption fogs the situation. At whose instigation did all these bad things happen? Amaritanandamayi's? Her organization's? The local government, which probably has a vested interest in her remaining in business?
The bottom line is that you need to separate out the organization and the person. You can't have a BLP about an organization. By doing so, you create a fertile environment in which BLP violations can fester. Abhayakara (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Though I like what Abhayakara says about the approach to be used for this article, I feel that there is a need for a third opinion in this case. Such personalities have always invited criticism and that fact should not be ignored. One can refer the article on Sathya Sai Baba for examples. Even when it was a BLP, it used to contain all those controversies. It is quite natural for them to get into controversies too, because it is a reality. I also agree to the segregation of contents based on whether it is related to the person or her organisation. If it is going to be related to the person alone, then the sections TEACHINGS, CHARITY, BHAJANS, and most of BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS would have to be deleted as these activities are carried out by the Mata Amritanandamayi Math, her organisation. Also, the sources given in these sections are primary sources, in that they are about her own publications or her own close aides or disciples. The neutrality view of Wikipedia is not maintained in those sections. Going by that, it is only fit to remove the contents related to her hospital from the controversy section. My only point is that the article must maintain neutrality. If the criticism about her organisations are to be removed from the article, the praise about her organisations should also be removed. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Abhayakara, thanks for your help. When I was working to add structure to this page a few years ago, I also thought that the bulk of the information regarding the charitable works of Mata Amritanandamayi Math did not belong on Mata Amritanandamayi's page. That is why I had kept it to the minimum. Currently, all that is mentioned about the Mata Amritanandamayi Math's charitable projects is basically that they exist, as well as a a few quotes from Amritanandamayi about the philosophy behind those charitable projects. It was my intention that detailed facts about the charitable projects would be put on the Mata Amritanandamayi Math page. Similarly if there is to be legitimate criticism of those projects, let it go there.
As far as SreejithInfo's desire to strip Mata Amritanandamayi's page of all subsections other than biography and darshan--including Bhajans, Teachings, Books, etc--I feel this would be overkill. Are not the teachings of a spiritual leader the essence of who they are? Should not the books of their teachings be referenced? Could there be a page on, say, the Buddha without explanation of the Buddha's teachings? (Or for that matter a page on Karl Marx without an explanation of his teachings?) Similarly, Mata Amritanandamayi is personally singing bhajans every night of her life and thousands of people come to hear them. Why then would the bhajan section be removed from her Wikipedia page? So, my personal suggestion is to leave only general mention of the charities/charitable institutions and then let the details of those go to the pages of Mata Amritanandamayi Math and Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, etc.
Furthermore, when it comes to the biographical details and information regarding the teachings of a spiritual teacher, I dont see how it can be said that it is inappropriate to source them from books published by that spiritual teacher's organization. This would be akin to saying that in the Jesus Christ page no one can quote the Bible because it was put out by his organization.
And finally I am not sure what exactly is all "the praise" and un-neutral tone to which SreejithInfo keeps referring. I don't see any positive adjectives in the text. There are no statements like "The amazingly great and uplifting teachings of Mata Amritanandamayi..., etc." The text is simple statements of facts regarding Amritanandamayi's life and teachings backed with quotes. And while a few quotes and facts need references, that is something I can easily provide when the page is unlocked again. If the bare facts of Amma's life and teachings seem like "praise" to someone, then I guess that person must recognize an inherent beneficence in the information presented by those facts and teachings.--LanceMurdock999 (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Amatulić and Abhayakara: My understanding is that the lock is removed from this page tomorrow--the 24th of August. What happens then? Can we agree that this Controversy Section does not belong here according to BLP Guidelines? I feel like that has been the consensus, for lack of a better word. Of the subsections currently in the section:

  • Accusations on Fraudulence and Suspicious Deaths does not belong according to BLP guidelines.
  • Demanding for source of foreign aid does not belong here. MAM is regularly filing its foreign-donation details with the Central Government as per the regulations, just like every other NGO in India. Just because a writer and the head of an atheist organization have said in interviews that they feel the state government should gain access to those details, I don't see that as a controversy. If JK Rowling were to demand that the foreign proceeds of some NGO be made public would it be a controversy on that NGO's page? If people feel this is not the case and that this subsection marks a valid "controversies," then let it go on the Mata Amritanandamayi Math page.
  • The Satnam Singh Mann subsection is clearly guilt by association, as Abhayakara said, and is against BLP guidelines t remain here.
  • Facebook campaign one is just ridiculous. Come on! A news-story about how the police attempted to catch some people who started an Facebook page--which was against Indian law due to its slanderous/untruthful nature--has been twisted into being a source for a controversy about Amritanandamayi. Too much!

Abhayakara was concerned that this page was sort of a hybrid between a BPL and a page on an organization... I tried to address that in my previous post above. I am not sure if my explanation was satisfactory or not. If not, I would like Abhayakara to recommend some methods to dichotomize the two.

Assuming what I have outlined is satisfactory, may I ask what should be done in the future if such "controversies" appear on the page? How to handle that?

Finally, I would like to add that--if I am incorrect in my above conclusion--I would prefer that the page remains indefinitely locked, Amatulić, and changes are entered through administrator approval. Being a novice here, I request you to please let me know how we proceed?--LanceMurdock999 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Much as we might wish otherwise, indefinite locks don't happen, because there aren't enough administrators to support the workload that would follow.
In general, anything that is about something someone who works for the Math (BTW, I'm using the term "Math" because people here have been doing so, but I have no idea precisely what it means other than "organization") did belongs in an article about the Math. You can put information about her in the article about the Math because an organization that has been built up around her, but you have to avoid confusing her actions and the actions of people who work for the Math and whose actions can't be attributed to her. For example, if she directed someone to do something, and they did it, then you can attribute that to her (assuming that you have reliable sources that say so). If, on the other hand, someone did something independently, even if they thought she would approve, you can't attribute that to her. Frequently sources do not say who ordered an action to take place. In my personal opinion, in this case you can't attribute the action to any specific person. You will find plenty of viewpoint pushers to disagree with this opinion, however.
In a BLP, it is permissible to use self-published sources if the person who published them is the object of the BLP. Otherwise, you absolutely may not. See WP:BLP and WP:BLPSPS.
I haven't seen anyone specifically attributing the controversial stuff to Amritanandamayi. Rather, it's been attributed to the Math. I haven't really even seen anyone suggest that she had anything to do with these controversial topics.
A bit of personal advice: always refer to the subject of the BLP by their last name. Otherwise people will accuse you of WP:COI and use your use of any sort of honorific as justification.
The reason not to ask for a third opinion is because third opinions carry very little weight. They are good for resolving amicable disagreements between editors with good faith. Not so good when there is serious viewpoint pushing going on.
Assuming that you can do a split into the organization and the person, and you start to see people adding BLP violations to the article, get clear on whether they really are violations, and, assuming good faith WP:AGF, engage in discussion. Some BLP violations are such that they should be removed immediately without discussion—get clear on the distinctions. If you wind up not being able to come to agreement, either do a request for comments WP:RFC or raise an issue on the BLP noticeboard WP:BLPN.
I know about these things because I have been burned in the past. Don't expect to win here (expecting to win is really an indication of POV!). Just do your best to maintain your own WP:NPOV and keep a positive attitude, and ask for help when you need it. Don't get into long, repetitive debates on the talk page.
Good luck. Please feel free to ask for help or advice again if you feel you need it from me, but do bear in mind that I'm not an authority—just another BLP editor who's tried to keep other articles neutral and failed.
BTW, while it may be the case that "slander" is against the law in India, you will find little sympathy here for the position that prosecuting people for Facebook campaigns is acceptable, or that prosecuting people who criticize religious leaders is acceptable. Wikipedia is really founded on the notion of freedom of speech. I personally find the story of what happened to Amritanandamayi's critic repugnant. However repugnant it may be, however, unless some source attributes these actions to Amritanandamayi, they do not belong in her BLP. If we had a reliable source saying that this prosecution was her doing, then it would belong in the article. This is what WP:NPOV is all about. Abhayakara (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The page can be re-protected if disruption resumes, but pages are not protected pre-emptively, and if it needs protection again, it wouldn't be indefinite. The point of protection is to encourage the parties in a dispute to come to an agreement about the content of the article.
As Abhayakara indicated, the overriding policy here is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Therefore, any content included in a biography article should be directly relevant to the subject, not tangentially related. It may be fine to mention briefly the criticism of a related organization, but it would not be appropriate to dwell on it in an entire section. In addition, as Abhayakara stated, the consequences of criticizing the subject of a biography are irrelevant to the biography unless those consequences can be directly attributed to the subject. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Amatulić and Abhayakara, thanks again. I will remove the section once the lock is removed and redirect controversy to Mata Amritanandamayi Math page when it is relevant. I will find the sources for the various facts/quotes that are currently missing. I appreciate your willingness to continue to monitor the page. Please point out any mistakes I may happen to make in editing the article, as well as those of others.--LanceMurdock999 (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, what I understand is that the controversies involving the organisation (hospital or Math) cannot be part of the BLP. In that case, it justifies the removal of the content about the hospital and Math. Those two bits (about the illegal drug tests at the hospital and the nurses' strike) are already removed from the article. What's remaining in the article are:
  1. Accusations on fraudulence and deaths: This is a controversy about the person and not her organisation. This is about a controversial book which is titled "Matha Amritanandamayi: Sacred Stories and Realities".
  2. Demand for probing source of foreign aid: This controversy involves both the person and her organisations. Verifiable sources are given in the article.
  3. Facebook campaign against Amritanandamayi and Police Cases: This is also a direct controversy. Verifiable sources are given.
  4. Attack on Amritanandamayi and suspicous death of assaulter: Though this is a raging issue, it may be removed from the controversy section and mention separately in the article. There have been at least two attacks on her thus far.
The topics that are removed (about drug tests and nurses' strike) can be added to the articles on Math and hospital. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


Controversies continued[edit]

Hello everyone. This page was brought to my attention as containing BLP issues, so I have some advice for editors - very strong advice you need to take.

  • The headers you have put on the page are extremely inappropriate, keep things short and neutral. If you are trying to tell the story in the headings (as with here) then you are well over the WP:SOAP line.
  • Regarding the last controversy section - the sources do not appear to be accusing Amritanandamayi of being responsible. But our article tips the wink that he is. Allegations like this need exemplary sourcing which this does not have. Please reduce this material to a couple of sentences and move detail to a more appropriate article
  • Remember this is a biography about an individual and, as such, should be kept narrowly focused on matters directly pertaining to his life
  • The Facebook/Hospital section lacks proper sourcing for most of it. This must be fixed.

That's all for now. --Errant (chat!) 08:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestions. The following things shall be done.
  • Update headers.
  • Limit some of the controversies to a few sentences and move more contents to the appropriate artciles.
  • Provide additional source for Facebook issue.
  • Hospital issue can be moved completely to the Hospital page.

--XrieJetInfo (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is also worth mentioning here that the Malaylam article (Malayalam is the native language of Amritanandamayi) about her has listed the financial allegations against her. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Not relevant — Wikis in other languages are independent and have their own policies and guidelines. All that matters here are the policies and guidelines on the English Wikipedia. We can include translated material from other Wikipedia articles as long as material complies with our policies, in this case WP:BLP. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I still don't understand why it cannot come here, if it can be sourced. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Mates! I believe the Facebook entry also needs to be moved to the hospital's page. It is not directly about Amritanandamayi but about a charitable case at a hospital founded by her. It seems pretty clear it does not belong in her BLP. But the primary problem is that the article cited as source is not actually about whether or not Swathy Krishna was given concession or not. The article is about a defamation crime under Indian law. Therefore the facts presented in the article are only about what was said on this Facebook page, not about what actually happened. Nor do they purport to be about what actually happened. They only state the claims of the FB page. As the article says: "The [Facebook] page had two posts against AIMS; the first one on July 14, saying the hospital did not give concession for treatment of Swathy Krishna, even as the entire Malayali community prayed for her." I don't believe you can use this source to say that AIMS Hospital did not provide concession. In truth, it is my understanding that the delay in doing the procedure was not because the hospital would not give concession but due to finding proper liver match within her immediate family. (The law prohibited organ donation--our partial organ donation (as in liver transplant case)--from outside the immediate family for fear that it would be used by poor to make money.) In fact,the media hype around this helped get that law changed, I believe. I feel this is in awfully heavy stone do be dropping with very little solid information about the actual situation at the hospital. But even if you dont agree with any of that, I feel it must, at the least, be moved off this BLP to the Amrita Hospital Page.

Also, even though it has been moved from "Controversies" and put "Attacks on Amritanandamayi" the Satnam Singh Mann attack still implies that Amritanandamayi was involved through citing that it was "mysterious." I feel only a few sentencess should be put here--i.e. regarding that Amritanandamayi was attacked, not about his death in prison, a crime for which a number of wardens and inmates at the government hospital have already been arrested. So, really, to say it is "mysterious" is outed news. Regardless, all of this can go to a Satnam Singh Mann Wiki page, not here. As Errant said "This is a biography about an individual and, as such, should be kept narrowly focused on matters directly pertaining to her life."

I am a novice here, so I would hope other more experienced BLP editors that have been involved in this discussion would chime in.

I hope that you will do the needful.--LanceMurdock999 (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

LanceMurdock999, I see your point. I shall move the Facebook issue also to the other hospital page. The separated section (from Controversy) mentions about the attack on Amritanandamayi, which really deserves a place in this article. In the same context, the mysterious death of Mann should also be mentioned here. It became a news when the attacker was found dead. Nowhere in the article, it is mentioned that Amritanandamayi was responsible for the killing. Just that he was taken into custody and he died there. What's your point in not mentioning the death of the person? It was an attack on Amritanandamayi and not on the ashram. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

--LanceMurdock999 (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)== Attack on Amritanandamayi ==

The bulk of the material about the Satnam Singh Attack needs to be moved to its own page, which someone is welcome to start. This is a BLP; any material here should be limited to facts regarding the attack and arrest. It is not not appropriate to put here the voiced opinions of some "intellectuals" (whatever that means) that--despite all evidence, including many live news reports showing footage of Mann leaving the ashram in police custody in tip-top shape--that Singh had been "tortured" in the ashram. And anyone with eyes can see that the video does not show Mann being beaten. It shows someone charging towards Amritanandamayi being stopped by a crowd of people. Just because someone has made a claim and that claim is covered in a newspaper doesn't mean it needs to be recorded here. This goes the same for Agnivesh's comments. If someone really wants to put out these fringe theories, please create a Satnam Singh Mann page and put them there. This is not the place. It is a BLP. Let's limit the Satnam Attack to the fact that he attacked Amritanandamayi.

I have also deleted the paragraph about the "1990 attack" (as it was stated) because the article cited never says that this person "attacked" Amritanandamayi, but only says that he "created a nuisance" at the ashram.--LanceMurdock999 (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Lance, why do you take it personal? The claims (positive or negative) on either sides are backed by authentic references. Wikipedia just needs that, and not "anyone with eyes to see". This is no place for putting contents from own research. Whatever written on Wikipedia must be backed by authentic references, that's it. BRP Bhaskar, Paul Zacharia et al are no silly men to neglect their claims as long as they can be sourced authentically. For God's sake, please remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal website of Amritanandamayi. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
In my understanding of the BLP guidelines, to quote from the guidelines themselves, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." The group of seven people who called a press conference to announce their theory, are a tiny minority--seven people. Furthermore their theory stands in the face of both Mann's brother's announcement to the press that his brother was totally fine when he saw him in the Karungappally jail and the security video footage, which was aired on many news channels in Kerala and shows Mann in police custody without a scratch on him. These statements should be removed altogether from this BLP.--LanceMurdock999 (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Lance, this is an encyclopedia, isn't it? The statement by a BJP leader is given in great detail in this section. The section follows what is instructed in the BLP guidelines. Nothing is there which cannot be referenced. What do you mean by "just seven people"? Do you think a certain number of people have to assemble and pass a statement for it to be mentioned on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia and neutral point of view must be mentioned here. The death of Mann became a controversy because it was mysterious and suspicious, and in that case, obviously it will have at least two versions. How will the section be complete without mentioning both? Please note that this section deals with the attacks on Amritanandamayi, and NOWHERE in the article it is mentioned that Amritanandamayi was responsible for the killing. :-) -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This entire section (the attacks section) is ridiculously long and contains a ton of material that is not at all about the subject of this article. If it were edited to be appropriate to a BLP, this is all that would be left:
In August 2005, Amritanandamayi was attacked by a man named Pavithran. He was sitting with other followers praying and singing in front of Amritanandamayi. He then rushed to Amritanandamayi with a knife, but was overpowered by a group of disciples. On 1 August 2012, a 25-year-old Bihari law student, Satnam Singh Mann, attempted to barge onto the podium of Amritanandamayi at her ashram in Kollam. According to police, he was screaming and reciting words in Arabic at the time. He attacked security guards and then was overpowered by devotees, who handed him over to the police.
Everything else is biographic material about her attackers, not about her. Also, the comment about the mental stability of the first attacker is clearly a violation of BLP policies, not because of its impact on the subject of this BLP, but because the attacker is also (presumably) a living person, and is entitled to the same care as the subject of this article. Abhayakara (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree the content in the section is long and needs to be shortened. But do you think the death of Mann need not be mentioned? You say the police version of his recital can be mentioned, but not his death under mysterious circumstances? -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The death of the attacker soon after the attack is not to be mentioned? Why? The assassin of JFK need not be mentioned on JFK's wiki page? The details of the person who attacked Arvind Kejriwal is mentioned on his Wiki page. As reported by several editors on this talk page in the past, there is a deliberate attempt to "sanitise" this page. For god's sake, please understand that this is not a website but an encyclopedia. I am also for shortening the contents in the Attacks section, but the death of the attacker was controversial and it must not be left out. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You have posted a shortened sample here and says that everything else is about attackers and not her. In that case, the mention of overpowering the attackers also do not have anything to be related to Amritanandamayi. Do you say we should eliminate that too? In that case, the page would just say that she was attacked in 2005 and 2012, but will not have any mention of anything thereafter. Please understand that the death of the attacker is highly controversial and it deserves mention in this article. If it can be properly sourced, then what's wrong in mentioning what happened to the attacker? Would like to hear the opinions of more people here. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
This goes back to what Errant said a week or so ago: This is a BLP and when you say that Mann died in prison a few days later, you are tipping a wink that you think Amritanandamayi had something to do with it. That is why it should not go on this BLP. Abhayakara's version is good and adheres to BLP guidleiness. If you want to create another page about Mann ((who is not a BLP as he has passed)), then do it. But it doesn't belong here. Furthermore, Lance is right when he says that the BLP guidelines say that "minority views should not be included at all." The view that diciples/devotees of Amritanandmayi tortured/beat Mann so badly that he died four days later in prison is an extremely minority of a view. It has never been reported as news. Only the fact that seven people have that opinion has been reported as news. It stands in the face of the police report, video evidence broadcast on hundreds of TV channels and statements by Mann's relatives. To put it on Amritanandamayi's BLP is inappropriate. JamesRoberts (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
More than that, what Amritanandamayi's followers may have done isn't even relevant to the article unless she told them to do it. The reporting on the event itself, while Amritanandamayi was present, is relevant because it's part of a sequence of events that happened to her, but once the attacker is gone from the scene, that sequence of events is over. It's also a matter of undue weight—in a book-length biography of Amritanandamayi, we might expect to see a few paragraphs about what happened to Mann after his attack. But this is not a book-length article. So when you see the detailed description of what happened to Mann given so much weight here, it gives the reader a strong impression that Amritanandamayi had something to do with his death. Since no reliable source is reporting such a link, it shouldn't be implied either. Abhayakara (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Satnam Singh Mann[edit]

As wiki moderator Abhayakara states above, there is way too much weight given to the Satnam Singh Mann case. It seems people are giving undue importance to this incident in order to defame.

Why is it pertinent to this article to say that Satnam Singh Mann was later found dead? Satnam Singh Mann's life ceases to be relvant to Mata Amritanandamayi's biography when he leaves her presence. If his death was in some way related to Mata Amritanandamayi then it would be pertinent to her biography. JamesRoberts (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I updated the statement about Mann's death to more accurately reflect the cited source. However, I still feel this detail is completely unnecessary for this article. Could somebody please explain why they feel it is so pertinent to this biography that he died? JamesRoberts (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The fate of someone who attacked Amritanandamayi has relevance in this article. There are hundreds of examples to cite in wikipedia itself. To quote an obvious example, the fate of the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi has relevance in the article on Gandhi. The same logic applies here. If there is a standalone article on Satnam Singh, a link can be given in this article to the Satnam Singh article and the details can be furnished there. Unless that happens, the info can remain here. --Drajay1976 (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This issue was discussed extensively above. Please follow that discussion. There was a request for a third-party moderator, Abhayakara, who maintained that Mann's life is no longer relevant to Mata Amritanandamayi's biography after he leaves her presence. Including his death insinuates that she had something to do with his death which is a violation of BLP. JamesRoberts (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. I hadnt read the relevant section completely. Will abide by the Third opinion. --Drajay1976 (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy of "President Swami vivekananda's 150th birth anniversary celebration committee, India[68]"[edit]

The above is a quote from the subsection Positions.

The footnote refers to this document.

The document states that Amma presented the "Inaugural Address" but doesn't name her as President or any other officer of the committee.

Nor could I find any such declaration on the website

Clearly, she is affiliated with the organization. But is she President of the Committee? Does she hold any official post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Holy Hell[edit]

The entire section was removed by an ip with the justification that the book is self published. Is it self published? --Drajay1976 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is (or at least published by a print-on-demand publisher, which amounts to the same thing). It does not belong in this article. It gets added in periodically, and removed. The reason for adding it appears to be for the purpose of publicizing or promoting this non-notable book, in violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION. I am hesitant to semi-protect the article to prevent further occurrences, because there have been constructive edits by anonymous editors. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Amatulić thanks for the clarification about this book. What about the undue weight given to the 2012 controversy over the death of Satnam Singh? JamesRoberts (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm here now in an administrative capacity to prevent disruption, so I won't comment on content. If you see an undue weight issue, by all means start a discussion about it, or make a bold edit and see what happens. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
An IP just re-added a section about the book with this article from The Indian Express as a source. I removed the content, because it was an unattributed direct copy/paste from the news article, and as I understand it, that's a WP:COPYVIO. It might be worth discussing the merits of the source, however. Grayfell (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
A sudden flurry of activity by a number of new users. I encourage those who feel strongly about this to (take a deep breath and) familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This guideline applies not only to Mata Amritanandamayi, but also to the people making the accusations. There's a lot to consider, but frantically reverting to your preferred content is not going to help. WP:BRD: Be bold, revert, then discuss. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Amatulić, it's been made quite clear on this talk page that this "holy hell" book does not belong on this article (to use your words). And yet, every time the section on this book gets taken down, somebody puts it right back up without any explanation on the talk page. There seems to be a coordinated effort to use this article as a platform for defamation. It's quite disconcerting that somebody's reputation could be harmed by unreliable sources. Is there anything that can be done to remedy this situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrit914 (talkcontribs)

Yes, see the section below. There are various forms of protection that can be applied. The one in place now doesn't allow edits from new accounts or IP addresses to appear unless confirmed by a regular editor. This protection level can can be increased to require confirmation of all edits, even from regular editors, by an editor with 'reviewer' status. Increasing further, we can ban all new accounts and IP addresses from editing this article at all; this is called semi-protection. The most extreme form of protection is full protection, where only administrators can edit the article, and all other editors must make {{editprotected}} requests on this talk page. That level of protection is usually reserved only for high-volume content disputes, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm removing this section when it shows up under the BLP guidelines that states, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I don't want to be accused of edit warring. I guess what I'm asking is, what should my behavior be? Myself and other regular editors of this article have been in discussions on the talk page for a while now. And I think those discussion have been productive. So it's frustrating when random users keep popping up to undermine the hard work of myself and others without even the courtesy of an explanation. JamesRoberts (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Amrit914 doesn't allow anything which is not positive against Amirthanandamayi, even when there is sufficient sources. This account looks like a single purpose account and was previously reported for sock puppetry on the same topic. Should he have a final say in the content? The "Holy Hell" incident should be part of the controversy section. media is widely reporting it and the Amrithanadamayi Matt itself has issued a statement on this now. The accusations were made by somebody who has been with Amrithanandamayi for 20 years and the incident can be mentioned without giving unduly promo to the book - we can just provide sources from news articles alone. I also suspect that Amrit (from the user name used) is paid by the Matt to control this page. I do believe there is a conflict of interest in the edits Bobgali (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the book is notable now since it " has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works". Removing the entire section about the controversy surrounding the book even if the book is "not notable" is unnecessary. I have added a section on the controversy surrounding the book as a section, without using the book itself as a source (because it is self published). --Drajay1976 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this section since it violates Wikipedia guidelines. Exceptional claims must be included only with exceptional sources. Furthermore:

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; the article is not based primarily on such sources. JamesRoberts (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The same theory applies to Amrithanandamayi's biography written by her disciple, the only reason JamesRoberts accepts it is, it praises the lady all over. I still have doubts about the interests of this user. You don't have to decide for the readers. Just provide the facts available citing trustworthy sources like news articles. But your intention seems to be in removing anything negative about Amrithanandamayi (your edit history and previous banning of accounts for sock puppetry for multiple single purpose accounts itself is evidence). Hope some admin takes note. Bobgali (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The allegations in the book by Gail Treadwell has most certainly lead to controversies. These controversies deserve a mention in the article about Amritanandamayi. Added a sub-section about the controversies again - sans any of the specific claims. The section mentions only the controversy, not the specific allegations. Those allegations can also be included in the article, in my opinion. --Drajay1976 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. However, consider that neither the courts nor the police nor the media have done any investigation on this matter. There is absolutely no proof. So far there is only a lot of "he said, she said". Wikipedia's BLP guidelines are very strict to avoid liability. We, as editors, have to be extremely careful when writing about contentious materials. Why don't we let this issue play out, let they real facts come out before including material that has potential to harm the reputation of others? I'm concerned that what you have written violates WP:BLPGOSSIP as it is merely, at this point, gossip. JamesRoberts (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The controversy on the allegations is a fact, so is the rebuttal of the allegations by Amritanandamayi. These facts are not gossip. The controversy can be included in the article even if there is no proof on the allegations in accordance with WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The information about the controversy can remain in the article even if there is no investigation into the allegations in the book. If a specific part of the section is gossip, that specific part can be edited, but removing the entire section is not warranted. --Drajay1976 (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP Violations in order to defame[edit]

There seems to be an effort to defame Mata Amritanandamayi by adding content about a self-published book written by one of her detractors. Furthermore, as mentioned by wiki moderator Abhayakara on this page, far too much weight is being given to the Satnam Singh controversy. Since this page is a biography of Mata Amritanandamayi, the only content that should be included about Singh is when he actually crossed paths with her. JamesRoberts (talk)

I have implemented pending-change protection on this article indefinitely. This is a milder form of protection than semi-protection. While semi-protection blocks edits from all new users and IP addresses, pending-changes-protection lets them make edits, but the edits don't appear in the article unless approved by a regular editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Source of Foreign Aid[edit]

This section has to do with the finances of Mata Amritanandamayi Math. Shouldn't this section be moved to that page? JamesRoberts (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Allegations by Gail Tredwell[edit]

The following facts are supported by third party sources cited in the section.

  • Gail Tredwell had leveled some allegations.
  • These allegations are controversial
  • Amrtianandamayi had issued a statement in a Prayer meeting in this regard.

Is there any policy which does not permit inclusion of this information in the article? WP:BLPGOSSIP does not apply here because of obvious reasons. There are no weasel words/anonymous sources; the sources are reliable; allegations are not being presented as true, only the controversy is being presented as true and lastly, the info is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. --Drajay1976 (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I second the inclusion of the controversy, maintaining NPOV. Since Amritanandamayi herself has given an explanation about the controversy, I think it becomes more relevant. -- Xrie (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. However this section may still be in violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Which states:

"For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." JamesRoberts (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME doesnt apply here as well.

  1. The section in question does not state that anyone has committed any crime. It does not even state what the allegation is. The section only deals with the controversy regarding the allegations. Writing about an allegation does not mean that any party is guilty or innocent. The section does not claim that anyone is guilty.
  2. The complete quote on WP:BLPCRIME is "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." The Note number [6] specifies that " WP:BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow". Amritanandamayi is a well known person, so WP:WELLKNOWN is the policy to follow here.
  3. The section scrupulously follows WP:WELLKNOWN. In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. --Drajay1976 (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. I think WP:BLPCRIME does apply. Mata Amritananadamayi is relatively unknown for the purposes of the english-language wikipedia. This section clearly implies that she has been accused of crimes even though no charges--let alone convictions--have been filed. Drajay1976, we seem to have reached an impasse. How would you feel about the two of us appealing for third-party help from Wikipedia? JamesRoberts (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
From Mata Amritanandamayi#Awards and honours, it is clear that Mata Amritanandamayi is a well known person, so I respectfully disagree with you too. (She is the recipient of Gandhi-King Award for Non-Violence. That brings repute.) I guess thrid-party mediation can be a way out of this impasse. --Drajay1976 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Amritanandamayi is a known figure in both India and abroad. I wouldn't agree to the statement that she is relatively unknown for the purpose of English Wikipedia, in which case this very article would not have existed for notability issues. -- Xrie (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Mediation request was posted here--Drajay1976 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Another proof that WP:WELLKNOWN applies. Mata Amritanandamayi#Darshan says that the Ashram claims that she has hugged 33 million people worldwide. She is known to at least 33 million people if that claim is true (there is a high probability that the number is correct - she has a vast following). This would make her very well known. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons noticeboard[edit]

FYI, there's a discussion at BLPN, here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Disputed text removed pending outcome of arbitration[edit]

WP:BLP expresses some urgency that questionable material be removed from articles. There has been a mediation request made on the disputed text; pending completion of that mediation, the text should not be in the article. I don't want to put words in the mediators' mouth, but I would be a bit surprised if the dispute were not upheld, since this seems to be a clear example of WP:GRAPEVINE. Abhayakara (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the removed portion meets WP:GRAPEVINE (whatever that is). The material in the section was neither unsoruced nor poorly sourced. Anyhow, the redirect goes to the entire policy - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and not to any particular section of the policy. I dont know what the specific provisions of the policy in question (WP:GRAPEVINE) is referred to here, so a rebuttal is impossible.
Besides, the argument put forward for removing the section in question by a User:Amrit914 was that the section comes under the policy WP:BLPGOSSIP & WP:BLPCRIME. Clearly, the provisions of WP:BLPGOSSIP doesnt apply here. As per the provisions of WP:BLPCRIME itself, the argument that this section of WP:BLP (WP:GRAPEVINE) applies to the section in question does not hold water. The section must be governed by WP:WELLKNOWN since the subject is not a "relatively unknown" person. This was discussed in the section above. Since the argument for removing the section was shown to be vacuous, removing the section "pending completion of mediation" seems unfair. The section should have been kept in place pending mediation.
User:Abhayakara had said in the edit summery that "it is alleged to be (and appears to be) in violation of WP:BLP". The only violations of WP:BLP alleged were WP:BLPGOSSIP & WP:BLPCRIME. Both were shown to be frivolous claims. I cannot understand how it appears to User:Abhayakara that it is a violation of WP:BLP unless he is ready to argue his case.
Since User:Abhayakara has taken an interest in a matter under mediation, and is putting forth a position which was not advanced by anyone so far, I guess that the user should also be included as a party to the mediation, so that he can argue his side without "putting words in the mediators' mouth". --Drajay1976 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The citations are all hearsay. Nobody is reporting that the event happened. They are reporting that allegations have been made. Please read WP:BLPGRAPEWP:GRAPEVINE. Until the facts in the matter have been resolved by a reliable source, it is not appropriate to publish speculation about a living person on Wikipedia. I see that there is a lot of energy in this debate, with which I sympathize, but the more energy you feel about it, the more careful you should be—this kind of energy is indicative of a strong viewpoint, which tends to produce articles that are not encyclopedic. Abhayakara (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
My response was a bit incomplete—sorry about that. To finish the thought, the point is that whether or not the sources can be used is under dispute, and I think there is a presumption that they are not valid, because they are repeating hearsay that by definition cannot have been fact-checked. If it had been fact-checked, it would have been repeated as fact, not as hearsay. So I think that the dispute is likely to be upheld, and consequently WP:GRAPEVINE applies, because we are supposed to remove potentially libelous stuff immediately. Whether my judgment about the sources will ultimately be accepted is up to the mediators, and is not an issue discussed in WP:GRAPEVINE. Sorry for the confusion. Abhayakara (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
We also need to take into account the developments following the allegations to fathom the importance it gained. Earlier too there had been allegations about the ashram and Amritanandamayi, but this time, the ashram and Amritanandamayi came up with an explanation to the allegations. The political leaders have also expressed their stand in this issue. I know the local language and I follow the news in Kerala, and I can assure you that the allegations have gained much importance in the media here. It should not be ignored. Just that we need to ensure that the matter is presented in NPOV in the article. Mature editors should be able to handle it without issues. -- Xrie (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you explain the urgency here that leads you to say "It should not be ignored?" It is not the job of an encyclopedia to report on current events and ongoing investigations. Our job is to report on facts that have been established in reliable sources. So "it should not be ignored" seems wrong here. If these allegations are true, and if there is strong interest in getting to the bottom of it, then we need only wait a few months, and we will have facts to report. Abhayakara (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Abhayakara, I will confine my answer to this quote from your earlier post.

the point is that whether or not the sources can be used is under dispute, and I think there is a presumption that they are not valid, because they are repeating hearsay that by definition cannot have been fact-checked. If it had been fact-checked, it would have been repeated as fact, not as hearsay. So I think that the dispute is likely to be upheld, and consequently WP:GRAPEVINE applies...

This point is specifically covered under WP:WELLKNOWN. It even gives an example to illustrate the point.

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.
The example applies here as well (the parallels are unmistakable). Amritanandamayi is alleged to have 1) physically assaulted her devotee, 2) turned a blind eye to the sexual abuse that was going on & 3) indulged in money laundering. Amritanandamayi has indirectly denied the allegations, alleging in return that Ms Gail Tredwell was making these allegations because she did not get what she wanted. Multiple major newspapers have published these allegations and there is a public scandal.
So, the allegations belong in the biography, citing those sources. The article should only say that the Amritanandamayi was alleged to have done these things, not that she actually did it. Since Amritanandamayi has denied the allegations, that fact must be reported in the Article. The section you removed had scrupulously followed the policy (the only omission was that the section did not include a list of the allegations as reported in the major newpapers/media).
So the only question to be mediated here is whether WP:WELLKNOWN applies to the article in question. The question of "validity" or "fact-checking" or "repeating as facts" does not arise here. If you think that it does, please quote the specific section of the policy WP:GRAPEVINE which states that, and under what conditions the concern for "validity" (or "fact-checking" or "repeating as facts") overrides the policy WP:WELLKNOWN.
Let me repeat my concern about your removal of the section citing (in my view) non existent policy. --Drajay1976 (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

/ / It is not the job of an encyclopedia to report on current events and ongoing investigations. Our job is to report on facts that have been established in reliable sources. So "it should not be ignored" seems wrong here. / /

Again, this argument seems to be against the gist of the policy WP:WELLKNOWN.

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

--Drajay1976 (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

To me, it seems that the only issue here is whether Amritanandamayi is a Public figure. If she is, the section belongs in the article. If she is not, the section should be removed. The facts reported here are the "allegations" and the ensuing "scandal". It is allowed as per WP:WELLKNOWN. --Drajay1976 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Phil Knight, and I've volunteered to mediate this dispute. Firstly, I'm sorry that I've been busy in real life, and didn't start the mediation earlier. Secondly, could I ask that you leave the article how it is for now, until mediation is finished? Also, I'd like to clarify that I'm a mediator, not an arbitrator, and I won't be making any ruling about content. You are free to request arbitration, however the arbitrators only make decisions about user conduct, and don't rule on article content. My role as a mediator will be to try to guide discussion towards the formation of agreement over the disputed elements of content. The mediation will be on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mata Amritanandamayi. I hope you can join me on the page soon, and we can start. PhilKnight (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So, to go into this a bit more, I think people arguing for more text in the controversy section need to think about WP:UNDUE. It is certainly appropriate to report that a disciple of 20 years left and made accusations, as long as that report continues to say that the accusations are still under investigation (if they are) and are not proven (if they are not). But this report should be very brief. The proponents of this text are claiming that because she has supposedly hugged 33 million people, she is a well known figure. Supposing that is true, the anger one person of those 33 million feels toward her would receive undue weight if it represented more than 1/33,000,000 of the article.

Of course I am exaggerating for effect—this particular person has had much more contact with the subject than the other 33 million. But hopefully you see the point. Currently, even without the proposed additions, the "controversy" section of the article is about a third of the article, more or less. Much of it is pure crap—accusations someone made about her that not only were not sustained, but resulted in charges being leveled against the accuser. Whether or not these accusations were true, or an injustice was done, is not something wikipedia can rule on, and leaving this amount of text about that dispute in the article begs the reader to draw conclusions the person adding the text wishes them to draw. This is not encyclopedic.

The section of text I removed had the exact same problem—it's an argument between two wikipedians about the truth of a matter Wikipedia cannot decide, left in in the hopes that readers will side with one POV or the other. This is inappropriate. We do not know the truth of the matter, and should not be holding court on the question on the wikipedia page. If this text were two brief sentences presenting the situation, that would be fine, but as written it was clearly not encyclopedic, and was clearly given undue weight. Please consider significantly tightening up the whole controversy section to remove the undue weight (or I may be bold and do it myself). Abhayakara (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Abhayakara, the issue of undue weight is something which can certainly be discussed. The content of the section on the allegations by Gail Tredwell and other sections which deal with the controversies MUST certainly be discussed and streamlined to suit Wikipedia policy. If someone else thinks that the contents of sections which are not critical of Amritanandamayi's needs revision, that must be discussed as well. Let the mediation finish and lets certainly get down to improving the article and making it more encyclopedic.
What I consider un-encyclopedic behavior is the repeated removal of any bit about the controversy regarding the guru (see, the attempt was not to improve the section, but to erase it altogether). It smacks of censorship (WP:CENSOR), to say the least. By the way, I did not think that the section about the book by Gail Tredwell was given undue weight in the article.
  • There were only two paragraphs about the issue, the first paragraph presented the fact that Ms Tredwell had raised certain allegations in 50 -60 words (as it appeared in the page, I have not included the references in the rough wordcount). It also included the statement that there was no independent corroboration of the allegations. The statement of a biographer of Amritanandamayi that the allegations could not be discounted because the proximity of the author to the Guru was also included. The first paragraph which presented the controversy had only 50 - 60 words! It did not mention the nature of the controversial allegations at all. The fact that the government decided not to investigate the allegations and that a petition was filed in a court to order investigations in to the matter can also be included in the section, with multiple inline citations.
  • The second paragraph covered the quote by Amritanandamayi rebutting the allegations; the statement by the Ashram revealing that they are contemplating legal action; mention of legal action already initiated against the alleged vilification campaign in social media; and the fact that her supporters marched in protest against the channels which aired the story. The second paragraph had 110-120 words (minus links and inline citations). I think the section was written in a very concise and neutral way. One can even say that if at all it was not neutral, it was partial to Amritanandamayi. The section did not have undue weight at all (it had less than 200 words only)!!
But lets postpone the discussion till the mediation is over, shall we? --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Abhayakara, the removed section had only 8 sentences (if we must count sentences instead of words). There is a possibility of fusing or removing one or two sentences or adding one or two more. I dont think that such a small section has undue weight in the article in question. This section did not attempt to "rule on" the accusations or the rebuttal. This section (which was mostly written by me) was not written to invite the reader to draw any conclusions. If you think that the section had any such intent, please do elaborate on your fears citing specific parts of the removed section. Unless you do that, I strongly protest the your comment that "This is not encyclopedic".

My intention was only to give an idea about the controversy regarding the accusations. I firmly believe that the section had encyclopedic value and am willing to discuss each part of the section in detail. I was requesting the editors who were trying keep the section out of the article to discuss the matter and try to improve the section (instead of trying to censor out the section). I hold that my intentions and actions were always in the spirit of Wikipedia. If you think otherwise, instead of making vague accusations, be more specific and cite examples.

Again it was never "an argument between two wikipedians about the truth of a matter Wikipedia cannot decide". It was an argument between one wikipedian who was presenting two sides of the argument without a POV and another wikipedian who was trying to remove both sides of the argument out of the section altogether. This is indeed inappropriate.

In my opinion, what was not encyclopedic was the repeated removal of the section, despite the fact that I had been quoting WP:WELLKNOWN for days to argue that the section belongs in the article as per wikipedia policy. I was also inviting people to remove or discuss specific parts of the section instead of removing it completely.

Since the current mediator has stipulated that the section should not be altered until after the mediation, I will abide by that. --Drajay1976 (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Drajay1976, forgive the rhetorical judo, but the amount of verbiage you have expended here arguing this point suggests wikilawyering. Of course the text looks reasonable to you—it agrees with your opinion. As someone who had barely heard of the subject prior to the RFC request, it does not look at all reasonable. It looks massively unbalanced. Two paragraphs, compared to the text that's actually about why the subject is notable, is way too much to conform to WP:UNDUE. WP:WELLKNOWN does not absolve you of the obligation to cite reliable sources when reporting unproven allegations, and it also doesn't relieve you of the obligation to give the allegations no more weight than is due. Abhayakara (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Abhayakara, why does the text look "not ... at all reasonable" to you? Why does it look "massively unbalanced"? Can you be more specific instead of being vague? To me neither the content nor the number of words (or sentences) in the section doesn't make it overweight. What is the problem with the sources in the section which was removed? This is another vague statement which needs much elaboration. All the sources do conform to WP:NEWSORG by the way.
I thought your argument about WP:GRAPEVINE & WP:UNDUE; your statement about the encyclopedic value and the one about "argument between two wikipedians about the truth of a matter Wikipedia cannot decide" were examples of policy shopping to rationalize your unjustifiable removal of the section in violation of existing policies. --Drajay1976 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The tone of the text was problematic, but more importantly, the amount of text was too much relative to the rest of the text in the article. I don't know whether these allegations are important or not, so I can only look at it from the perspective of balance. If the article has as much text about controversy as it does about why the subject is notable, that only makes sense if the allegations are as important as everything else the subject has done. It's hard to believe that this is the case, particularly in the case of allegations that have been reported but not proven. Anyway, please just wait and see how the mediation turns out. I'm sorry if my actions seem harmful to you, but that has not been my intent. Abhayakara (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
My humble request to Abhayakara is to look at the article maintaining NPOV. You seem to be against the inclusion of the controversies section. You don't like the inclusion of the book about Amritanandamayi by Tredwell. Haven't you noticed the other books cited in this article? There is mention of a book Timeless Path written by another disciple of Amritanandamayi, by the name Ramakrishnananda Puri. There is mention of another book by another disciple Jnanamritananda. There is mention of another book by another disciple Gretchen Kusuma McGregor. I am surprised you didn't object to the inclusion of any of these sources or authors for the same reasons you argue against Tredwell's book. The only difference I see is that those books praise Amritanandamayi and Tredwell's book contains allegations. Maintaining NPOV does not mean sanitizing the article by including just the seemingly good things about a person. The allegations as such from Tredwell's book aren't included in this article yet. What is there just talks about the book and that it contains allegations. Tredwell's book has gained much more media and public attention than all of the other books combined, a fact that can be verified by a simple internet search. -- Xrie (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Please read and respond to what I actually wrote. I did not say that the allegations could not be mentioned. I said that they had been given undue weight. I removed the long text for a separate reason: see WP:GRAPEVINE. In cases like this the offending text should be removed immediately; this does not mean that different text with some of the same content cannot be added after the mediation is complete. Abhayakara (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Xrie - The difference between Tredwell's book, and the books written by the other disciples is that Tredwell's is self-published. Furthermore, Wikipedia makes if very clear to be extremely careful when editing any section of a BLP that contains allegations of crimes. So Tredwell's book (and all media conjecture about the book) deserves more scrutiny than the other books.
Let's remember that no one--including Tredwell herself--has sought charges against the subject (therefore there has been no investigation by anyone). We don't know why Tredwell made the sensational statements in the book. She could be telling the truth, she could be trying to increase book sales to make money, or she may not currently be in a stable frame of mind. We have no idea. We do know that libelous information against various people gets put out all the time.
Now, there may be an argument that some of the other sections in the article need to be more neutral. So by all means be bold, revert, discuss. I understand that you're currently respecting the mediator's request to not edit the page right now. But you'll have and have had ample opportunity to do so. JamesRoberts (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess without me detailing it further, the user Drajay1976 has made it clear why this section needs to be here. He also explained the Wikipedia policies in support of it. Anyways, let's wait for the mediation to be over. -- Xrie (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Different versions of the disputed text[edit]

I am reproducing the most recent thee versions of the section about the allegations in question for comparison. Version 2 is the briefest, but it does not cover the denial by Amritanandamayi or the Ashram at all. The 1st and 3rd versions are longer. The 3rd version has information on most recent events. The fist version gives more space to the rebuttal than the allegations and includes a quote by Amritanandamayi and information about the plans by the Ashram to file a defamation suit.

Version 1 (see this oldid. I contributed the majority of the content.)

Allegations by Gail Tredwell

Gail Tredwell, a former disciple of Amritanandamayi had self-published[citation needed] a book about her stint at the Ashram. The book contained controversial allegations[1] which have not been corroborated by anyone so far. Prof. M. Ramakrishnan Nair, who had written a biography of Amritanandamayi had claimed that the allegations cannot be rejected out of hand.[2]

Amritanandamayi had said in this regard that "Some people are saying certain things against the ashram when their plans did not materialise. I am trying to forget and forgive these issues.[3] I don’t ask anyone to serve me. Instead, I am serving others."[4] Devotees had filed a police complaint about the offensive content in social media in this regard.[4] The Mutt revealed that they were planning to file a defamation suit against Ms. Tredwell in New York.[3] At Kochi, the supporters of Amritanandamayi marched in protest against some Malayalam news channels (Mediaone, Indiavision and Reporter) on February 25th for allegedly running a vilification campaign against her.[5][6][7] These newschannels had covered[8][9][10] the allegations raised by Gail Tredwel.

Version 2 (by the user:Chinchu.c)


In February 2014, Gail Tredwell, a former aide of Amritanandamayi released a book named 'Holy Hell:A Memoir of Faith, Devotion and Pure Madness', in which she accused Amritanandamayi of debauchery, violence and stashing away money donated by followers in foreign banks. She also accused that 'Balu' a close confidant of Amritanandamayi had repeatedly raped her at the ashram. Police did, however, file a case against people who shared posts on internet about this incident.[11] [12].

Version 3 (added by an ip)

Memoir of Gail Tredwell

Gail Tredwell, an Australian citizen who had been one of the close disciples of Amritanandamayi for around twenty years, came out with an autobiographical book which raised serious allegations against Amma and some other fellows in her ashram.[13][14][15] In the book titled 'Holy Hell:A Memoir of Faith, Devotion and Pure Madness', she accuses the ashram as a murky world of torture, power-madness and intolerance. Many parts of the book are scandalous and damaging with detailed descriptions of sexual and financial exploitations the author had suffered and witnessed.[16] This gave fire to a major controversy and a lot of heated discussion, especially sustained in the social media. The apparently deliberate silence adopted by conventional media in this subject was also widely noticed and criticized in social platforms[17][18]. The Ashram while admitting Ms Gail Tredwell aka Gayathri to be an old disciple of Amma, officially denied all the allegation raised by her. Amma herself alleged that Ms Tredwell's book is merely trying to unleash communal sentiments.[19] Meanwhile attempts to silence these controversies by registering police cases against those who criticized Amma and her ashram in social media further stirred up the issue. Some leaders of the opposition party in the state opined that the allegations raised by Ms Tredwell are serious and it's not fair to suppress the reaction of the public. [20] Ms Tredwell herself commented that she is disturbed by the use of police power to try silencing freedom of speech of the many voices that obviously agree that something is very wrong. Even after the Ashram officially dismissing all her allegations, she said she still stands behind everything that is written in her book and has no intention to withdraw anything. According to her she hesitates to file a legal complaint on this issue because she believes in 'some higher form of justice' and she doesn't wish to spend years dealing with legal proceedings.[21]

  1. ^ Madhyamam. 21 January 2014 Retrieved 23 January 2014. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "'വിശുദ്ധ നരകം': ആരോപണങ്ങളെ അവിശ്വസിക്കേണ്ടെന്ന് അമ്മയുടെ ജീവചരിത്രകാരന്‍". Madhyamam. 21 February 2014. Retrieved 23 February 2014.
  3. ^ a b Binduraj, J. India Today Retrieved 23 January 2014. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ a b Philip, Shaju. "Amma denies charges, Chandy backs her but Pinarayi seeks probe". Indian Express. Retrieved 23 February 2014.
  5. ^ "അമൃതാനന്ദമയി അനുകൂലികള്‍ പ്രകടനം നടത്തി". മാദ്ധ്യമം. 26 February 2014. Archived from the original on 27 February 2014. Retrieved 27 February 2014.
  6. ^ "കൊച്ചിയില്‍ അമൃതാനന്ദമയി അനുകൂലികള്‍ പ്രകടനം നടത്തി". Reporterlive. 26 February 2014. Archived from the original on 27 February 2014. Retrieved 27 February 2014.
  7. ^ "കൊച്ചിയില്‍ അമൃതാനന്ദമയി അനുകൂലികള്‍ പ്രകടനം നടത്തി". Veekshanam. 26 February 2014. Archived from the original on 27 February 2014. Retrieved 27 February 2014.
  8. ^ "'അമ്മ'യുടേത് കച്ചവട സാമ്രാജ്യം: മുൻ ശിഷ്യയുടെ വെളിപ്പെടുത്തലുകൾ". Indiavision. Retrieved 27 February 2014.
  9. ^ "എല്ലാവര്‍ക്കും നന്ദിയറിയിച്ച് ഗെയ്ല്‍ ട്രെഡ് വെല്‍". mediaone. Retrieved 27 February 2014.
  10. ^ "വിശുദ്ധ നരകവും മാതാ അമൃതാനന്ദമയിയും- അടയാളം". Archived from the original on 27 February 2014. Retrieved 27 February 2014.
  11. ^ [1]
  12. ^ [2]
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^
  21. ^

--Drajay1976 (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Drajay1976 - I'm not sure if you realize, but I thought I should mention that BLP guidelines apply to talk pages as well. Some of the information here is poorly sourced and potentially libelous that is why Amatulić removed it off of the article page. JamesRoberts (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Amrit914, I know that WP:BLP applies to talk pages also, but material (especially Version 1) on the controversy in question is acceptable as per WP:BLP, as was sufficiently demonstrated in the discussions above. In the mediation currently in progress, the mediator has even requested user abhayakara to prepare a version (if it was against BLP to prepare a version of the section in question in a talk page, that would not have happened). Abhayakara had stated that he found the version by Chinchu (Version 2) somewhat along acceptable lines (but I dont find it so). Even Version 2 and 3 can be made acceptable if the denial is included and given sufficient weight maintaining NPOV in my opinion. I posted the versions in the talk page in good faith for discussion and comparison so that it will (possibly) be helpful in reaching an acceptable consensus version. Anyway, since mention of the controversy in the article is not against WP:BLP as per WP:WELLKNOWN, it is not at all against policy to try to compare different versions of the section in the talk page. But let me assure you that since the mediator has requested, I will not attempt to reinstate any of the versions in the article.
As far as sourcing is concerned, perhaps we can have a discussion on which all sources (in which version) you find "poor". Maybe we can attempt to improve the sources and in the process perhaps reach a consensus on how the section should be. I have included the sources in the versions above in the hope that it will help you determine which part is poorly sourced. --Drajay1976 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The information to be included[edit]

In my opinion, the information which must be included in the section in question are the following.
  • Outline of the major allegations in the book. These are 1) alleged financial irregularities 2) alleged physical abuse by Amritanandamayi & 3) the allegations about the sexual abuse. These cannot be sourced from Gail's book as it is alleged to be self published. Each of the allegation must have at least two supporting independent third party source as an inline citation.
  • The fact that there is no investigation in this matter must be included. Possibility of including information on 1) petitions filed to initiate criminal investigation into this issue & 2) court cases against content in printmedia, visual media and social media may be explored.
  • The denial by Amritanandamayi (possibly with her quote) and the denial by the Ashram should be included prominently. The fact that the Ashram is exploring the possibility of filing a defamation case should also be mentioned.
  • The controversy surrounding the matter should be mentioned very briefly. There is no need to quote people, but the fact that leading politicians have commented on the issue must be included.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2014[edit]

i just want some controversies arises recently Ishaqt (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2014[edit]

Amritanandamayi was chosen as one among the 50 Powerful Women Religious Leaders by Huffingtonpost [4]. This requires mention in Mata Amritanandamayi#Awards and honours. Request Semi Protected Edit.

The text proposed to be added is

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ "50 Powerful Women Religious Leaders To Celebrate On International Women's Day". Huffington Post. 8 March 2014. Archived from the original on 9 March 2014. Retrieved 9 March 2014.

Formal mediation[edit]

The formal mediation case - Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mata Amritanandamayi - has concluded, and I've added the paragraph agreed in this mediation, which relates to allegations made by Gail Tredwell. PhilKnight (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternate name "Ammachi" missing from article[edit]

The article fails to mention that her followers call her Ammachi. Is there no reference for this in a reliable source? David Spector (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Other "Ammas"[edit]

The article could mention that there are other female gurus named "Amma", such as Amma Sri Karunamayi (who is "revered in India as an embodiment of Divine Motherly Love" according to her biography). It could compare the philosophies and teachings of these various heart-oriented leaders. David Spector (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Her name includes the honorific title, Sri. Thus, her full name would be Sri Mata Amritanandamayi Devi.

I wonder if this could be noted somewhere? and both include the "Sri". (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Darwin

Wikipedia doesn't use honorifics to refer to people. See WP:HONORIFIC. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mata Amritanandamayi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mata Amritanandamayi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mata Amritanandamayi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)