User talk:Rodolfou

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Rodolfou, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Abecedare (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Art of Living Foundation

Rodolfou, You are welcome to add criticism at the AOL poage, but you'll need better sources than blogs and webistes like Yunus news, Answering AOL and Guruphiliac blog. Guidestar is fine as a source, as long it is used to make factual and verifiable claims about the income and expenditure of AOL, and not to draw editorial conclusions (let the reader do that!). Please see wikipedia policies WP:RS and WP:NOR for more information. Abecedare (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your message on my talk page.

PS: Don't forget to sign your comments on talk pages, by appending four tildes (~~~~)to the end of your messages. Abecedare (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the discussion on Abecedare talek page was deleted I’m posting my record of it here.

1 - Regarding acceptable sources under wikipedia policy WP:RS and WP:NOR:

1.1 – Yunus news is a third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and in particular the article abides by WP:RS.

• About Yunus e-journal / single article provider states that the editorial policy is centred on “balance and quality as it goal” and East-West inter-knowledge
• Jonas Slattas, the editor of Yunus news and author of , has a CV that qualifies him as an expert in the area.
• The above article was subjected to fierce scrutiny that was kept for the record by Slatas at the answeringaol blog and vividly demonstrates Slatas expert status.
• its core conclusions are confirmed by alternative reputable sources such as

Yunus news does not satisfy the WP:RS requirements, and as far as I can tell is a one man operation of Jonas Slattas. Note that a website's reliability is determined not by what it calls or claims about itself ("ejournal", "independent religious journalism") but by the reputation of its publishers, contributors, and editorial practices. So for example a journal published by an academic society or publishers like Elseiver, Routledge etc is usually considered reliable on wikipedia; but a website like Yunusnews - with no physical address or phone numbers; a gmail email address; no named publishers and/or editors listed on About us or Contact us pages - is not. Of course, you and I , as individuals, are free to trust the articles on the website, but we cannot use it as a source on wikipedia.

Jonas Slattas is not an expert on AOL or NRM as far as wikipedia is concerned. We usually consider someone an expert if (1) he/she holds an academic or high-ranking rank in the field and has published widely cited, peer-reviewed, scholarly articles/books on the subject, and/or (2) if the person is widely quoted as an expert on the subject by other scholars, or mainstream media, and/or (3) has won prestigious awards for their work in the field. Slattas doesn't come close.

Abecedare (talk)

• How genuine is Sri Sri Ravi Shankar? Jonas Slattas, 01/09/07, Yunus News Slattas reviews the evidence and finds that the driving force of the movement (and of its so called development work) is a public relations campaign to promote its leader and market their for-profit trademarked breathing exercises. A fierce debate ensued that was kept for the record by the author at the answeringaol blog. Slattas CV is also made available for scrutiny.

• Slatas was emailed the above discussion on the 4th of March and I did not receive any feedback from him. The source was not included.

1.2 – The ex AOL-teacher 'resignation' letter indeed falls within WP:RS#Self-published_sources to be used “only in limited circumstances, with caution. I consider the criticism of someone who was a teacher in the organization to the organization so relevant and useful that it justifies its inclusion in the article with caution. Regarding WP:NOR and WP:NOR#Neutral_point_of_view and WP:NOR#Verifiability the principles apply equally to all the AOL websites sited; in my evaluation both the AOL own-site sources and the former teacher letter do not violate WP:NOR and should not be deleted; if they do violate WP:NOR they should both be deleted to provide balanced treatment.

The resignation letter is completely unacceptable. All we have is a blog posting, which claims to be a resignation letter from AOL from an unnamed ex-teacher of AOL. How can any of this be verified ? Even if we knew the letter to be genuine, it would be a SPS, and as such usable on the wikipedia article of its writer (if he/she was Notable enough to have an article), and not on AOLF page. Note that it is okay to use AOL sources on the AOL article under the SPS exception; but that is far from ideal and the over-reliance of the article on such sources is something that should be remedied, if possible.

Abecedare (talk)

http://guruphiliac.blogspot.com was emailed the above discussion on the 4th of March and stated “I will forward this note to the author so they may contact you personally if s/he decides to come forward”.

• Removed

An ex AOL-teacher wrote a 'resignation' letter directed to the American AOL branch asking:

• 1) Why the increasing corporization of the Art of Living organization and the intensifying promotional push on all fronts?

• 2) Why the increasing course fees making it so difficult for many people who need help to participate in programs?

• 3) Why the pressure on participants in AOL to raise and donate funds?

• 4) Why the hype and myth creation used for indoctrination?

• 5) Why the effective undermining of people's self-trust and making them dependent in an infantile way on idealized images of the guru and his special abilities, and a perception of inferiority relative to him?

• 6) Why the misrepresentation of the placebo effect as the result of the speciality and uniqueness of the practices or the grace of a person?

• 7) Why the ongoing emphasis on specialness of the organization's leader and his omniscience?

• 8) Why the resultant cultish atmosphere within AOL and the possibilities for manipulation of all sorts?

• 9) Why the focus on organization growth and perpetuation rather than the advancement of the people involved and deeper self-inquiry?

• 10) Why the lack of transparency and accountability for the use of funds, projects implemented, etc.?

• 11) Why the organization's acting increasingly like a business in the guise of a non-profit?

• 12) Why the frivolous use of exaggeration and misrepresentation of facts in promotional efforts (as to the scale of humanitarian efforts or the scientific evidence for the benefits of the practices, for example)?

• 13) Why the conflict between encouraging people to donate a dollar a day to support poor children, etc. and staying in the presidential suites at expensive hotels (e.g. Ritz-Carlton), flying first class, etc.?

• Removed - Critics say Shankar is just another famous guru with a repackaging of the same message and techniques of those before him with one big difference - an excellent PR department behind him that helps him to (literally) market his Sudarshan technique to the whole world. Critics also consider that his search of money, fame and glory through Guruism, blatant exaggerations and mystifications in presenting himself and Sudarshan Kriya do not make the world a better place.

• Removed - Harsh critics conclude that Shankar is

“the most fame-lusting fauxru to hit the scene since his former mentor the Maharishi decided he was going to take over the world”.

1.3- Regarding factual information versus editorial conclusions of the source you do accept I propose the following text and accept suggestions for its placement:

• According to the tax return filed by the American chapter, AOL Foundation had total revenues of $3.2 M (2.4M from course fees and 0.6M from public support) and expenditure of $1.9M (mainly in salaries, occupancy expenses and travel) in 2004. Net assets at the beginning of 2005 amounted to $3.8M.
• Removed - However none of the reported expenditures were allocated towards international developmental or humanitarian programs, disaster relief, scientific/medical research or charitable activity. According to the document, the organizations sole accomplishment for the year was to "teach art of living courses".
• Removed - Supporters say that one of the distinguishing features of Shankar is his emphasis on development work. Critics like Jonas Slattas answer that this so called development work is more PR marketing for Sudarshan Kriya as a cure-all solution (whether it is people having no homes after an earthquake, women that have to be empowered to face their suppression in male dominated societies, inmates in jails that need to refocus their lives or rural kids that need education).
• Added later after choosing position - No reference in this tax return is made to humanitarian relief and training programs conducted directly or through (IAHV).

2. I am also welcoming your opinion on these two possible additional sources and relevant quotes:

Considered valid by Abecedare

also available at the authors blog.

I do believe that breathing techniques are very common. They are also very effective — otherwise they would not be so commonly endorsed by various schools of thought. Vipassna is also a breathing technique that claims its lineage to the Buddha himself. What SSRS has done is what a few dozen Indian gurus have done and will no doubt continue to do–packaging of what already exists. In the US, that simple core wrapped in a few hours of homilies sells for $250 (with a concession for students.)

Considered invalid by Abecedare.

• Removed - Slattas also contrasts Shankar’s approach to conflict resolution with that of Mahatma Gandhi and his understanding that the parties 'not being able to talk' was the problem and that at those moments Gandhi would resort to non-violent civil disobedience (non-violent, but strenuous action nonetheless).

3. My last edits:

AoL representatives declared:

"You can't do charity out of an empty bowl. We do programs, we earn money and we spend it on charity".

According to the tax return filed by the American chapter, AOL Foundation had total revenues of $3.2 M (2.4M from course fees and 0.6M from public support) and expenditure of $1.9M (mainly in salaries, occupancy expenses and travel) in 2004. Net assets at the beginning of 2005 amounted to $3.8M. No reference in this tax return is made to humanitarian relief and training programs conducted directly or through IAHV.

Shankar has been dubbed by one Indian magazine as the:

"fastest-growing guru in the marketplace of happiness".

Regarding the marketing of the organization:

Renuka Narayanan, religion editor of India's Hindustan Times newspaper, says the Art of Living's "basic product is about peddling yoga," labelling Shankar as "syrupy but genuine."

Critics:

• accuse Shankar of offering nothing but Bobby McFerrin-style "don't worry, be happy" platitudes,
• [and also] label him "guru to the rich and famous" [while] Shankar defends the right of the wealthy to inner peace.

Rodolfou (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Abecedare (talk) , as you had previously suggested I've updated the Guidestar data + a murky reference to foreign cash grants.

Most of all I would like to thank you for your guidance. It was your sharp editing that made me look up wikipedia guidelines and strive to achieve them. Most of all you've made me believe in the ethos of wikipedia and the robustness of the dispute resolution mechanisms. You are a gentleman and it has been a priviledge to learn from you.

All the best! Rodolfou (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate it.
Wikipedia content policies are really common-sensical once you think through the consequences of not having them. In the beginning it may seem tempting to take a few short-cuts to add content which one knows is right, even if one doesn't have proper sources. But eventually you realize that that way lies anarchy, and decimation of anything useful.
By the way, our earlier conversations on my talk page have not been deleted, just archived. You can find them (along with my discussion with Jonas Slaats), at this page. Cheers and happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)