Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mata Amritanandamayi

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

The mediation for the case will take place on this page. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors involved in this dispute
  1. Drajay1976 (talk · contribs) – filing party
  2. Amrit914 (talk · contribs) aka JamesRoberts
  3. Abhayakara (talk · contribs)
  4. Xrie (talk · contribs)
Articles affected by this dispute
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mata_Amritanandamayi&oldid=597822764#Allegations_by_Gail_Tredwell

Beginning mediation[edit]

Before we start the discussion, could I ask the editors involved in this mediation to agree to the following:

  • not to edit the article during the mediation
  • to remain civil and constructive in your discussions with other editors
  • and to make an opening statement that succinctly explains your position.

Thanks, PhilKnight (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Drajay1976's statement[edit]

Thanks for taking up this mediation.

  1. The section was about some allegations raised against Amritanandamayi and the ensuing scandal. Amritanandamayi is a well known Indian spiritual leader and is a Public figure. The allegations have not been investigated or proven in a court of law yet. As of now, they are merely allegations, but allegations can be included in an article about a Public figure if it "is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented" (as per WP:WELLKNOWN - the removed section is in accordance with the policy in my opinion). The removed section was meticulous in terming the charges as "allegations" (nowhere did it claim that the allegations were facts).
  2. The section in question was written in accordance with WP:NPOV. All the portions in the removed section met WP:V except a comment that the book by Gail Tredwell was self published ({{fact}} was added to the claim, as per policy). There was no original research involved. The section was neither "unsourced" nor "poorly sourced".
  3. Amritanandamayi had issued a statement indirectly rebutting the allegations. The statement was included in the removed section with multiple independent inline citations supporting it. Her Ashram had issued another statement that they would take the matter to court for defamation. This was also included in the article.
  4. In my opinion, the above points prove that the section in question was written in accordance with WP:PUBLICFIGURE (therefore, in accordance with the policy WP:BLP).
  5. My request for mediation is on two basic issues.

Xrie's statement[edit]

My opinion is that Amritanandamayi is a well known spiritual person worldwide. This fact is evident from the sections Positions and Awards and honours in the article about her. So, the allegations about this person can be included in the article if those allegations are noteworthy. Now, the allegations were noteworthy for several reasons:

  1. because the allegations are made by a person who was the close aide of the subject for nearly two decades.
  2. because the subject herself came up with an explanation to the allegations (there have been several instances in which allegations were made against her by others, but it is very rare that the subject herself comes up defending her and her ashram)
  3. because the allegations became widely reported and well known political leaders spoke for/against her making it even more controversial (See this and this).

So, I would like to have this section retained in the article, maintaining NPOV.

A word about the other books cited in this article - there are mentions of several other books written by other disciples of Amritanandamayi, by the names Ramakrishnananda Puri, Jnanamritananda, and Gretchen Kusuma McGregor. As of now, no objection has been raised to the inclusion of any of these sources or authors for the same reasons argued against Tredwell's book. The only difference I see is that those books praise the subject and Tredwell's book 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) 08:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

James Roberts' opening statement[edit]

Neither the courts nor the police nor the media have done any independent investigations on these alleged crimes of money laundering, physical abuse, and rape. The media has merely reported that people have commented on the crimes alleged in a self-published book (I believe this falls under the WP:GRAPEVINE policy that states: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that...is a conjectural interpretation of a source." Especially considering that the conjecture is based on an unpublished source).

There is absolutely no evidence, let alone proof that supports Tredwell's claims. Not even a single person has come forward to corroborate Tredwell's accusations. More than one person who are mentioned in the book have written on a blog that Ms. Tredwell lied about them in the book. Furthermore, the book contradicts more than 50 articles written by Tredwell (that are published).

So far there is only a lot of "he said, she said". I believe that this controversy violates WP:GOSSIP. Furthermore, WP:BLPCRIME states that "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 Indian media has stooped to this level of Tabloid journalism, but there is no need for Wikipedia to do the same. That's why I think this section is inappropriate and doesn't belong on a BLP. JamesRoberts (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Abhayakara's statement[edit]

I think that the controversy section as a whole smacks of WP:UNDUE. I don't think it can be said that the subject is not a public figure, but that alone is no justification for a controversy section based on hearsay reported in newspapers that may or may not be reliable sources, when that controversy section winds up being as big as the rest of the article. I think it is okay to briefly mention these accusations, for the reasons stated by User:Drajay1976, but this mention should be very brief in comparison to the rest of the article, to avoid undue weight. I speak about this more on the talk page. Someone proposed a more brief version in a recent edit to the article, which I reverted, because the tone was still very POV. Still, shorter is definitely better. I don't have a strong opinion about this, but have been asked recently and once a year or so ago to look at the article because I'm listed as an RFC volunteer, and this article does seem to me to have some POV pushing going on, and has had for quite some time. Abhayakara (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment by PhilKnight[edit]

Thanks to everyone for posting their opening statements. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Abhayakara, I'm interested by your idea of briefly mentioning these accusations. Could I ask you to draft a suggested version? PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Tomorrow and Saturday are busy days, but I'll give it a shot on Sunday. Abhayakara (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Abhayakara. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It is now four days past sunday. Abhayakara has yet to come up with a draft. Should we wait for a few more days? --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Abhayakara, are you going to be able to draft something soon? PhilKnight (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Abhayakara has been inactive since the 11th of March. What to do now? --Drajay1976 (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can continue to wait, and in this context, we should try to make some progress with the mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. --Drajay1976 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I had already added a version of the section in the article which was removed prior to the mediation. I can draft a new version of the section if needed, but I think it would be better if User:Xrie or user:Amrit914 comes up with a draft. --Drajay1976 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm still of the opinion that Tredwell's allegations don't belong on the page since the subject has not been charged with any crimes. I think the rest of the controversy article is mostly ok, though a little long in some sections. If Phil likes I would like to present another statement about why the section about Tredwell shouldn't be included? JamesRoberts (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi James, if you want to make a follow up statement, then go ahead. To clarify my role the mediation process, it isn't my role to reach a decision, instead my role is to act as a facilitator to the parties, so that you can find a version that you all find acceptable. Very often, if not always, this involves some sort of compromise. Could I ask you, if you consider that a shorter mention of the allegations by Gail Tredwell could be acceptable? PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Phil - I may be open to a brief mention of the existence of the book. But I'm afraid that that would serve as promotion for the book and the alleged crimes.  My concerns are as follows:

1) The book is self-published. And Wiki says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." WP:VERIFY. It is true some media have picked up on the book, but the self-published book remains the foundational source of information. The media are not reporting the allegations as fact; they are merely reporting the existence of the self-published book. There is a big difference.

2) Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. WP:VERIFY. The allegations Tredwell makes are extremely exceptional. Amritanandamayi is a very respected spiritual figure and no one has made such allegations previously. A self-published book is not an exceptional source for such an exceptional claim.

Furthermore, Tredwell published more than 50 articles and gave more than 100 talks praising Amritanandamayi as compassionate and loving, etc. With regards to this, Wiki also says that exceptional claims should not come from "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended." 

Finally, with regards to exceptional claims having to come from exceptional sources Wiki says that 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. 

3) The book is a memoir, not a biography, which means it is even more concerned with emotional truth toward a particular section of one's life and how it makes you feel now and "less concerned with factual events."  Autobiographies are made up of detailed chronology events, places, reactions, movements and other relevant information that inhabited the life of the subject and are focused on facts - fact, above all, is the foundation. This is a memoir, and Wiki guidelines says WP:RSE: "On many historical topics there are memoirs and oral histories that specialists consult with caution, for they are filled with stories that people wish to remember—and usually recall without going back to the original documentation. Editors should use them with caution."

One of the reasons this is a memoir (which is what Tredwell herself calls it) is because Tredwell implies in the book herself that she may be an unreliable narrator. On page 372 she says that she "felt too much pain" upon leaving the ashram "to determine what had been real and what had been projection."  Furthermore:

  • "I tucked the memory of these experiences into the dark recesses of my soul." (page 298).
  • "I have now come forward with my story because, from the perspective of my recovered consciousness, I see how wrong it is for such information to be kept from the innocents..."(page 372).
  • "A few years after leaving the ashram I began seeking intuitive counseling. One day during a healing session the lady counselor exclaimed, 'Oh, you have been sexually abused.' My body shuddered at the words and I became tense. I repelled the trauma of the memory. After all, it was buried so deep it could never be found. The lady immediately reassured, We don't need to deal with this now.' I breathed a sigh of relief. But I began to ponder the word abuse."(page 298).

A couple of the above statements seem to make references to some kind of recovered-memory therapy. This type of therapy is controversial in the scientific community because studies have shown that the therapy plants false memories (that's why people so often have "recovered" memories of satanic cults and other oddities).

I ask my fellow editors to be judicious. Considering that we edit of one of the top-five websites in the world, I believe we have a responsibility to be extremely careful when editing BLPs since there is so much potential for harm (wikipedia provides an enormous platform). In short, Wikipedia should not change the perception of a Living Person through one of its BLPs when the claims are self-published and not exceptional. JamesRoberts (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Amrit914 regarding the following point.
But these claims do not raise a red flag because they have been "covered by multiple mainstream sources". So we must confine the section to the controversy about the allegations with multiple reliable third party sources as inline citations. Lets not use the book as a source if it is self published. In my opinion, the book need not even be named. The author has made the same allegations in interviews as well, so we can mention only the allegations, not the original source.
The following information must be included to meet WP:WELLKNOWN
  • The denial by Amritanandamayi and the statement released by the Ashram that a defamation suit will be filed against Ms. Tredwell.
The section must not be about the book, but about the controversy regarding the allegations.
It is not for us to analyze "recovered-memory therapy" and "interests defended earlier". If there are multiple reliable third party sources making these observations, the information can be included in the section as well. Since the allegations are noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, they belong in the article even if there is the probability that they are completely false. Here the "BLPs should simply document what these sources say". --Drajay1976 (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I concur with Drajay1976's statement. The allegations should get a place in the article, but need not be very detailed. The importance of the allegations have not died down. A few days back, the heads of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham (Jayendra Saraswathi), Uduppi Pejavar Mutt (Vishwesha Teertha), and Vishva Hindu Parishad (Ashok Singhal) defended Amritanandamayi in a public meeting organised to condemn the allegations against her. -- Xrie (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Drajay, Xire - I'm glad that we're all in agreement that the book is not a suitable source. But that brings up this question: if the book is not up to our standards, as wikipedians, then how come the Indian press found the book suitable as a source? This story has not come out in any U.S. newspapers. We've established that the allegations are highly questionable. And yet, no newspapers have done any fact checking or investigation of the extraordinary claims? That doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Perhaps we can wait until an investigation is done before posting this section? How do you guys respond to my points about Tredwell praising the subject for many, many years before inexplicable changing her mind? Can you respond to my point that exceptional claims should not come from "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended."? There's something very strange about this story. That's why I think we need to wait for some real facts and not rely on hearsay. JamesRoberts (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for a lengthy statement:

  • I agreed that if the book is self published,[citation needed] it cannot be used as source as per WP:SELFPUBLISH, but the claim that it is a self published book needs be supported by sources. Lets go forward on the assumption that it is self published though...
  • It is not our business to speculate on why (or how) news organisations found something as a source. News organizations will decide what is newsworthy. We need to confine ourselves to find sources which meet WP:NEWSORG
  • None of the the news reports which I have read claim that these allegations are true by the way. The fact that the allegations were made is true. The news organizations had reported on this fact and the controversy that ensued.
  • There is no wikipedia policy that I do not know which says that news organizations in the US are inherently superior to those from elsewhere. There is no wikipedia policy which says that we cannot use news articles as sources if they are from India or Kerala. Our policy even accepts news articles published in languages other than english.
  • As user Xrie has pointed out, the allegations are very important. That is what matters to an encyclopaedia. As per WP:Wellknown, the allegations which are noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, in multiple sources, belong in the article. The inclusion of information on the controversy surrounding this issue and the denial of the allegations is most definitely encyclopaedic.
  • We are writing an biography on a well known living person. We need not second guess the motives of someone who is raising allegations and exclude/include information based on our whims and fancies. We only need to write the article as per wikipedia policy. To me, the policy appears very clear. Let me quote the entire pertinent policy again....
  • If the book is not used as a source and we are using only the third party news organizations as sources to create a section on the controversy surrounding the allegation, and not the factual nature of the allegations themselves, the question of "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended." does not arise. But if there are third party sources which have observed that these statements are out of character, we can include that information in the article as well as we must write this encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view. --Drajay1976 (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

PhilKnight, I took the liberty to introduce a draft section for discussion. I hope that having a draft section on the table is helpful for reaching a consensus. --Drajay1976 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for writing a draft. PhilKnight (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Phil - I'm a little frustrated with these negotiations. Wiki guidelines tell us to be extremely careful with BLP pages, especially in the case of exceptional claims against the BLP subject. That's why I've been doing careful examination of the claims and their sources. The reason why I'm frustrated is that I feel like I'm not getting a response to my questions. I thought this was going to be discussion. Rather than engaging in dialogue, I feel like my counterpart is merely copy-and-pasting extensive sections out of wiki regulations. I find this form of "wikilawyering" frustrating and pointless. How can we make this more of a discussion rather than a bunch of people talking past each other? JamesRoberts (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
PhilKnight, I had copy pasted the section WP:WELLKNOWN because I felt that Amrit914 was not acknowledging the validity of that policy and was policy shopping. The fundamental reason this issue was brought for mediation was because Amrti914 claimed that WP:WELLKNOWN did not apply in Amritanandamayi's case because she was a "relatively unknown" person. Even though every other party involved in this discussion has agreed otherwise, Amrit914 has avoided addressing the most relevant BLP policy applicable in this case. This is a bit frustrating.
I have prepared the draft section extremely carefully with our policy on BLP in mind because Abhayakara who agreed to do it did not come up with a draft and nonone else did. I want this to be a discussion too. I feel that the discussion needs to be based on a draft with the participants pointing out why something should be included/excluded citing wikipedia policy. --Drajay1976 (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Drajay, I don't think it would be productive for us to conduct a side-conversation on my talk page since our inability to communicate with each other is what prompted this mediation in the first place. JamesRoberts (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. In all seriousness, unless you are willing to agree some form of compromise, then I would suggest mediation isn't going to work. I'm not criticising anyone, however I think we should face the situation that it seems we are at a stalemate. If that is the case, there are other options, for example a Request for Comment. Obviously, an arbitration case could be filed, but I'm not convinced this dispute requires arbitration. Finally, I'd just like to say that all of the editors involved in this mediation so far have conducted themselves to a very high standard, and to thank you for your diplomatic approach to this disagreement. PhilKnight (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel that this case falls into shady gray areas when it comes to Wikipedia regulations. I had hoped we could discuss those gray areas and potential pitfalls and examine whether this material belongs on this BLP. Since there doesn't seem to be a will here to do so, I will give up my efforts to engage in this discussion. However, In the spirit of cooperation, I will participate in the draft writing process. JamesRoberts (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
PhilKnight, shall we discuss the draft? --Drajay1976 (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'll create a new section below for that purpose. PhilKnight (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Version (Draft)[edit]

I think the best way to go forward is to base the discussion on a draft. As Abhayakara has not come forward with a draft, I am putting forward a draft of my own (slightly modified from the version which was removed) for discussion.

Allegations made by Gail Tredwell

Gail Tredwell, a former disciple of Amritanandamayi made some controversial[1][2][3] allegations about the Guru and the Ashram in a self-published[citation needed] memoir (2013) and subsequent interviews.[1][4][5] She had made these allegations in an interview prior to the publication of the book as well.[6][7][8] Ms. Tredwell claimed that she was sexually abused by a disciple of Amritanandamayi,[9][10] was physically abused by Amritanandamayi herself,[10][11] donations of devotees were diverted to Amritanandamayi's parents and six siblings[7][11][12][4] and that Ms.Tredwell herself was complicit in covering up secrets.[13]

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.[14] I don’t ask anyone to serve me. Instead, I am serving others."[15] Devotees had filed a police complaint about the offensive content in social media in this regard.[15] Initially, the Ashram revealed that they were planning to file a defamation suit against Ms. Tredwell in New York,[14][16] but later it was clarified that no legal action would be initiated against her.[11] 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.[17][18][19] These newschannels had covered[20][21][22] the allegations raised by Gail Tredwel. Some prominent Hindu religious leaders charged that the book by Ms. Gail Tredwell was a part of an international conspiracy to tarnish the image of Hindu spiritual leaders.[23] Meanwhile police cases were filed against those who campaigned against Mata Amritanandamayi in Social Media[13][14] and a petition was filed in the High Court of Kerala requesting a CBI probe into these allegations.[24]


I have made some more minor modifications. I think the above draft meets the standards set by the policy WP:WELLKNOWN. All the sources are publications of reliable news organizations. The controversy itself is notable since the sources which cover the controversy are diverse (WP:DIVERSE) and are from the national media in India based all over the country as well as one source from outside the country (US) (WP:GEOSCOPE). The first source which outline the allegatsions is dated 16th August 2012 and the last from March 2014. It meets WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, so the media interest in the allegations is not a temporary phenomenon. Most of the cited sources give in depth coverage to the controversy (WP:INDEPTH).--Drajay1976 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

PhilKnight, I am always willing to have a dialogue and I want a consensus to be reached. Is User:Amrit914 willing to have a dialogue on the Draft? I would like someone to point out which section/S of WP:BLP apply in this case. I think the points which must first be addressed by us are the following
  • Is the relevant policy WP:BLPCRIME as Amrit914 claimed here & here? Or is WP:WELLKNOWN the relevant policy?
  • Does anyone think the above section violates WP:SELFPUBLISH? (I dont) The policy is "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.". In the draft presented above, self-published sources where NOT used at all (the book written by Gail Tredwell was deliberately not used as a source because it is suspected to be self-published). Only third party sources were used instead.
  • Does anyone think that the above section violates WP:EXCEPTIONAL? I dont think so because "multiple high-quality sources" were used for almost every other statement. The section is only about the controversy regarding some claims which were denied by the person involved. And the section clearly states that these were "claims" and "allegations" only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drajay1976 (talkcontribs) 08:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. Will someone please point out which policy is violated by the above draft?
  2. If some policy is violated, can you point out which sentence or phrase in the draft is the issue?
  3. Can we correct the violation by making some amendments?
  4. Is there any other suggestions to improve the draft? --Drajay1976 (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of the draft[edit]

In this section, could the parties give their thoughts on the above draft? Thanks, PhilKnight (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not having had time to work on this recently. The proposed text is mostly not about the subject of the bio (I will abbreviate MA)—it's really mostly about the person making the accusation. The first cite doesn't reach the article, which is not archived, so you can't use it unless you have an actual source for it. The second article doesn't say anything about MA—it's about a government official. The third article doesn't say anything about MA, just that the claims should be investigated. The Tehelka article is an interview with the accuser, in which she talks about three times she put MA's life at risk; no mention of this is made in the proposed text. I don't see why the interview would be any more reliable than the book. Do you? The fifth cite is also an interview with the accuser. I don't have time to go through all the cites, but these are incredibly thin so far. I would not consider any of these except the second, which says nothing about MA, to be WP:RS (by which I do not mean to say that the second is WP:RS, just that I don't have a reason to think it's not. The way these cites have been used, and the way you talk about the proposed text, sounds like you have a specific idea of what you want to write, and are looking for any cite you can find to back it up. This is not the right way to write a Wikipedia article. You should be looking at reliable sources and seeing if there is a story there, not writing a story and then seeing if you can find sources to back it up. Abhayakara (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. Abhayakara, thanks for pointing out the error about the first reference. I have corrected the archiving error. Now the link goes directly to the article.
  2. The first, second and third references are not supposed to say anything about MA, they are supposed to show that the book is controversial. The references definitely show that there was a "controversy",[1]; a "scandal"[2] and that the book was "controversial" [3]. All these references were given in support of the statement that the allegations raised in the book were controversial.
  3. If you have a better way of giving supporting evidence for a controversy, can you suggest a modification please?
  4. The three sites mentioned meet the standards set by WP:NEWSORG and hence WP:RS.
  5. I do not have a specific idea about what I want to write. I read it in multiple sources that the book was controversial, so I put that information in wikipedia with supporting inline citations. If anybody has read somewhere that the book was actually not controversial, and have multiple independent third party sources to back it up, please do that. Did you actually have a preconceived notion that the book or the allegations contained in it were not controversial???
  6. I feel that the way I have read the articles to understand that there was a controversy about the issue and the way I have used the articles as inline citations is the way a wikipedia article should be written. There I must disagree with you. --Drajay1976 (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Abhayakara got confused and misunderstood that the references were given in support of some other statement about MA. I have followed WP:INTEGRITY while giving references to statements. Since my sources specifically supported a phrase in the first sentence, but not all of it, I could not give the references at the end. From the way the references are inserted in the middle of the sentence itself, this is clear. --Drajay1976 (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I missed out the following statement in the previous posts. "I don't see why the interview would be any more reliable than the book. Do you?" The reliability or factual nature of the allegation is not something which should be proved as per WP:WELLKNOWN. For information about an allegation or a scandal about a well known person to be included in wikipedia, we only need to prove that the allegation was made; there was a controversy/scandal surrounding it and the denial by the party involved. The interviews published in reliable sources (meeting WP:NEWSORG and hence WP:RS) show that the allegation was actually made. Other sources show that a denial was also issued. --Drajay1976 (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Abhayakara's statement. My own concerns is that this section is inappropriately long which gives undue weight to the story. This issue has happened before on the "controversy" section of the Mata Amritanandamayi page. When people add tangential, reactionary material in the section, it makes the subject look guilty when it appears, in reality, that nothing of substance has happened (other than some unsubstantiated claims). JamesRoberts (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG does not equal WP:RS. The WP:NEWSORG article gives very helpful guidance on how to tell the difference. The particular articles I referred to clearly do not qualify as WP:RS regardless of whether the news organizations themselves are reliable sources when publishing fact-checked non-gossip articles. An interview that has been fact checked would show evidence of that. This one does not. I don't have time to evaluate further, but the fact that you think WP:NEWSORG implies WP:RS suggests that you are reading for support of the viewpoint you want to push, rather than reading for comprehension. I am not disputing that a controversy exists here: I am disputing the undue weight that you are proposing to give it. Abhayakara (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Abhayakara, I have many disagreements with your reasoning.

  • I used three sources as supporting evidence to prove that there was a controversy. You say that these three sources are have not checked the facts and are just reporting rumors, thus not reliable.
  • So if you did not mean to say that "there is actually no controversy and the sources are just reporting on a rumor that there is a controversy without actually verifying whether there is a controversy or not" what is the issue here??? To support the statement that there is a controversy, sources which meet WP:NEWSORG are sufficient.
  • As per WP:WELLKNOWN, if there is an allegation about a well known person, you need to find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation if you need to include information about the allegation in the wikipedia BLP. You need not find sources which prove that the allegation is actually correct. I strongly urge you to read the policy WP:WELLKNOWN. The different standards for BLPs of well known and relatively unknown people apparantly has a strong basis in libel case law in the US, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
  • Therefore, since MA is a wellknown person, as per WP:WELLKNOWN, the statement in the article that "GT (Gail Tredwell) has raised some allegations against MA" needs to be supported only by sources which have checked the fact that the allegations were actually made. The sources need not check whether the allegations were actually true or not.
  • Many of the sources cited have included the information that the allegations were denied by Amritanandamayi and the Asharam. This information has also been included in the draft above.
  • In the draft I have prepared, I am not supporting any viewpoint. I have written the draft with NPOV. I have presented both sides of the argument. and included information (the support MA is getting) which suggest that there are a considerable number of people who strongly believe that the allegations are false.
  • I dont think that the draft would have undue weight in the article. This is a subjective assessment, of course - just like your assessment that it would have undue weight if included in the article. Pruning the controversies section is not the only way the weight issue can be managed (the other sections can be expanded too - as of now, I think the article is a bit lean and not very well researched).

Amrit914, which part/s of Abhayakara's statements were you agreeing with? Do you have any amendments to propose? --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, I was referring to the interviews. I never said that the controversy cites were not from reliable sources (I have no opinion about that). Regarding the second point, the issue with controversy is, as I have said, that it's given undue weight. I don't think there's any question that Gail Treadwell has raised allegations; the question is whether the allegations themselves are adequately sourced. If you take out all the Gail Treadwell material, including interviews, and just rely on the controversy cites, when we can have a discussion about whether what is left is encyclopedic, but right now we're not at that point. The draft you've written doesn't look neutral to me, and the vehemence with which you are defending it suggests that you have a strong opinion and are not just working on an encyclopedia article. As for undue weight, I've explained at length why I think the weight of the controversy section is undue. But since you agree that it's weighted too heavily, and you agree that the rest of the article needs work, why not work on that? That would easily resolve this problem. The fact that this doesn't occur to you again suggests that you are not interested in improving the article, but rather making sure that it says what you want it to say. To be clear, you are proposing a change that gives the controversy undue weight, and you have agreed that it does. So the onus is upon you to propose a change that does not give the controversy undue weight, and that change would have to include a substantial improvement to the rest of the article. You can't just say "well, someone ought to do that." Abhayakara (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I think that there is a very interesting story here that may be related to the story you want to tell. The reactions that are documented on the part of the government here are pretty scandalous. The government is circling the wagons to try to suppress a controversy and punish those who have raised it, rather than investigating the allegations and trying to get to the truth of the matter. Many of the allegations are easy to verify. Why haven't they been checked? If there is secondary source material that explores this, that would be the basis for a very good article about government in Kerala. But that would be the topic—the fact that it is MA who is being protected is incidental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayakara (talkcontribs) 17:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I never agreed that the section has undue weight. I said that in my "subjective opinion" (just like it is your subjective opinion that it has undue weight) it does not have undue weight. I went on to suggest that if there is a weight issue, pruning the controversies is not the only way it can be corrected. I prepared the draft this way because I feel that this is the best way to present the controversy with NPOV. If others think that there are specific issues, it is up to them to suggest changes. I refuse to accept that "the onus is on" me to suggest a change to the draft I myself proposed.
  • I would very much like to improve the article on MA and did include a recent award MA got through the protected edit route. But I cant freely edit the article since it is semi-protected and using the protected edit route is tedious. Once it becomes unprotected, I will try to improve the article. Since I am an administrator in another language wiki, I dont get much time to edit English wiki, but since this article has caught my attention, I will definitely endeavor to improve it. I will never say that it is the job of someone else if I can do it myself. (I have more than 26000 edits in all wiki projects combined. Do you think a user who has destructive intent at heart will devout so much time and energy for the project?). Please dont take the statement withing parentheses as boasting or paternalism. I am just trying to show my earnestness here.
  • I had recently translated a portion of the article on Amritanandamayi in en.wiki to my home wiki. That is when I noticed that a section about the controversy regarding MA (which I thought was encyclopedic and relevant) was repeatedly being removed from the article citing flimsy reasons. The "vehemence" with which a user was removing the section repeatedly caught my attention and I decided to engage him in conversation and I decided to take the BRD route. But he was unwilling even to discuss the contents to reach a consensus on the talk page. I will continue to resist this sort of behavior (destructive in my opinion) which goes against all notions I have about the principles of wikipedia. I request you not to consider this as "vehemence" on my part. It is only because I have this kind of spirit that I contribute to wikipedia. I am only arguing my perception of wikipedia policy and how an encyclopedia must be written. I am willing to be corrected (my arguments can easily be shown as false - if they are indeed false).
  • If you have any specific suggestion about improving the neutrality of the language in the draft, this is where we can discuss that. I have consciously tried to keep the language very neutral (I personally think that many of the allegations raised by GT are not very likely to be true and I have tried to keep that point of view away from the draft I prepared - I have not included some of those allegations in the draft above because I did not get "multiple" third party sources which reported them). But another person may be able to see what I cant, so please make specific useful suggestions.
  • You seem to think that I have something to say in the article. What are your suspicions? Can you point out the specific part in the draft (other than the vehemence which you perceive) which suggest that I have a hidden agenda (a "story" I "want to tell") here?
  • I agree with you that some of the allegations like the diversion of money to the relatives is very easy for the government to prove and they are not trying to do that (I suspect that there is a statute of limitation and it applies to financial irregularities like these - that may be a reason why the government is not acting, I am not sure and I dont have any reference to back this up). The matter is under the consideration of the Kerala High Court now, which will decide on the matter. But some other allegations like the sexual abuse will be very difficult to prove. It is the word of GT against the disciple of MA. The allegation of physical abuse also apparently happened in private. --Drajay1976 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Abhayakara, It must also be noted that noone other than you have made any suggestions for change in the article (the constructive suggestion you had made was about the archive link which was non functional). --Drajay1976 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have reached an impasse on the current draft. I still honestly feel that this section does not belong on Amritanandamayi's BLP since there are no verifiable facts other than the fact that allegations were made. Making things more complicated, these extremely extraordinary accusations are based on a singular, non-vetted, self-published source. Everything else is pure reaction. But I've already discussed this at length. Remembering that, with BLP, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia entry and not an exposé, I really feel that this does not belong here at all.

But since the goal of this mediation is compromise, I will compromise my position to agree to a high-level view of this controversy. I'm proposing the following draft because I think it satisfies the core concerns of all parties involved in this mediation--those being 1) that the fact that a controversial book that makes allegations against Amritanandamayi does exist, 2) that the allegations themselves--since they are self-published and unvetted--should not be explicitly mentioned in this BLP, 3) that the section is not given undue weight. Here is my proposal:

Simplified Draft[edit]

In 2013, Gail Tredwell, a former disciple of Amritanandamayi self-published a memoir of her 1980-99 tenure in Amritanandamayi's ashram, making allegations of improprieties.

Both Amritanandamayi and representatives of her ashram, the Mata Amritanandamayi Math, denied the allegations, saying that they were untrue and were aimed at exacting revenge for unfulfilled desires.

Thanks for putting forward this simplified version James. Abhayakara, Drajay1976, and Xrie do you consider this to be an acceptable compromise? PhilKnight (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There are many aspects of this draft which are acceptable in my personal view. The following portions included in the draft I prepared were removed in the draft by Amrit914.
  1. "Devotees had filed a police complaint about the offensive content in social media in this regard.[15]" This is not essential information as per WP:WELLKNOWN even though it is relevant and encyclopedic.
  2. "Initially, the Ashram revealed that they were planning to file a defamation suit against Ms. Tredwell in New York,[14][16] but later it was clarified that no legal action would be initiated against her.[11]" This also non essential because it is not necessary as per WP:WELLKNOWN. Anyway, there is no defamation action. Only the fact that it was contemplated at some point can be easily discarded. But it should be included if a defamation suit is filed at some point in the future.
  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.[17][18][19] These newschannels had covered[20][21][22] the allegations raised by Gail Tredwel." This portion has encyclopaedic value and shows the support MA has. It also gives an idea about the point of view of her supporters. But this is not essential as per WP:WELLKNOWN
  4. "Some prominent Hindu religious leaders charged that the book by Ms. Gail Tredwell was a part of an international conspiracy to tarnish the image of Hindu spiritual leaders.[23]" This again shows that there is a considerable number of people who think that the allegations are wrong. But this is not necessary as per WP:WELLKNOWN.
  5. "Meanwhile police cases were filed against those who campaigned against Mata Amritanandamayi in Social Media" was removed. This is not essential as per WP:WELLKNOWN.
I think that the draft needs to be amended at other places.
  • Amrit914 has removed the specific allegations. This has no basis in Wikipedia policy.
  • It is not just a controversial book which contains these allegations. The allegations were published in the rolling stones magazine one year before the book was published. So the allegations do not stem from a book alone. So the wikipedia piece should be about the scandal as per WP:WELLKNOWN and not about the book.
  • The rolling stones article has "vetted" the allegations. They were denied. The same process of vetting was done by other secondary sources which published the allegations. Anyway, as per WP:WELLKNOWN, if allegations are raised against a well known person and these were noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Only those allegations documented by multiple reliable third-party sources were included in the draft I had presented. There is no reason why thy should be omitted.
  • Since the allegations were published in an interview even before the book was published (we have yet to get evidence that it is self published), there is no reason to omit the allegations even as per WP:SELFPUBLISH, especially since the draft I presented did not include the allegedly self published source as a reference.
  • My position is that the allegations should be briefly mentioned in the article.
  • I dont support the view that the section is overweight, but I will accept a brief version which scrupulously follows WP:WELLKNOWN.
  • The porition "a petition was filed in the High Court of Kerala requesting a CBI probe into these allegations.[24]" was removed. I think the legal status of the allegations themselves needs to be mentioned in the article.

I will propose a draft which incorporates Amrit914's draft and elements of the draft I proposed. See the section below.--Drajay1976 (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Simplified draft (Version 2)[edit]


In 2013, Gail Tredwell, a former disciple of Amritanandamayi self-published[citation needed] a memoir of her 1980-99 tenure in Amritanandamayi's ashram. She had made some controversial[1][2][3] allegations in this memoir as well as media interviews which preceded[7] and followed[1][4][5] the publication of the book. The major allegations reported in the media were that a) she she was sexually abused by a disciple of Amritanandamayi,[9][10] b) she was physically abused by Amritanandamayi herself,[10][11] c) donations of devotees were diverted to Amritanandamayi's parents and six siblings[7][11][12][4] and that d) Ms.Tredwell herself was complicit in covering up secrets.[13] Both Amritanandamayi and representatives of her ashram, the Mata Amritanandamayi Math, denied the allegations, saying that they were untrue and were aimed at exacting revenge for unfulfilled desires.[25][26][27] A petition was filed in the High Court of Kerala requesting a CBI probe into these allegations,[24] which the court dismissed with the direction that the petitioner can move the appropriate lower court for remedy.[28]


I like the draft Drajay1976 proposed. Compared to Amrit914's version, this one looks more solid and complete despite being compact and concise. Readers are presented with the basic minimum information about the allegations and the incidents that followed rather than prompting them to do an Internet search to find things. Nothing violates the guidelines of Wikipedia and what is included is ascribed to its sources. -- Xrie (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it's instructive to read the entire page of the Rolling Stone article that's mentioned in the references. This is what a balanced (NPOV) presentation looks like. The paragraph above reads like a gossip column. It also reads as being mostly about Ms. Tredwell. If this article were at a level of detail sufficient to sustain exposition like what we see in the Rolling Stone article, something along the lines of what is in that article would be appropriate. If you can capture the feel of that article in a paragraph or two, I think that would not be undue emphasis. But the proposal above doesn't do that. It's a jumble of carefully sourced facts, mostly about Ms. Tredwell, not about the subject of the article. There's no need for there to be any mention of this incident in the article—no pressure to get it in now. It's worth spending the time to get it right, and then add it, rather than trying to cram something in that's not really encyclopedic. Abhayakara (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Abhayakara, I don't understand what you mean by the statement "there is no need for there to be any mention of this incident in the article". The point is that it belongs in the article as per policy.

Do you want to propose another draft? -Drajay1976 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

PhilKnight, noone has suggested any specific modifications to the above draft (version 2) which combined elements of Amrit914's draft and mine. Abhayakara is not satisfied with the draft, but has not presented any alternatives. Amrit914 has not made any specific comments. Xrie and myself think the last draft is acceptable. How can we move forward? --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Drajay1976, thanks for the prompt, and, yes, we seem to be losing momentum. I'll propose a draft below. PhilKnight (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Simplified draft 3[edit]


In 2013, Gail Tredwell, a former disciple of Amritanandamayi self-published a memoir of her 1980-99 tenure in Amritanandamayi's ashram. She had made some controversial allegations in this memoir as well as media interviews which preceded and followed the publication of the book.[1][2][3][7][4][5] The allegations included that she was sexually abused by a disciple of Amritanandamayi,[9][10] and that she was also physically assaulted by Amritanandamayi.[10][11] Both Amritanandamayi and representatives of her ashram, denied the allegations, saying that they were untrue and were aimed at exacting revenge for unfulfilled desires.[25][26][27]


I support this draft version. It is concise and has decent coverage. -- Xrie (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I support the draft. -Drajay1976 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the current draft is pretty good, with a few corrections/changes, it would be acceptable to me as well:

1) The allegations that Gail Tredwell was sexually abused by a disciple of Amritanandamayi does not belong on Amritanandamayi's page because it is not an allegation against Amritanandamayi.

2) Last week, Amritanandamayi did an extensive interview in the mainstream Malayalam magazine (her native language) called Grihalakshmi. It's the most in depth Amritanandamayi has spoken about this issue. I think we should include a couple of quotes from that interview. Specifically: "Even now, Amma is only filled with love for that daughter. I am praying that virtue and goodness come. Time will shine forth the truth."

[Grihalakshmi, April 16-30 issue, "Sneham Matram" ["Only Love"] by Rashmi Raghunath--page 21: "അമ്മയ്ക്ക് ആ മോളോട് ഇപ്പോഴും നിറഞ്ഞ സ്നേഹമേയുള്ളൂ. നന്മയുണ്ടാകട്ടെ, നല്ലതുവരട്ടെ എന്നു പ്രാര്ഥിക്കുന്നു. കാല്ം സത്യം തെളിയിക്കും."]

3) I think it is also important to state that Tredwell has never been able to substantiate her claims. This is something that has been pointed out by a number of newspapers, including the Telegraph: "Tredwell's details are unsubstantiated charges." [4].

4) Finally, I was reading through the Rolling Stone article, and I saw this quote by the author which seems pertient considering that Tredwell changed her story a year after this article came out. He says: "Tredwell, for her part, wants me to understand that she does not believe Amma is a fraud or a charlatan. She believes Amma is 'not a normal human being' and that her reserves of love and compassion are genuine." I think this could be included as well, it might be too much information, and I don' think the section should become overly long. So I didn't include it in the draft below.

I would augment Phil's draft to read as follows:

Simplified Draft 4[edit]

In 2013, Gail Tredwell, a former disciple of Amritanandamayi self-published a memoir of her 1980-99 tenure in Amritanandamayi's ashram. She had made some controversial allegations in this memoir as well as media interviews which preceded and followed the release of the book.[1][2][3][7][4][5] The allegations, which have not been substantiated [29] , included that Tredwell was physically assaulted by Amritanandamayi.[10][11] Both Amritanandamayi and representatives of her ashram, denied the allegations, saying that they were untrue and were aimed at exacting revenge for unfulfilled desires.[25][26][27] In an interview in April 2014, Amritanandamayi spoke in depth about the incident, saying, "Even now, Amma is only filled with love for that daughter. I am praying that virtue and goodness come. Time will shine forth the truth."[30]


I agree that the allegation that Gail Tredwell was sexually abused by a disciple of Amritanandamayi is not a direct allegation against the guru. This is acceptable. --Drajay1976 (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I too agree that the mention of the disciple who abused Tredwell is not needed in this article. By the way, the word "allegation" denotes a statement or argument which does not have any proof. So, is it really required to write "the allegations which have not been substantiated"? It is understood, right? -- Xrie (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like we were very close to sucessfully concluding this mediation. Could I ask JamesRoberts and Drajay1976 their opinion of Xrie's suggestion to remove the phrase "which have not been substantiated"? PhilKnight (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I feel it should be left in. It only adds five more words but makes it clear that no evidence has been brought forth to support these allegations, which is an important point that, in my opinion, requires underlining. Moreover, allegations can be substantiated or unsubstantiated. Since this is being placed on a BLP page, I think it's important to underscore the fact that they are unsubstantiated.JamesRoberts (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Xrie, in the interests of concluding this mediation, would you be willing to go along with the version that includes the "which have not been substantiated" wording? PhilKnight (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry PhilKnight, for the late response. I was slightly busy in real life. I agree to the inclusion of those words. I was just hinting that it was not necessary. No objections at all in including those words back. Thanks! -- Xrie (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
In which case, we have agreement. Thanks to everyone taking part in the mediation, and I've now added the paragrah into the article. PhilKnight (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f Philip, Shaju (8 March 2014). "CPM-backed Kairali TV airs interview of author who alleged sex abuse at Amritanandamayi ashram". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 26 March 2014. Retrieved 26 March 2014. 
  2. ^ a b c d "'Withdraw Controversial Book on Mata Amritanandamayi'". The New Indian Express. 25 February 2014. Retrieved 26 March 2014. 
  3. ^ a b c d "Amritanandamayi scandal: Kerala leaders break silence on book". Firstpost India. 22 February 2014. Retrieved 26 March 2014. 
  4. ^ a b c d e f Jacob, Jeemon. "'Many people who possess information against Amma are terrified to come forward'". Tehelka. Retrieved 30 March 2014. 
  5. ^ a b c d "Amma and her organization terrorize and intimidate people: Gail Tredwell". Dool News. 24 February 2014. Archived from the original on 8 April 2014. Retrieved 1 April 2014. 
  6. ^ Amsden, David (16 August 2012). "The Hugging Saint". Rolling Stone. p. 1. Archived from the original on 22 January 2014. Retrieved 27 March 2014. 
  7. ^ a b c d e f Amsden, David (16 August 2012). "The Hugging Saint". Rolling Stone. p. 2. Archived from the original on 22 January 2014. Retrieved 27 March 2014. 
  8. ^ Amsden, David (16 August 2012). "The Hugging Saint". Rolling Stone. p. 3. Archived from the original on 20 January 2014. Retrieved 27 March 2014. }
  9. ^ a b c Philip, Shaju (20 February 2014). "Amma's ex-aide alleges sexual abuse at ashram". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 21 February 2014. Retrieved 30 March 2014. 
  10. ^ a b c d e f g "Gail Tredwell's interview goes viral". The Times of India. 9 March 2014. Archived from the original on 30 March 2014. Retrieved 30 March 2014. 
  11. ^ a b c d e f g K, Jayaprakash (22 February 2014). "Spiritual conundrum: Book claims 'hugging saint' ashram murky world of sex, money, power". DNA. Archived from the original on 27 February 2014. Retrieved 30 March 2014. 
  12. ^ a b "In the grip of a hug". Mumbai Mirror. 23 February 2014. Archived from the original on 5 March 2014. Retrieved 30 March 2014. 
  13. ^ a b c "Sprited debate on Gail Tredwell's book on Social Media". Madhyamam. 21 February 2014. Archived from the original on 3 March 2014. Retrieved 30 March 2014. 
  14. ^ a b c J, Binduraj (23 February 2014). "Gail Tredwell stands by rape accusations against prominent Kerala Mutt priest". India Today. Archived from the original on 25 February 2014. Retrieved 1 April 2014. 
  15. ^ a b Philip, Shaju. "Amma denies charges, Chandy backs her but Pinarayi seeks probe". The Indian Express. Retrieved 23 February 2014. 
  16. ^ "Police action if Tredwell files complaint: Commissioner". The Hindu. 9 March 2014. Retrieved 30 March 2014. 
  17. ^ "അമൃതാനന്ദമയി അനുകൂലികള്‍ പ്രകടനം നടത്തി". മാദ്ധ്യമം. 26 February 2014. Archived from the original on 27 February 2014. Retrieved 27 February 2014. 
  18. ^ "കൊച്ചിയില്‍ അമൃതാനന്ദമയി അനുകൂലികള്‍ പ്രകടനം നടത്തി". Reporter. 26 February 2014. Archived from the original on 27 February 2014. Retrieved 27 February 2014. 
  19. ^ "കൊച്ചിയില്‍ അമൃതാനന്ദമയി അനുകൂലികള്‍ പ്രകടനം നടത്തി". Veekshanam. 26 February 2014. Archived from the original on 27 February 2014. Retrieved 27 February 2014. 
  20. ^ "'അമ്മ'യുടേത് കച്ചവട സാമ്രാജ്യം: മുൻ ശിഷ്യയുടെ വെളിപ്പെടുത്തലുകൾ". Indiavision. Retrieved 27 February 2014. 
  21. ^ "എല്ലാവര്‍ക്കും നന്ദിയറിയിച്ച് ഗെയ്ല്‍ ട്രെഡ് വെല്‍". Mediaone. Retrieved 27 February 2014. 
  22. ^ "വിശുദ്ധ നരകവും മാതാ അമൃതാനന്ദമയിയും- അടയാളം". Reporter TV. Retrieved 27 February 2014. 
  23. ^ "Attack against Amritanandamayi in book "i'national conspiracy"". Business Standard. Retrieved 30 March 2014. 
  24. ^ a b Binduraj, J (15 March 2014). "High Court notice to Kerala govt, CBI in Amritanadamayi mutt case". India Today. Archived from the original on 15 March 2014. Retrieved 30 March 2014. 
  25. ^ a b c "Mata Amritanandamayi Refutes All Allegations". The New Indian Express. 23 February 2014. Retrieved 13 April 2014. 
  26. ^ a b c "My life is an open book, says Mata". The Hindu. 23 February 2014. Retrieved 13 April 2014. 
  27. ^ a b c "Mata Amritanandamayi says the institution was an 'open book', dismisses allegations". IBN. Retrieved 13 April 2014. 
  28. ^ "Petition for CBI probe against Amritanandamayi Mutt dismissed". IndLawNews. 8 April 2014. Retrieved 13 April 2014. 
  29. ^ "Rumpus in the ashram". Retrieved 26 April 2014. 
  30. ^ Raghunath, Rashmi (April 16th). "Sneham Matram". Grihalakshmi: 21. അമ്മയ്ക്ക് ആ മോളോട് ഇപ്പോഴും നിറഞ്ഞ സ്നേഹമേയുള്ളൂ. നന്മയുണ്ടാകട്ടെ, നല്ലതുവരട്ടെ എന്നു പ്രാർത്ഥിക്കുന്നു. കാലം സത്യം തെളിയിക്കും.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

Great Mediation[edit]

Hi All, I am very impressed by the spirit of compromise and cooperation that led to the final acceptable revision. Phersh (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)