Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

This article is maintained by the Kerala workgroup.

[edit] Removal of Links

I removed a link to an online petition against Mata Amritanandamayi as I felt that it was a promotion of the petition.

I am still not very comfortable with the tone of the rest of the article. As an encyclopedia, I feel that an article should not take sides. I do not know how to re-edit it at this time, will probably visit it at a later time

The whole movement has spawned a whole load of bunkum spouting foriegn dollar searching fake gurus in southern India. You ought to mention the effect such fake sadhus have on societies that are gullible enough to be taken by a row of neo-hippie foriegners waiting for "darshan". This article needs more clarity, skeptic voices, a list of copy-cat sadhus and saints, and what to do when you spot bunkum like this. For those interested, south indian TV channels now chronicle the lives of such fake sadhus. The trick here is to amass enough wealth and connections to muzzle the press fast enough. (www.kairali.tv),(www.sunnetwork.com)

Its good to profile people, but bad when skeptic voices are actively filtered out.

This comment doesn't seem to relate to Amma at all. You talk about 'fake gurus', but provide no evidence that she is one. If there other 'fake gurus' about whom you have useful information, please edit their profiles instead.

[edit] Too negative.

The page still looks unacceptably negative or biased against Mata Amritanandamayi, in my personal opinion. I will try and place a few lines about the charity and other good aspects of the mission, to balance out the criticism.

[edit] Links

Please avoid peppering the article with links to non existant topics. Insert one only if you are seriously requesting someone to provide an article on the topic or if you plan to provide one yourself.

[edit] Links & Weblogs

I don't find anything wrong in creating links to non-existent pages because some readers may provide an article with that title. But there is no point in creating links to names of ashram authorities such as Swami Amritaswaroopananda, Ron Gotsegen, Dr. Prem Nair, swami Amritatmananda, Ramakrishnananda and to some of the people who were allegedly murdered in the ashram.

As to links to Weblogs, Personal webpages and public discussion forums, they can be linked to if they are relevant to the topics under discussion and provide additional information all of which can not be accommodated in Wikipedia pages. Afterall, how can one differentiate between pages/websites created by ashram authorities for their own publicity and weblogs created by individuals. Atleast the pages created by individuals (some even anonymous)are not for boosting their own images. Yet it is better to have links to well-developed websites than to individual weblogs. Until we have such skeptical websites, let us bear with the existing links.

[edit] Award

AT least now after the investigation and subsequent controversies about the deals of United Nation's food for Oil programme, now it is easier to understand that award is not a big deal. Only question is "how much?"

[edit] Proofreading/English usage change?

In the article, the wording "has sang" (in more than 30 languages) is used. In formal English, the wording "has sung" has been used throughout my lifetime; should it not also be used here? (--Yes, I know many people in the southern United States say "has sang" informally, perhaps elsewhere in the world as well.) --Steve, December 4, 2005

[edit] Refactored from top

I am new here, so forgive me if I am making mistakes. I added an update to the "criticism" section to reflect recent events that have transpired. The references in question were

the LAX Hilton controversy, in which esteemed Rabbi Michael Lerner refused to accept an award from Mata Amritanandamayi.

The recent attack on residents of a New Delhi village by ashramites of Mata Amritanandamayi.

Both of these references are accurate and truthful. They were immediately removed within 20 minutes of my adding them. I was accused of being a "POV pusher", yet I have only documented criticisms that have been in the media as of late. I am a bit confused and think the references should stay, as they are completely relevant.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Common12 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 Jul 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a reply to this concern. Hornplease 06:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Better to say the recent alleged attacks by Ashram residents, since there are no legal findings. ~~It's fine for WP, but given that Ammachi herself is not implicated, it doesn't belong here per WP:BLP. Moving to MA Math article.~~ Actually, taking a look at the source (Metro Now), it appears to be a tabloid and probably not a reliable source per WP:RS and WP:V. Better source needed to include in WP. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 18:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair that several devotees keep removing these very relevant stories just because they don't want them made public. Is that fair? Please talk about this, as I think it is important. Common12 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I will stop trying to make this entry fair and balanced by adding the latest critical news of Ammachi. After several attempts, it is clear to me that this entry is carefully monitored by either her organization or devotees to ensure any recent news is deleted immediately. Hopefully someone else will take up the cause of getting this entry to include a more balanced view of "the hugging saint". Good luck! Common12 13:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Balanced doesn't mean poor sources such as sensationalistic tabloids. That's not something I made up; it's Wikipedia policy. Come up with a good source and it can go in here or the MA Math article. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 18:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jim, criticism from some random Rabbi in L.A. is hardly indicative of anything. It should be removed, especially since it was not covered in many sources.Baka man 21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the Michael Lerner (rabbi) article? The founder of Tikkun is very far from a 'random rabbi'. Hornplease 00:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Rabbi Lerner is well known. While I must disclose that while I am somewhat a devotee, I am also a Wikipedian. When controversies are well cited with reliable sources, they should stay. Those which have no sources or which are based on unreliable ones should be removed immediately. If better sources are found, they can be returned. Those are the game rules and I am most happy when they are followed. I also remove unsupported negative claims from the articles of people of whom I disapprove. Living people deserve no less, and Wikipedia does not need legal complications. IPSOS (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically agree with all IPSOS said. My comments above are meant to refer to the alleged New Delhi altercation, not the hotel boycott. Agree the latter is adequately sourced and appropriate here. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think there is an argument to be made that the MA Math article is the correct location for the Delhi story. Metro Now, however, isn't much more of a tabloid in style than most other Indian newspapers. In some ways, it is as reliable as the Times of India, its parent; indeed, the TOI city section now mainly seems to be in Metro Now.Hornplease 11:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that personally. But other editors may question the reliability of the source a/o the convenience link, and they'd be within their rights to do so, since (per WP:V) the burden lies on those who want to include material. The best thing would be to find some evidence (say, from another reliable publication) that the source meets Wikipedia standards. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Added Green Avenue story with a more substantial reference. Changed wording to "allegedly". Common12 10:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And I've reverted it on three grounds:

It has a link to a polemic site
The site violates the copyright of Society magazine
It is not about Amma, per se, and, as I understand, was already moved to a more appropiate article.

IPSOS (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead: "widely respected humanitarian"

Regarding my revert[1], other possible wording could be "she is widely recognized as a humanitarian". But even that seems unduly weak since she uncontroversially meets the definition of "humanitarian"; the BBC source established that she is widely respected by virtue of the numerous awards she has received. Anyway, if the wording I've reverted to goes further than editoral consensus would like, the "widely recognized as..." wording seems like a good compromise. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 04:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How are they related to each other?

Millennium Peace Summit, UN General Assembly and The World Council of Religious Leaders?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.108 (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Different honors received by the article's subject. --Jim Butler (t) 10:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe. what else?

[2]
[3] quotation from that site: "The World Council of Religious Leaders, an independent body, works to bring religious resources to support the work of the United Nations in our common quest for peace. WCRL is not an official part of the United Nations, nor does it have any status with the United Nations."

The formation of the World Council of Religious Leaders was one of the stated goals of the Millennium World Peace Summit. The objective of this Council is to serve as a resource to the United Nations and its agencies around the world, nation states and other international organizations, offering the collective wisdom and resources of the faith traditions toward the resolution of critical global problems.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.73.13 (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. What is your opinion? (BTW, if you're new here, welcome.... and I encourage you to set up a username and password; it's very easy to do and much easier for other editors to collaborate with you. Once you do so, you can sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~, which will give your name and the date & time.) regards, Jim Butler (t) 21:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to know who is organizing whom? Did the world council of religious leaders organize the millenium peace summit? what is the connection to the United Nations?

The quotations I cited didn't bring clarity, at least to me, I find them confusing. (BTW, it's fine how it is. thank you.)

Austerlitz -- 88.75.65.68 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the world council of religious leaders is an internationally recognised forum. It may not be officialy associated with UN. It may be used a technique in 'propaganda' of Amrita devotess, nevertheless it is widely respected forum. (Niketsundaram1977 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Quote

Is there a reason to change the quote every day or two? It's not that big a deal, but a quote-of-the-day section is more appropriate for a personal site or a blog, not Wikipedia (see: WP:NOT). The goal is to improve the article, not constantly change one section for its own sake. (This makes it hard on other editors who watch the page, and I don't think most readers are interested in a new quote every day. Please don't misunderstand me; it's a nice idea, but I don't think this is the site to do it.) regards, Jim Butler (t) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about changing the quote another time, chosing the following for "permanent":

"“In these times strength is found in unified action and the unifying force is love. If we can open our hearts and minds to these voices—in whatever form they appear—there is no limit to what we can achieve,” says Amma."

Austerlitz -- 88.75.81.16 (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civil

user:rabid, Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation

“

Only when human beings are able to perceive and acknowledge the Self in each other can there be real peace.—Amma

”

maybe the wikilink should go to Atman?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.69.185 (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)