Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Charitable Activities

The page does not mention the very huge list of charitable activities undertaken by the Mata Amritanandamayi Math with the Tsunami rekief work being the major one. I would like to provide the details if required. www.amritapuri.org and www.amma.org give the details.

A link to those sites is at the bottom of the articles. Please restrict yourself to reliable sources as defined on Wikipedia if you want to add further details. Perhaps it would be better to add it to the organisation's article rather than the individual.Hornplease 07:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Too much propaganda

It is rather surprising to read the comment that the essay in the current form is too negative. The essay contains six to seven paragraphs of pure propaganda about the so called charitable acitivies of 'Amma' and her institutions. And it just has a single paragraph on the criticism levelled by skeptics and many social activists who find it, justifiably, uneasy to accept her/her devotees claims about her miraculous powers.

>> These are not 'so-called' charitable activities. They are on a massive (multi-million-dollar) scale and their existance and scale are easily verified by following the links in the main article, many of which are independent mainstream media accounts.

Regarding charitable activities this is the normal practice of many a godman who amasses wealth by hook or by crook and then spends a fraction of his/her wealth for the so-called 'charitable' activities.

In fact the essay requires much more information about their critics.

Citing People from the Dheevarar community

Mata amritanandamayi belongs to the Arayan (Dheevaran) community. And I know of a lot of stories of amritanandamayi as told by the local community. How do I incorporate these informations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabidphage (talk • contribs)

  • Wikipedia:Verifiability contains discussion about the extent to which we can incorporate unpublished sources. The primary issue is verifiability, so there's not a lot of leeway except for the most basic and uncontroversial assertions. --Dystopos 14:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot --User:Rabidphage

Clarification

The 'Too Negative' Comment was made when the page had just two paragraph in it, one introduction, and second the critism. Recently the page has been updated to include the detail of the Charity activitiies. And now its fairly balanced, in my personal opinion.

I don't know how it works here, but may be we should delete all these comments, as they are misleading?

Cheers,

A.

Sceptics at work

Everyone is entitled to own opinion and have the freewill to epxress it, but I would imagine one would do little bit more homework before trying to argue agaist a person who is revered by millions all over the world, has won 2002 UN Gandhi-King awad (previous winner were Nelson Mandela and Koffi Annan etc)!!?

Could IndianSceptic or who ever is contributing to the anti-Amma information prove slightly more credible news sources at external link than references to random personal blogs and public message threads, please?

Also, I would like to bring this to the attention of the moderators, that the allegation made here are very serious (suspecious deaths etc) and it hurts the feelings of ordinary people around the world who wholeheartedly dedicated their time and efforts to help poor and needy in any way possible. The fact that the critisism is not being back up with a credible source is more than pitiful! Could someone impartial look at this page or even lock it please?

Thank you!

15:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)~~


SKollur: Critical links

Can you please update the page with links to rather respected sources, instead of personal webpages or public discussion forums, where anyone is free to write anything? I am worried about wikipedia's reputation giving credibility to otherwise-dishonest sources or pages. Thank you!

14:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Charity projects

Who ever removed the references to various charity projects executed by the Asram, can please post some sort of explanation for that please? What ever is our individual opinion about the Amma and Asram, trying to edit away known facts that are accurate is just as bad as lying! Mods please note! Thank you!

  • The references to the charity projects are not deleted. One of the users created a new page Mata Amritanandamayi Math and shifted those information to that page. Yet another user shifted the information about the murders in the ashram to the page of Sreeni Pattathanam.

MANOJTV 10:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Controversy / Sreeni Pattathanam

The "mysterious deaths" pointed to by Sreeni Pattathanam sound an awful lot like similar assertions made about Bill Clinton by Pat Robertson et. al. Absent any legal findings, it is not appropriate to enumerate such rumors on an encyclopedic page. I've deleted them but otherwise retained the "controversy" section.

    • I agree with deletion of the information related to the alleged deaths in the Ashram as it is already enumerated in Sreeni Pattathanam page. But to say that it is not suitable for encyclopedia may not be correct especially in the context of the awful lot of propaganda material stuffed in the article. Moreover, it is to be pointed out here that the authorities of Ashram has not so far filed a single case agaist the author, eventhough they tried to harass him using the pliant government machinery. And the book, so far available in Malayalam only, is a compilation of articles/reports appeard in a number of dailies published from Kerala. Indianskeptic 12:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why was the controvery section removed in July 2005? In attempting to do research on Ammachi I expected to find such information here. 27 Aug 2005

Ammachi - a trademark!?

The article Mata_Amritanandamayi_Math informs that Ammachi® is a registered trademark of Mata Amritanandamayi Center. Amrithanandamayi's official website www.amma.org also claims the same thing. See the(current list)

This is surprising. Ammachi is a word used by a very large section of Malayalies to address their natural/biological mother. It is not a new term coined by the authorities of Mata_Amritanandamayi_Math. What right this sect has to appropriate this term? Will somebody challange this nonsense in court?MANOJTV 08:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • A term doesn't have to be new or exclusive to be protected as a trademark. And a trademark doesn't prevent any Malayalies from using the word to address their mother. It only protects the Mata Amritanandamayi Center from other uses of Ammachi to promote businesses in ways that would create confusion between that business and the Mata Amritanandamayi Center. Similar cases include the registering of the color brown by UPS or the registering of the letter O by Ohio State University. Dystopos 14:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification. But I still have my doubts. I find from the wikipedia page brown, cited by the user Dystopos, that it is not the word brown that is registered as a trade mark by UPS, but a specific phrase UPS BROWN. My question is whether the word brown itself can copyrighted? Is it possible for anybody to copyright the word Mother or Mom which are equivalent terms in English for the word Ammachi in Malayalam?

We, Malayalies, will continue to use Ammachi to address our mothers, but does its copyright prevent any of us to use the term even for commercial purposes without any intention of misusing Amrithanandamayi's popularity? --MANOJTV 08:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

      • I was referring to the actual color brown being trademarked by UPS. You can't start a delivery business and paint your trucks brown or give your workers brown uniforms without infringing on UPS's trademarks. Copyright is an entirely different matter, protecting creative works. It is generally not possible to copyright a single word or phrase. The trademark would not prevent you from opening a business called "Ammachi's Rasam" or "Auto Repairs by Ammachi" but it would create a challenge if you mailed out flyers asking for donations to the Ammachi religious movement if it seemed you were profiting by the fame and respect earned by Mata Amritanandamayi and her followers. The legal basis of trademark is not so much a protection for businesses, but a protection for consumers. Dystopos 16:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The picture does not show Mata Amritanandamayi, but someone else, look at her webpage!

That is incorrect; the picture is of Mata Amritanandamayi (Amma) from some years ago. Jim Butler 03:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Changing Amma to Amrithanandamayi

I have changed the attribution Amma from the Main article, to Amrithanandamayi. Amrithanandamayi is Amma for her devotees. For many others, who refer this encyclopedia for information, she is Amrithanandamayi. For instance I can write an article on Jesus Christ. But it is unfair to atrribute him Lord in the article. Please use well known names, official names or first names. Manjithkaini 15:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs to be cleaned up to cater to a wider audience. Things like the bhajan and Dharshanssection for example. - (Does the fact that she can sing deserve an entire section?)

Also this article is still very POV, containing (as mentionned above) a large amount of propaganda which is superfluous to the article.

A few things can be changed to clean up and properly organise this article.

  • The Miracle section should be renamed something in the nature of "purported miracles"
  • The Contraversy section and Criticism section should be merged
  • The external link section should be separated into critical and non-critical subsections
  • The inner circle section should either be moved, or merged in with another section, the intro for eg.

Please comment on these propositions Sfacets 11:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence about Measles , as AFAIK measles is a contagious respiratory infection (caused by a virus) spread through air. So no hugging is actually necessary for getting infection.Bharatveer 04:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, this is a statement backed up by an organisation on infectuous diseases and was shown on major news outlets in Australia - I will provide more references to pinpoint the hugging issue. Sfacets 05:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Department of Health ,Gov. of western Australia “The measles virus appears to have been introduced by people attending the workshops and has then spread to others within the group who were unimmunised,” .

It never states the measles occured due to "their hugging". The insinuation is that The measles came from Matanandamayi and her followers from india who were not immunised.

SO I am going to remove the "hugging part".Bharatveer 03:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the headlines of the article at [1]. Sfacets 03:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets discuss it here.

1.Why do you include Newzealand? Did she visit new zealand too.? 2.None of the references cites any alert or any case of measles in Newzealand 3.The news article that you quote cites the original Health alert issued by Dep.of Health .(gov of Wes.Aus). And Govt. Alert dont mention that it was caused due to " hugging" .A mere news title is not enough to include that in a encyclopedic article.

On 18th April they report 5 cases of measles 18th April Again on 24th April they report 7 cases of measles 24th April Alert Then how come on May5th there are 42 cases .Political gateway

Pls discuss it here before you revert. I am going to remove "new zealnd " & hugging part again.Bharatveer 04:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


1. Cases were reported in N.Z and linked to Amritanandamayi's visit - possibly spread by people attending her programmes. 2. Pending 3. a 'mere news title' is what references are all about - providing reputable sources, of which 'Political Gateway' is part. I added the word 'reported'.

I can only guess that the reason for the increase was that measles spread to other people. It is a highly contagious disease. Sfacets 05:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the details about measles and also the official explanation. I have removed " newzealand" as it is unreferenced. If one goes by your logic , then even names of places like alaska can be added there. Bharatveer 06:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The link you provided, http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/06/stories/2006050604312000.htm is broken, so I removed the sentence you added. feel free to re-insert it when you find another source. I will look for and post a reference showing contagion to NZ ASAP. Sfacets 06:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

sfacets, Link is working fine .So pls dont remove it.(even considering your broken link story to be true, why did youremove the explanation for measles ??? Bharatveer 07:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, when I first checked the link, the site was down. As to the measles explanation, it is both irrelevant to the article, and already featured in the measles article. Hugging would place the faces of the contaminant and the victim, favouring exchanges of the virus. Sfacets 07:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of measles is very important in this context , as hugging is only done by Amritanandamayi.(AFAIK , her followers dont engage in any hugging ritual. So I think that sentence is very much required here; So i am re-inserting that sentence again.Bharatveer 07:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole article is still presented in very PoV language, as well as containing PoV material. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no reference to an alleged attempt on her life by an inmate of her ashram. Somebody should supply the details of that incident.Cruxit 04:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Some more specific sources

Feel free to include this in the article however is considered best.

http://www.amritapuri.org/amma/whois.php "In the past 33 years, Amma has physically embraced more than 24 million people."

http://www.amritapuri.org/amma/master.php "In 1995, Amma addressed the Interfaith Celebration in honour of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. "

http://www.amritapuri.org/amma/un95/un95.php "In 1995, Amma was invited to speak at the United Nations Conference on Visions for the 21st Century, timed to coincide with the 50th Anniversary Summit of the United Nations."

Hope this helps. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Measles - not OR

sfacets, The fact about measles is not OR. And this is not the first time you are trying to remove this sentence .Bharatveer 06:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As of 6 Nov 2006 none of the links work. Removed paragraph[2] pending finding sources. Seemed like a pretty speculative link, but if it's documentable, sure, put it in. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 20:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all mention of the fact that the measles could have been spread by hugging, and left only the barebones which are supported by the government source. If anyone can find a mirror of the 404 pages, we can re-add the info using links to the mirror. Sfacets 08:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see that now The Hindu link is working. Reworded and made proper refs. Still, as I said in edit summary[3], seems a tempest in a teapot -- where is any suggestion or evidence of negligence of Amma a/o her group? If that question can't be answered satisfactorily, why is this under "Criticisms", and why is it notable at all, given that viruses spread all the time via people traveling a/o gathering in groups? Tagging with Template:Content pending resolution. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 09:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Include name in Devanagari?

Edit summary here[4] accidentally got truncated. Meant to say: "restore Devanagari, fwiw (Amma's formal name being Sanskrit, though her native language is Malayalam)". Can't find a guideline under WP:MOS indicating whether it's appropriate to cite both, so am erring on the side of inclusion for now. First sentence in current version[5] begins:

Mātā Amritanandamayī Devi (Devanagiri: माता अमृतानन्‍दमयी), Malayalam: മാതാ അമൃതാനന്ദമയി), also known by her followers as...."

thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Critical Material

I removed the reference to Paul Zacharia because it appears this information is based on a non-published email that has been circulated on the internet in what critics allege were "threats" located on this page. As one can see, these are not "threats". They are reactions from devotees who were hurt by what they perceived as hateful propaganda by Zacharia. They did not threaten him whatsoever. They simply asked other devotees to write to the newspaper to defend Amma.

Those who add this critical, unsourced material have the burden of providing reputable and reliable sources (as per WP:RS) to back up his/her comments. Otherwise, these comments can be removed at any time by any editor. SSS108 talk-email 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please link to the statement that indicates that that email was the source of the supposed threat? Otherwise the Hindu [6] will have to be put in. Hornplease 05:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that his allegations of the link to the Parivar at any rate, should not have been removed. See [7].Hornplease 05:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Reinserting tag

THere was a NPOV tag on this at some point. THe article is not sufficiently improved in terms of balance to warrant the tag coming off. Hornplease 10:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Pls list out the Povs in the article.-Bharatveer 10:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-positioned the tag, which was moved to the criticism section, as the POV issue discussed here concerns both the criticism as well as followers. Sfacets 10:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Pls explain why you think that the whole article is POV???-Bharatveer 10:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well please explain why you think only the criticism section is POV? Sfacets 10:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, almost all the sentences are referenced.Secondly it means you dont have any reasons to tag the whole article as POV.So I am going to remove that tag.-Bharatveer 11:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Do not remove the tag. It's clearly unbalanced and thus violates neutrality; the first para itself has sentences like "From these humble beginnings she began her journey on the path to "universal motherhood", which took her to the United Nations General Assembly, where she addressed the world.", which are clearly non-neutral. Hornplease 11:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the tag needs to stay, and applies to more than just on section of the article. Sfacets 11:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
UserHornplease, what is non-neutral about that sentence??-Bharatveer 13:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 13:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Bharatveer, it's the tone. I would replace it with "in the course of her successful ministry, she has had the honour of addressing the UN General Assembly, and .....(something else)." Hornplease 09:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have replaced npov tag with tone tag.-Bharatveer 09:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 09:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a possible change; but the template merely indicates informality, whereas the problem is one where the tone is clearly admiring and not neutral. Is there another alternative? Otherwise NPOV is what it'll have to be.Hornplease 10:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Since there's been no reply, I'm putting in an 'unblanced' tag. Hornplease 08:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease - you object to the 'admiring' tone without answering the question: 'What's not to admire?' On the positive side we have all sorts of accounts of her spiritual work as well as her charitable activities (not 'propaganda' and not 'so-called': these are real schools, orphanages, hospitals, boats, tsunami relief housing etc, whose existence can be verified through highly reputable sources such as the BBC, the U.N., and international relief organizations. At least in Tsunami relief the Ashram's record of achievement is actually much better than that of the much better-financed international aid organizations and even governments.)

On the negative side we have, essentially, nothing: a measles cluster that could as easily have happened at a sporting event, scientific conference, or kindergarten, a so-called 'threat' that turns out to be merely a request to write letters to a newspaper, and a third-hand report, based on a book more than twenty years old and unavailable in English, that makes only one specific allegation (regarding the death of her brother Subhagan), and that one extremely implausible. The coroner's verdict of suicide in the case was supported not only by evidence of her brother's very poor physical and mental health but also by a suicide note in his own handwriting.

Of course Amritanandamayi's reputation does not rest on her Wikipedia entry. It's more the credibility of Wikipedia itself that is at stake here. I understand the temptation to look for the 'dark side' of any modern spiritual movement, but in this case there may simply not be one of any significance: I think the most you could accuse these folks of is perhaps some occasional excessive emotionality. If what is being reported is predominantly positive then I don't think a predominanly positive tone is evidence of bias. I note that the 'unbalanced' tag has an attached note 'Please help improve the article by adding information and sources on neglected viewpoints.' and I suggest that Hornplease either add some well-documented neglected viewpoints or remove the flag —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.229.11.118 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 29 Dec 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you fatally misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. If you read the article on Mahatma Gandhi, for example, most editors have striven to keep as neutral a tone as possible and avoid sounding admiring. This article would indeed tarnish WP's reputation if it were taken as representative, but not in the way you mean. Regardless of the lady's worth as a person, the article must be seen to sound as neutral as possible, in a manner in which this doesnt. Pending your inderstanding of this, I restore the tag. Hornplease 09:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge request

Should the Matruvani article be merged into this one? Sagsaw 04:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

in favour Teardrop onthefire 10:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
in favour Madmedea 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Black Sands

Mention should be made of the radioactive black sands issue under controversies.

Mata Amritanandamayi's ashram is located in the black sands area of Kerala, which has the highest natural radiation of any densely populated area in the world. While middle class Indians avoid the area due to the high levels of radiation in the sands, foreign visitors (including visitors to the ashram) are often unaware of the area's radiation hazard. [8]. The ashram still uses the radioactive black sands in construction and even in a memorial to tsunami victims. [9]. Some devotees teach that it is Matha Amritanadamayi's sankalpa that people don't become sick from the radiation on the beaches. [www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/ammachi/376959-re-radiation-grace.html]. Scientists are skeptical of these claims. [10]--Dseer 23:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem including this under NPOV, but the sourcing has to be brought up to speed with VER and OR. The Vanderbilt.edu usegroup post, though undoubtedly factually true, doesn't meet WP:RS. The audarya-fellowship.com post about devotees' beliefs is likewise from a BBS, also doesn't meet WP:RS (and at the moment redirects to another forum's index page). What is also needed is a good source stating that the black sand at Amritapuri is the radioactive kind. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 06:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, this is hardly "original research", nor was it defamatory, and at most you should have asked for was citations rather than reverting, since it was first proposed on and the sources were listed on the talk page. The highly radioactive nature of the blacks sands on the beaches of Kerala and unusual genetic mutations seen in the local population is scientifically valid and well established and has been a controversial issue in India for some time, for example [11]. But rather than simply state that the radiation is a proven issue, and that scientists believe the high level of radiation at Amritapuri is a concern, the belief that there is a spiritual protective factor is a legitimate religious belief and should be included too for NPOV. The organization is aware of the controversy regarding the sands and it has been a topic of discussion. I question why an isolated outbreak of measles that has not been attributed to those closest to Mata Amritanandamayi and is simply due to too many not being immunized implying some sort of negligence on the part of that NRM is a more significant controversy than an ashram located in a known area of unusual radioactivity which uses the sands in ways that could increase the risk. --Dseer 20:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Dseer, even if something is true, WP requires a certain standard of sourcing. See Wp:rs#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." What WP requires is what's called a "V RS", a verifiable, reliable source. That is what is needed to include "the belief that there is a spiritual protective factor" against radiation, and that "the organization is aware of the issue". This is the sort of thing a journalist might have reported on, and we could use it in that case, but otherwise it's what WP calls original research. I'm not saying your point isn't true or important, just that WP itself requires "verifiability, not truth". It cuts both ways, and it's just what we have to work with. best, Jim Butler(talk) 22:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Jim, I can certainly work with that logic and I believe you are interested in NPOV. That does not justify Sfacets actions in non-collaboratively reverting all of what I put rather than requesting citations, which seems to be repetitive pattern for that editor, given that I first laid out the basic paragraph with references in talk and there was no comment before I changed the article. What I wrote does not meet the criteria for immediate deletion, it is not defamatory, was submitted for discussion with sources, and overall is readily verifiable. Collectively, these edits by this editor here seem to show a pattern of one standard for claims about their own NRM, Sahaja Yoga, where all criticism is so vigorously disputed that that editor is currently in mediation over excluding even relatively neutral sites, and another for competing NRMs like this one, where an outbreak of measles at an event is claimed to be a notable issue and yet where scientific facts like radioactive sand are deleted. There is no scientific dispute that the black sands are highly radioactive, or that genetic mutations in the local population have been noted. In this case I am familiar with what you state above regarding WP:RS, but believe you are taking a more rigid view of WP:RS in this specific instance than required. I would say that the "vanderbilt edu" material falls under a rare exception to the general rule about such sources ('should' is not absolute, and Wikipedia allows for such rare exceptions where it improves the article) due to the fact that the name of the person is known and verifiable, since they are using an official US federal government [www.dhhs.state.nh.us] email address under a valid name, and with expertise in the subject to distribute a published AP article to others on a distribution with expertise in the field radiation safety, further proven by the link to http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html at the bottom, and it is credible and verifiable as such because there are severe penalties for federal employees misrepresenting their agency or misusing their position, all of which gives way more credibility and peer review than the norm, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the statements in the article represent the AP artice as it was published and the majority of expert scientific position. However, besides that debatable point where we may not totally agree, there are so many easily identifiable sources, i.e., [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc., which independently and collectively confirm what I wrote except for the one statement, added for NPOV and to express a religous belief, that: "Some devotees teach that it is Mata Amritanadamayi's sankalpa that people don't become sick from the radiation on the beaches", which has been said in discussion sites where the question was raised, but not in an official article I can find. If editors are going to dispute that one statement, I'm sure I can find an official statement to the effect that the NRM teaches and believes that Mata Amritanadamayi protects her sincere devotees from harm, and put that in its place. However, I must point out that Mata Amritanadamayi in her book specifically cautions devotees from assuming that because she can do things like heal lepers by touch through special siddhis, that ordinarly devotees are protected if they emulate her. In short, what I expect here is collaborative editing to arrive at an NPOV, and my issue at this point is with the other editor. The measles incident may be recent enough to get some attention but is probably not notable enough over time to put in the article, IMO. A better case could be made for the notability of criticism directed at some of the cultic aspects of that NRM, such as that described at [22],[23], or [24].--Dseer 00:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've thought about this, and I think that the best place for this information would be the article on Kerala or something related, e.g. an article on the coastal areas of Kerala. More at bottom of page. best, Jim Butler(talk) 06:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Measles revisited

A few months ago, I raised an objection (pasted below) regarding the measles paragraph under criticisms. No answers appeared, but the Content tag I added disappeared along the way. Am re-tagging, and I think the material should be deleted unless someone can show why it's relevant as a criticism.

"... as I said in edit summary[25], seems a tempest in a teapot -- where is any suggestion or evidence of negligence of Amma a/o her group? If that question can't be answered satisfactorily, why is this under "Criticisms", and why is it notable at all, given that viruses spread all the time via people traveling a/o gathering in groups?"

regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It was reported in the media (sources provided) and as such is notable. And the sources do mention that it was spread by Amma and entourage. Sfacets 06:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. Please read the sources carefully. You haven't answered my objection about evidence of negligence on the part of the MA Center.
The Australian fact sheet said the measles outbreak occurred among people who had attended the Amma tour. It raised, but did not document, the concern that "people involved with the Amma organisation" were spreading measles. The Hindu article raises that possibility and the group denies it, rightly pointing out that hundreds of people unaffilated with the MA Center attend the programs. Measles, as the Australian source says, spreads among large groups of people who travel. Outbreaks happen all over the place, at theatres, airports, sporting events, political and religious gatherings, etc. Does that fact constitute "criticism" of such events that also belongs in WP?
What we have are reliable sources for a non-notable event. IMO, it's against NPOV and OR to include it under "Criticism" when there is zero evidence of negligence. At best, perhaps in another section, but still, I don't get the relevance. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Where else would you place it? Sfacets 06:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Perhaps under "media reports" or something? And not to be rude, but do you have any reply to the objection I've taken pains to express as clearly as I can above? I'm still not convinced it's relevant enough to include at all. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be any reports of negligence, however, the information was released as part of numerous state, nation and private health releases, and is notable. Sfacets 09:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit-conflict) You haven't shown why it's notable, and you're still completely ignoring my point on relevance, which is not appropriate editorial conduct on your part in terms of consensus. To be clear, my objections are based on WP policy. Please see WP:NPOV on media bias, e.g. sensationalism, which certainly is a consideration in The Hindu article cited. Basically, the article is on the order of "Governor denies responsibility for measles outbreak at convention". Also see WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL: inclusion of the material insinuates that Ammachi a/o MA Math was negligent, and that is unsupportable. WP:V says: "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page."
So, I've deleted this. It might be put in a section in the article on Mata Amritanandamayi Math, if it's to be kept at all. It's still potentially libelous, as it insinuates negligence for which there is no evidence. The Australian report is a V RS for the occurence of the measles outbreak itself, not whether it came from a member of Amma's group, which AFAIK has never determined. It doesn't distinguish between the MA Math and the hundreds of people attending the events who aren't affiliated with MA Math. And that distinction is crucial in terms of its meeting WP:V and WP:LIBEL, because of the implication of negligence. Make no mistake: WP is very serious about the libel issue. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 09:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no libel if there are reliable sources backing it. And the reports are reliable sources.

"There are 7 cases of measles notified in Western Australia, 6 children and 1 adult, all of whom have attended the AMMA public meetings in Perth in Western Australia on March 31st and April the 1st and 2nd".

Nowhere is it written in the article that Amma or followers were 'implied' in the spread of the disease, however this is recent news, the release shows that all the victims went to AMMA meetings, and has had wide coverage, and as such is reliable - and belongs in the article, or as you say in the MA Math article. I'm not sure which point of yours I have ignored... Sfacets 12:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


The point you are not addressing, but which I may not have made very clear, is this: The information is not relevant to Ammachi or the MA Math, and it creates an association fallacy. It would be like saying "of the 50,000 people she hugged last year, several dozen DIED later that year" (true, given the mortality rate worldwide, but irrelevant and inappropriate in an encyclopedia). WP:BLP specifically says: "Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association."
Also see Wp:npov#Undue_weight and WP:NOT:
  • "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." (emphasis added)
  • "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed."
  • "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information.:
Measles outbreaks happen all over the world (cf. reference from US CDC), in many settings. Some of those settings are the subject of WP articles: say, cities, convention centers, gatherings of various groups, etc. Does every measles outbreak that happened at X place or gathering get included in the WP article on X? No, generally not, because measles outbreaks usually aren't notable aspects of those topics.
Why should a measles outbreak be covered here, then? You've reiterated that "it's notable", but the fact that something happened doesn't make it relevant for inclusion in an encyclopedia. You need to show why it's a significant aspect of the article's topic, per the above-quoted policies.
For the record, I'm all for disseminating public health information, and would have no problem including he measles report in some article (if it exists) listing measles outbreaks around the world. But it's not relevant here, unless there is some verifiable connection with Ammachi's or MA Math's conduct (rather than mere association by virtue of third-world travel, which happens all the time). Does this make sense? thx, Jim Butler(talk) 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with your position, Jim, I think the measles section needs to go. It might have been notable to mention that right after the incident simply because it was newsworthy. But as time moves on, there has been no repeat of the incident, diminished public interest, and no demonstrated significance or role of the NRM, other than further holding of public events where it is always possible sick people will come. Also, I have come to question the application of one standard here by Sfacets for what is notable in a competing NRM and another when it comes to their NRM Sahaja Yoga and that guru. --Dseer 01:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dseer, no need to bring your politics to the discussion. (competing NRM? get outta here!) I have no qualms with the removal of he measles section - however it was important to remove it for good reasons, which Jim has kindly provided. Sfacets 01:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, you have been advocating including measles story to those questioning it since May 2006, despite repeated questions about its relevance and proof you were misinterpreting the article. Anyone can look at your editing on Sahaja Yoga and see what I am referring to. You would not tolerate anything like this in an article about your guru for a second. But what is more important is that you learn to discuss first.--Dseer 03:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, gents, no need to raise the temperature further. We don't really have any option other than working together, and I don't see any insurmountable issues here. Thankfully, we all seem to be on the same basic page in terms of how we interpret NPOV, VER and OR. (I'm ignorant about any issues at Sahaja Yoga, and will probably remain so due to time constraints.)
Dseer, Sfacets has actually done a good job on this article reverting inappropriate edits and steering things in an NPOV direction; cf history. Our disagreement over the measles thing has been in good faith, and we collaborated effectively on that in the past[26][27], and I'm glad we've been able to continue to listen to each other and move forward. Sfacets, having collaborated with Dseer over a period of many months at Adi Da, I'm convinced of his assiduous commitment to NPOV, and have no doubts at all about his honesty and good faith.
On black sand, it does suck to have all your work deleted, and usually fact-tagging is the answer; but given WP:BLP I think Sfacets is right that this should remain on the talk page until sourcing is worked out. Also, terseness online can seem rude even it's really not meant that way, cf. WP:AGF. You've done a lot of digging (so to speak) on black sand, for which dedication I commend you. I agree about the AP source (sorry I missed that detail), but still have concerns about properly documenting the POV regarding black sand's health hazards held by (some?) devotees a/o the MA Math a/o Ammachi. Will respond further to your long post above soon; obligations IRL right now. best, Jim Butler(talk) 06:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I can work with Sfacets, have done so on several articles. I and other editors do note a difference between the approach relating to his guru [[28]] (aggressive deletion and possible WP:LAWYER (wikilawyering) of anything slightly critical of his guru) and the editing on other gurus, but motive at this point would be speculation. Having posted the proposal for discussion with references first without getting comment, and since the material wasn't defamatory and the black sands being radioactive issue is a dated, widely researched and proven one, it is stretching BLP to say that choosing deletion over some wordsmithing and discussion on what the best cites were, particularly since I specifically said in my summary to refer to the discussion. Rather than being defamatory or negative, the area where I took the most liberty with sources was an attempt to explain why scientific skepticism that the heath risks were not significant did not sway those whose sincere beliefs were that there was a spiritual protective factor. Given all that, what BLP says is: "When removing material under this policy it is often useful to explain why you believe it to be controversial. While even seemingly benign information may be objectionable in some cases, removal of such without explanation can be seen by some as edit warring or vandalism. However, good faith edits are never vandalism, and such unexplained removals may be warranted. If there is no actual objection to the material, and the material is not negative in tone (hence there is no potential for defamation), you may wish to discuss the material before removal. However, negative unsourced material must always be removed immediately, and may never be re-added without a source, regardless of whether you believe it true, or not. Note, that it's often not appropriate to start a public discussion about negative unsourced material, as it merely promotes defamatory claims elsewhere. Those wishing to add negative claims about living persons, must start with acceptable reliable sources, before writing anything, anywhere." Considering all this, while I can assume Sfacets intended good faith, the material was not negative in tone and had been put in discussion, so assuming OR under these circumstances as the reason to remove rather than discuss and clarify cites was premature, IMO.--Dseer 06:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you need to comment on my other edits to prove a point? Cn you not just argue your point, and if it is valid, other will agree with you? In this case you added a paragraph of completely unsourced and Original research material. This is a biography (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons) article, and all material must be sourced, or can be removed at any time. Sfacets 08:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You CLAIMED I added a paragraph of completely unsourced and OR material. At worst, there was a disagreement over the suitability of some sources on which the statements were made, and no libelous material, nothing untrue, and truth is an absolute defense against libel, sir. There was no requirement to remove scientific fact which should not be controversial, you should have simply asked for the citations if they were not clear to you in the talk section. We have gone around and around about your failure to understand that an encylopedia gives extra weight to the consensus of scientific opinions over the psuedoscience you advocate regarding your guru. Your pattern of uncollaborative editing has been noted over and over, Sfacets, by many editors, which makes your edits elsewhere relevant, particularly for those who aren't familiar with your overall contributions. Just because an editor CAN remove stuff without actually violating Wikpedia guidelies doesn't mean they should ignore the requirement to collaborate. The fact that I first added my proposed edit to the talk with proposed sources which backed up what I put, the material was not libelous or particularly controversial, and there was no comment before I put it in the article is, IMO, the critical factor here. --Dseer 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dseer (edit-conflict w/ above). I agree that the stuff you quote above from WP:BLP is highly relevant here. Explaining material you'd like to add, you wrote the following:
"....the area where I took the most liberty with sources was an attempt to explain why scientific skepticism that the heath risks were not significant did not sway those whose sincere beliefs were that there was a spiritual protective factor."
I think that this is the most controversial thing you propose adding, and that WP policy is pretty clear about not letting us take any liberties source-wise.
Suppose I write that X guru told a devotee to go ahead and jump out of an airplane without a parachute, and to have no fear, because siddhis will protect the devotee. That's a pretty extraordinary statement that reeks of "drinking the Kool-aid". I think most reasonable people would say it's defamatory if untrue. The idea of a siddhi providing protection from gamma rays appears to me to be in that ballpark. To present it here, there would have to be a strong source backing it up, something along the lines of the stuff cited under Adi Da criticism. That stuff manages to withstand persistent challenges because it's all referenced with strong V RS's. Usegroup posts haven't been allowed in Adi Da as sources, even if they are true. Verifiability, not truth, for better or worse. Perhaps it would be more in the spirit of NPOV and VER, as you suggest above, to add any relevant general criticisms of cultism and magical thinking (which have been directed at all sorts of religious movements, and probably this one too.) best, Jim Butler(talk) 08:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, although let me point out that your analogy is slightly off in that that is exactly why I deliberately did not say the Guru X taught that their siddhis would protect the devotee from radiation, I said what is actually true, whether or not we can find a suitable source, not that the guru said it (in fact, as I quoted from the book from what I see she discourages such magical thinking), but that only that some followers have that belief because that has been their actual response on discussion sites to the rationalist concerns about radiation from the sands. In that context, it isn't defamatory against the subject because I am only talking about some followers. I was deliberately trying to stick with facts. I acknowledge taking some source liberties with the one sentence because the assertion was not about the unaffected LP, and my thinking was ideally for NPOV you have to weigh the specific reasons why some devotees would be unconcerned as expressed in discussion boards over generalized reasons regarding magical thinking in NRMs against the rationalist allegation that devotees are being exposed to known radiation in ways, such as the memorial and the piling of sands, that would even increase any risk. Again, let me say that what you are doing is the kind of collaborative discussion one would expect, and if we can't find a source other than online discussions by Amma devotees regarding this issue, at this point I'm ok with sticking with scientific fact and deleting that sentence, and then adopting a more general approach to magical thinking instead later. I never thought there would not be some editing of my original addition, but what I expected was collaboration, not deletion of established scientific fact as so-called OR. My and other editor's disagreement with Sfacets in various articles is based on a long history of reactive, rigid and narrow application of Wikipedia guidelines bordering on wikilawyering, rather than constructive attempts to improve the article's NPOV, and ownership and COI editing of an article on their own guru and NRM. I'm sorry you are in the middle of this. I have become increasingly active in discussions regarding controversial NRMs since they all have seem to have simlar editor dynamics, and have been assertive in opposing that kind of deletionist approach which undermines collaboration. It's inevitable we would run into each other here too. --Dseer 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A long history? It's been about two months. Many editors? There has been you and one other. Kindly refrain from over-generalising - this may be taken as a sign of sloppy editing. Have you read the policy on biographies of living people? It is there for a good reason (and no, I am not wikilawyering), to avoid any possible legal trouble to do with libel and defamation. Anything you put into a biographical article must be referenced, or removed immediately. Again, can you not argue your point without pointing out my edits? That is the first step in any collaboration. Sfacets 01:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you understand my point. Not just me and one other, Sfacets, a number of others, and when your edits show a pattern reflected here it is permissable to reference them. I am trying to show you that there are nuances here. BLP simply does not exclusively say, as you claim: "Anything you put into a biographical article must be referenced, or removed immediately". Otherwise, every single assertion would need a cite. You are correct the concern is defamation, and or reporting erroneous information as fact, and that is why BLP says: "When removing material under this policy it is often useful to explain why you believe it to be controversial. While even seemingly benign information may be objectionable in some cases, removal of such without explanation can be seen by some as edit warring or vandalism. However, good faith edits are never vandalism, and such unexplained removals may be warranted. If there is no actual objection to the material, and the material is not negative in tone (hence there is no potential for defamation), you may wish to discuss the material before removal. However, negative unsourced material must always be removed immediately, and may never be re-added without a source, regardless of whether you believe it true, or not. Note, that it's often not appropriate to start a public discussion about negative unsourced material, as it merely promotes defamatory claims elsewhere. Those wishing to add negative claims about living persons, must start with acceptable reliable sources, before writing anything, anywhere." I am aware of the purpose of BLP, and you tell me how it is libelous or defamatory for Wikipedia to point out that the sands in the area are known to be highly radioactive and scientists are concerned about the risk of exposure, something already known to the Ashram. Seriously, are they going to sue Mother Nature and the Devi for creating the problem, and then the scientists and Wikipedia for reporting that? Furthermore, I did provide the proposed language for discussion and the sources to back up those claims, and so the real dispute was whether all the proposed sources were acceptable, not OR. That is what collaboration is about. I concur with withdrawing the material about the position of some devotees on the issue because the only sources I could find off hand were dated discussions. The fact is that in such cases where libel and defamation is not an issue most editors request a cite first or explain why they think the material should go, and if they can find a cite, constructively add it. I notice you do a lot of requesting of citations where simple googling provides them, and part of collaboration is constructive assistance to improve the article, which is why I look for requested cites where I think I can help even if I had nothing to do with the statements. --Dseer 05:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, that's exactly what Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons says;

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.

You placed your unsourced paragraph under criticism, and wrote that the Math had been using the sand for construction purposes. You provided no sources, therefore the "real dispute" you speak of does not apply. As the editor who provided the content, the burden of proof was on you to provide the sources, not other editors - but I'm glad to se that you have now fulfilled your obligations by providing sources. If you were unable to find sources offhand at the time, nothing was stopping you from saving the paragraph offline and finding sources at a later time. Of course I request citaions, do you think google holds all the answers? Maybe we should just replace all citations with links to google.com? Improving an article also consists of removing content that contravenes policy. What pattern do my edits show? I am curious - you claim that I am promoting my own beliefs, and editing (I take it you mean to push my POV) other spirituality-related articles -and yet here I am, insuring that no unsourced and potentially libelous claims are placed in an article about another system of beliefs which are not my own.

You may wish to take your rants to my talkpage though, this isn't the place for attacking my edits. Sfacets 06:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I've made my point, but there aren't enough inclusionist, NPOV editors here to work with who understand what is controversial and what isn't.--Dseer 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit-conflicted again! Sfacets and I seem to go online at the same time each day.) Here is my suggestion. Dseer, I agree that the V RS's you found on black sands appear scientifically sound and valuable. I think you should add some of them to Kerala or a similar topic, since it is clear from the sources that the sands are distributed over a substantial region of Kerala's coast and the risk extends far beyond Amritapuri. I think we agree that the notion of "divine siddhi protection" should not be included here without a V RS. The only V RS involving the ashram specifically is this one, and there is no way (without either finding a V RS or violating WP:OR) to infer whether or to what extent the icon mentioned poses a health risk.

Also, following WP:BLP, I think it would be a good idea to blank this section and the one above once consensus is reached. (The particular sentence I have in mind is: "Note, that it's often not appropriate to start a public discussion about negative unsourced material, as it merely promotes defamatory claims elsewhere. ".) I'd also second Sfacets and encourage you two to resolve your editing disagreements on a user talk page. Thanks to both of you for your hard work and level-headed discussion, Jim Butler(talk) 06:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its real defamatory to point out that the black sands seen in numerous Ashram pictures and referenced in Ashram articles are radioactive and used in construction. A NRM that sources state would demand send critics to jail for a long time might just do that here too. I see no reason to blank the discussion here since sources were provided. Sorry Jim, this type of discussion is perfectly normal in talk on articles related to controversial NRMs. At least I was able to source the more serious charges against the NRM in its relation to critics. Too few NPOV editors here. --Dseer 00:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dseer, I do appreciate your hard work in finding the sources on black sand. I'm not trying to keep them out of WP. You still haven't made clear why that information is relevant here in addition to, or instead of, Kerala or Kollam? The health risk extends far beyond Amritapuri, according to your sources. Why not add them where they are unquestionably, geographically relevant? thx, Jim Butler(talk) 03:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is an interesting proposal to add it to the Kerala Article, where more detail is appropriate. In that case, I could add it and settle for one sentence with a reference to Kerala for more information, like I did with the details in the Sreeni Pattathanam article, and it doesn't have to be in Criticism just because rationalists seem to have brought it up first and that is how it was mentioned in Ammachi discussion forums. The article should be a work in progress, and I am not convinced that it is negative or defamatory, it is a fact. I see now that I contributed to the misunderstanding by where I put the proposed language, which implied that it was a negative assertion when it was a factual assertion. Whereas I was referring to the language itself, the placement suggested something else. Criticism is not really the place for it, originally I put it in Controversy, which was not ideal either. I think it should go after the statement about the Ashram, As to why it is relevant, lets take another hypothetical example. Let say that an Ashram is put where the land is rapidly sinking into the sea for geologic reasons, or where there are fumes coming out of the ground that are harmful like an area where there is a volcanic vent or where tar comes out of the ground, or it is built right on a major fault line, or like in the case of Central California, a place where disturbing the soil produces an increase in certain respiratory illnesses, etc. The fact that an Asrham is located there and the hazard is relevant, because there are potential health risks. Now that hypothetical Ashram could claim that there is some sort of protective factor, or simply not address the issue and allow others to speculate, and could or could not take stepts to mitigate a known risk. Either way, the scientific fact of a potential risk to health at the primary Ashram of the NRM is relevant enough to an article on that NRM to briefly mention. I'm not trying to take up more space than the issue deserves. --Dseer 03:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
That sounds logical to me. I'd suggest perhaps putting it at Amritapuri rather than here for BLP reasons, absent evidence that Ammachi herself has taken any particular stance on the issue. What do you think? cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 04:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Silentyogi

User:Silentyogi has been attempting to insert unreferenced POV, despite continued warnings. Because I don't want to transgress the 3RR (and because maybe the user genuinly doesn't understand) I will not get into an edit war, but the information addd by this user is not valid. Sfacets 10:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

These insertions are unacceptable fluff based on assertions by the group. I've read the biography but that doesn't make it a fact. --Dseer 05:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Item #1 under WP:SELFPUB is relevant. Of course much of the material deleted in this edit is unencyclopedic, but I'm not sure all of it is. It's not unduly self-serving to say that according to Amma, some childhood experiences instilled in her a sense of compassion. If we don't quote the hagiographical material written by her disciples, perhaps a quote from Amma herself would be ok in this context. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I certainly have no objection to sourced, encyclopedic material that summarizes her religious experiences, the ordeals she went through and development of compassion, as she describes it. Some of the sourced quotes from her biography [29] are relevant and could be used. A statement like "According to her biography ... etc. using these quotes would suffice, since that is a soured and accurate assertion.--Dseer 18:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, you're exactly right on how to frame it ("according to..."). cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 21:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Amritapuri is a very small stub, it may be a good idea to either expand it or merge it into this article Sfacets 06:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a merge with (and redirect to) Mata Amritanandamayi Math would be better, given WP:BLP? Thanks Sfacets for your work on the merging. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Tags and quote

I agree with this reversion. What's the matter with Template:hinduism small? (What religion should she be categorized as instead? Shintoism maybe?) Or the Maya Warrier quote, which is as representative of a sig POV as the critical stuff? thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)