Talk:Sri Chinmoy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sri Chinmoy article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives


Archive 1 is 97 kilobytes. It mostly discusses NPOV, cult/anti-cult issues, what constitutes reputable sources and good faith research, what is peer review, what is religious vilification material, what policies religion editors follow, whether or not religious tolerance should be a factor when editing, and what types of references are appropriate to represent the anti-cult POV. Contributors: Alex576, Maikel, Fencingchamp, Fadix, Andries, Zappaz, and Rozencrantz. Thanks again to all contributors. --Fencingchamp 08:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] One huge advertisement

One might as well visit Chinmoy's official site for the kind of information listed in this article. The magnitiude of original research (references to Chinmoy or Chinmoy's organization are too numerous to count) and POV (particularly in the Teachings and Awards sections), combined with the article's history of edit wars, combined with the poor use of English grammar, may warrant this article for deletion. -Fendersmasher 01:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fact: Sri Chinmoy's association with the United Nations was not on an official or professional level. His many students who work there were able to get him to hold weekly meditations under their rights as members of the UN Staff and Recreation Club.

Fact: Anyone can be nominated for the the Nobel Peace Prize if they can show letters of support from professionals of high regard in that field. Sri Chinmoy instructed his disciples to obtain letters from such dignitories by using photo's of him with other dignitories such as Mother Teresa, Mikail Gorbachev. Almost anyone can obtain photo opportunites with dignitories such as most die-hard fans are able to have themselves photographed with their baseball heroes or favourite actors or rock stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.209.150 (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


This article has simply been the subject of a conscious attack by some right wing fundamentalists and does not represent fair criticism of Sri Chinmoy. Again, if the United Nations and the U.S. Congress accept him, why shouldn't Wikipedia? And those are only two of a huge volume of praise from a wide variety of sources. Is that not credible evidence that passes academic standards of fairness? Or will this evidence be thrown out because it does not support the biased notion that Sri Chinmoy is somehow not what he claims to be? Will fairness rule here? Will the voice of the reference from no less than the US Congress and the United Nations be denied in favor of some hatred spewed by an extreme minority...with no credible references?

Wiki9898zzz 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What's funny about your comments is that you sound exactly like most people assume cult followers to sound! WiccaWeb 20:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

How does your reasoning reflect any of Wikipedia's policies? Support from institutions such as the U.S. Congress and the United Nations (which do not possess "academic standards") does not address the criticisms at issue here. Instances in which a high number of former followers publicly admit to being sexually abused by Sri Chinmoy or a published article debunking his alleged weight-lifting claims would fall under WP:Notability, and thus deserve mention in the article. -Fendersmasher 20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


There are no "high numbers" as you suggest. That is a lie, as are all the negative statements on here. Provide a source of the claim for "high numbers." Provide a court case document with allegations of sexual abuse. Provide some proof or stop further participating in libel. It is an illegal act. You and the other commentators are the only ones breaking the law, not Sri Chinmoy. And hopefully, someone in the Sri Chinmoy Centre will get annoyed enough to prosecute you. These are crimes, you should be punished for them.

Wiki9898zzz 15:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


I invite you to look at the references in the controversy section given in the article if you haven't done so already, as well as the Sri Chinmoy Ex-Disciples Forum and the Sri Chinmoy Open Forum on Yahoo Groups, though I somehow doubt any of that will sway your opinion. I'm still awaiting a response to the question in my previous reply. -Fendersmasher 07:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I make a brief note about the definition of libel, a word that's been misused in this discussion a number of times, without getting drawn into this? If a Wikipedia editor makes unsubstantiated, negative claims about Chinmoy, it's possible he has committed libel. If a Wikipedia editor adds content to the article which acknowledges the accusations of others, he has not committed libel, even if those accusations are libelous. Whether a public figure is ultimately found guilty of an accusation does not determine whether or not it is significant enough to be included in his Wikipedia entry. For instance, no one would seriously suggest all mention of the rape allegations against Kobe Bryant should be stricken from that article because he was never convicted of a crime. I am not familiar enough with Chinmoy or the allegations against him to judge whether they should be mentioned here, but the arguments that an accusation must be proved to be notable, and that acknowledging criticism that may be unfounded is libelous, are in no way true.--Djrobgordon 05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is apparently completely dictated by followers wishing to hide the controversy surrounding him. It is a shame that this is a sanitized version of his life and that people seeking information must seek it elsewhere.

[edit] use of 'god'

I disagree with edits made by anonymous user with IP 64.146.239.146 - many instances of 'God' or 'Him' is changed to 'god' or 'him'. In the context of this article, 'God' is a proper noun and changing to lower case looks more POV to me than anything. I'm reverting to previous edits. -Fendersmasher 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of the pronoun "God" is a Church preference however. As a devout Catholic, I've always practiced capitilizing "God", but in this article it should not be, however. Not everyone who reads articles like these are religious and the use of the pronoun "God" in a public article like this is an example of Conjoining Church and State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.250.241 (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References from non-Sri Chinmoy Centre sources:

Weightlifting

People had asked for sources not associated with the Sri Chinmoy Centre. Here are some.

Article from non-Sri Chinmoy Centre source

http://news.scotsman.com/obituaries.cfm?id=1649042007

quote from article:

"Sri Chinmoy, the Indian spiritual guru who had been nominated by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and seconded by former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for this year's Nobel Peace Prize, devoted his life..."

So, this article references that Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Mikhail Gorbachev, two very prominent people felt that Sri Chinmoy was credible enough to be awarded no less than the Nobel Peace Prize.

+++

New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/nyregion/13chinmoy.html?em&ex=1192420800&en=12597bbc1a6f10bc&ei=5087%0A

Article quotes US Congressman Gary Ackerman:

“I thought it was some magician’s trick, but it wasn’t,” Mr. Ackerman said yesterday. “He was running extreme marathons before people even knew what extreme sports were. When you were around him, you had the sudden realization you were in the presence of somebody very, very holy and very devout.”

+++

NPR audio file. NPR is a credible source. Does not seem that they would produce this without some verifying research:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15271102

+++

Another article on weightlifting:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0675/is_n5_v9/ai_11245879

+++

Re credibility issues:

Another article from a non-Sri Chinmoy Centre source:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World_leaders_mourn_Sri_Chinmoys_death/articleshow/2458660.cms

Quoting from the article:

"Among others who paid homage to Chinmoy were former US vice president Al Gore, the co-winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize, Indian spiritual teacher Dada Vaswani and sitar maestro Ravi Shankar...."

re criticisms that he was power hungry, quoting from the article:

"As a spiritual guru, he did not create a mass following unlike some of his contemporaries. Instead, he tended to a small flock of dedicated disciples, numbering 7,000...."

referencing his meditations at the UN:

"Since 1970 he used to lead 'Peace Meditation' at the UN headquarters for its staff and delegates...."

+++

just a few for now.


Wiki9898zzz (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Section

Where has the "controversy" section gone? It's perfectly legitimate to have it there. Isn't it vandalism by this guys "followers" to remove it? It's a valid section... WiccaWeb 04:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If nobody makes any significant comments, I'll put this section back, and undo and resulting reverts... Fair warning. WiccaWeb 20:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no justification for this pattern of blatant information suppression and removal of the controversy section, along with the unjustified removal of the POV tag. I will put the POV back and keep a watch to make sure it stay until DISCUSSION on the issue. I'll start working on a "controversy" section WITH references from established sources. WiccaWeb 15:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Far to much WP:SELFPUB, and suspect sources. While Chinmoy was notable and has undoubtably done good things, he was not beyond criticism and controversy, which is reliably sourced. This article should avoid such extreme POV and not read like a sales pitch or press release. --Dseer 03:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree. My suggestion: Let's block users who are 1. Deleting content and 2. Making weak arguments on this discussion page(or no arguments at all). To put it another way, a strong argument should be required for content deletion. I am new to Wikipedia, so I'd like to know if there are better methods. William sharkey 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
material that is not properly cited may be removed without discussion per WP policy. ideally it is challenged first by applying the 'fact' tag to it. 'controversy' sections are generally discouraged; rather it's better that the material be incorporated into the body of the article. that said, 'discouraged' does not mean 'forbidden'. as long as the material is NPOV and properly sourced, it's okay to be there. Anastrophe 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weightlifting

From a non-Sri Chinmoy Centre source, from a New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/nyregion/13chinmoy.html?em&ex=1192420800&en=12597bbc1a6f10bc&ei=5087%0A

The article quotes US Congressman Gary Ackerman:

“I thought it was some magician’s trick, but it wasn’t,” Mr. Ackerman said yesterday. “He was running extreme marathons before people even knew what extreme sports were. When you were around him, you had the sudden realization you were in the presence of somebody very, very holy and very devout.”

Please take note, understand and respect the seriousness of this statement. A United States Congressman is saying that his weightlifting feat is not a trick. A United States Congressman is saying, directly, that he felt that Sri Chinmoy was "somebody very, very holy." That is the quote. Please take time to reflect upon the seriousness of that statement coming from so prominent a public official.

Congressman Gary Ackerman recieved thousands of dollars from Guru Health Foods a Sri Chinmoy Centre "divine enterprise" managed by Ashrita Furman, the Guiness World Record holder - this is avaiable on public record. This also violates the tax-exempt status of the Sri Chinmoy Centre Church 501 (c) religious non-profit organization.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

you are committing the informal fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. otherwise known as an 'appeal to authority'. the honorable congressman, while quite possibly a prominent public official, is not an expert on weightlifting, illusions, or holiness, at least not pursuant to his status or qualifications as a public official. the congressman's opinion is no more informed than the average person on the street. however, you are claiming that his opinion carries greater weight than that of others, simply because he is a 'prominent' public official. that's not a supportable position to argue from. Anastrophe (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)