Talk:Swami Rama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India 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 not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-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.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Rick Ross reference

This reference was removed as it violates the original research policy, as well as the WP:NPOV neutral point of view policy. In addition, the statements removed from the article, and those provided at rickross.com are both insubstatiable, and untrue. --Empacher 19:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is documented with a dated news article. Is it untrue there was a news article, or is the content something you think isn't true? If the latter, then it belongs in the article. Venus Copernicus 19:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Being that I am a student of Swami Rama, and intimately involved with the Himalayan Institute, I can tell you unequivocally that the statements made by Rick Ross are untrue. There was no "post-humus conviction", there was no payment made, and there was no victim, other than Swamiji's reputation
Further, the assertion that Swamiji had children was also untrue. --Empacher 16:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(in response to the claim that he had no children)Empacher please do a proper dilligence before making sweeping and unsubstantiated statements, for starters please visit this link http://www.yogachicago.com/sep01/interviewpandit.shtml

I did a simple google search on curiosity and know nothing about Swami Rama otherwise. I didnt know him or anything about this unti lthe other day. All I saw was someone balnking info they didnt like. I got accused by you with having an axe to grind and you saying so tells me there is a problem on your end.

It is not for YOU to decide if the source is true or credible. It is the purpose of quoting sources so people can decide for themselves. This is common wikipedia sense. Really, how the hell is referincing the reports of a real newspaper and well-known magazine article slander? Venus Copernicus 01:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I added the specific sources thta are not yet available online directly. But let me make this plain. Here is a tatement:

"More than 10 women have accused the swami of sexual abuse since 1979"

If you read it, it says he was accused. It doesn't matter if he was guilty or innocent, but THAT HE WAS ACCUSED is a reported fact. You can't just get rid of a fact because its about some battle you want to fight over who was right or wrong. Wikipedia isn't about proving things. It's about reporting them by documenting whta other people have found.

The statments on Rick Ross's website, no matter what the motivation, are simply news reports. You don't have to agree with the events as they are reported but you have to accept them like anyone else. If you cannot be objective about this, Wikipedia isn't for you.

Here is your first warning against blanking, and you are the one reverting all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 01:45, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I checked with the newspaper on their online archives. The artcile from Rick Ross's site is REAL. Venus Copernicus 01:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for encouraging me to find the actual court documents. They are now cited directly. Venus Copernicus 02:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You found them, but did you read them? You're still wrong. --Empacher 13:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If the newspaper article is inconsistent with the details of the official court judgment, the former reference of course should be removed from this entry. Have you read them? Are they inconsistent? If there is any major inconsistency, I will compeltely back you to remove the Rick Ross link, as original documents takes precedence over the reporting of them.

Also, I don't like the 'negative' stuff lumped in with his achievements. I'm not a fan or a critic of Swami Rama but it might be more fair to put the accusations and judgment at the end of the whole article under the heading "controversy" so the artcile can focus on more important things such as his apparent role in modern Yoga. What do you think? Venus Copernicus 13:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to Stop Blanking

Someone who blanked the section related to the above asked "Why is Rama being singled out?" Answer - it's HIS FREAKING ENTRY. Reference to other people belong on other pages.

Use some common sense people. If there is a list entry for "gurus who were indicted on sex-related charges" and simply added the tag at the bottom of the page, would that make you feel better?

All this blanking is making it harder and harder to assume good faith. Sadly, even if you don't believe any of it is true, it is part of his public biographical history and you can't change the past. Debate it somewhere else instead of depriving people of the right to know and make up their own minds. Or if you have a leg to stand on, add documented contradictory information -- it will be welcomed with open arms by those of us who prefer objectivity and balanced view. But blanking it is worse than any imaginable breach of NPOV. DON'T DO IT, or we'll ask the thread be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)