# Talk:Vishnudevananda Saraswati

Serious allegations have been made against Vishnudevananda. These must not be repeated in the article until they can be reliably sourced: until they are covered in a major national newspaper or serious journal, for example. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The statement above remains basically valid. If the BBC coverage reveals major new facts, rather than just repeating what has already been stated in the article, then of course we can add those.
The other major point is WP:COATRACK: the title of this article is not "Abuse allegations against Vishnudevananda", though editors might wish to consider creating such a thing if sufficient sources are available. This is a Biography article, and no matter how serious the abuse, it remains just one element of the man's life. Accordingly, only a small part of the article can be devoted to coverage of that subject.
A third point is that the language used must be encyclopedic, briefly and neutrally summarizing the main facts. A blow-by-blow account with day-to-day legal details is not appropriate; this is not a news or victim site, there are plenty of those for interested parties who wish to join debates, but Wikipedia is not one of them.
Fourthly, the citation style should follow that used in the article, which is to have {{cite book ...}} or {{cite journal ...}} templates with author, title, date, url, isbn, page number and so on all filled in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe my edits are well-source, even without the Medium source. The BBC, for example. The BBC and the other international source DO indeed add many new facts, the ones contained in my edit (for example, it's not just two victims anymore, it's over 30). I believe my edits use objective language; the word "rape" is no longer whitewashed as "abuse" in the style guides of most major news sources. My edit updates the allegations with recent news from various reputable sources. It seems that the BBC is being rejected as a source as are the latest basic developments in the subject. I encourage other editors to weigh in and hopefully reinstate many of my edits. Localemediamonitor (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, thank you for joining the discussion. On the language we use about allegations, legal terms like "rape" are really only usable given a criminal conviction; it is not an encyclopedia's job to repeat serious allegations, especially with emotive words with legal connotations, but to describe the situation briefly and neutrally; we are not a news source and do not use their style guides. The BBC is certainly a reliable source, but as it was media (a podcast) and poorly-cited (a bare URL), it certainly needs an upgrade; the other sources were of doubtful or unacceptable quality. I shall listen to the podcast now and add a brief summary to the article, properly cited. Talk of "weighing in" and "hopefully reinstate" is frankly inappropriate, given the serious quality issues raised: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:COATRACK, WP:RS. It is equally inappropriate of you to WP:SPAM the same low-quality material to Sivananda yoga, especially as you had been notified of the concerns about the sources on your talk page; we obviously should not have the material (even if it were perfect) repeated on multiple articles on the project, even more so given the issues listed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I've listened to the (first) podcast and made notes. There is actually very little we can add from it. On "rape", the interviewer actually led Salter to use the word (leading the witness) at 17:35, while at 15:30 it is stated that Salter did what Vishnudevananda said, i.e. she was in a degraded physical and mental state to comply, which suggests psychological, physical, and sexual abuse from a position of power, but as I'm not a lawyer I'm certainly not going to speculate on the name(s) of the crime(s) that may have been committed in that process. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Can we call in some different objective editors here please? Maybe User:Gamebuster  User:Gamebuster (talk) or hello is anybody out there? Localemediamonitor (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure you know that canvassing is not allowed. Don't do anything like that again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: I have left a message regarding this dispute at User talk:Localemediamonitor.  Gamebuster (Talk)║(Contributions) 02:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 Thanks. I agree that WP:DUE length must be observed, and that the key point here is the reliability of the sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Can we remove the allegations on this wiki page? Swami Vishnu left his body in 1993.  These allegations have come 27 years after.  Nobody knows the real reason this is being brought up so many years later.  Nothing has ever been proven one way or another and I imagine it will be hard to prove from such a long time ago.
We have many students of Swami Vishnu that say nothing like this took place.  How is this relevant to the teaching of yoga today and this topic. Swami Adi (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for discussing. You and the students are as closely connected to the late Swami as anyone can now be, and you naturally wish to think the best of the great man and his accomplishments. His contribution to modern yoga is not in doubt, as this article and others made clear. However, Wikipedia has to take a neutral point of view; it is not censored and never adopts a political, commercial, scientific, philosophical, or religious position. The allegations against Vishnudevananda, like those against several other yoga gurus, are important and at the least are definitely plausible. People will reflect that it is hardly surprising, though perhaps disappointing, that students are not informed about such matters, given their seriousness and, in the light of the sad truth about other gurus, their credibility. Wikipedia has no choice but to report plainly on this matter. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Chiswick, thank you for your thoughtful reply.  However since the allegations are plausible doesn't make them true.  I don't believe it is wiki job to inform student of matter like this.  As an encyclopedia, wiki cannot judge the matter.  BBC news has a long standing bias against yoga and hindu culture.  The same british culture that colonized India and many parts of the world, cannot be the the one to judge the character of a swami. Swami Adi (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
If these allegations have been covered in WP:RS, they should be included per WP:NPOV. I haven't checked the sources, but I see BBC and Die Zeit, which is promising, as well as Facebook (WP:SPS) and WP:MEDIUM, which is less so, but context matters. This is not a WP:BLP, but we should aim for WP:RS sourcing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
As I noted above, BBC has a long standing bias against Hinduism and yoga dating back to their colonization of the Indian subcontinent.  They are a news organization that is looking to sensationalize events and sell more news.  If this is so true, then we haven't other new organizations covered anything about this?  I would request that the section be removed. Swami Adi (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
On BBC news has a long standing bias against yoga and hindu culture., I don't think that argument will get you very far on en-WP. Which independent WP:RS says so? As newsorgs go, en-WP consider BBC one of the better ones, "generally reliable" as it is termed here. Why isn't [1] "other new organizations" to you? [2] is also coverage. It's British, but en-WP doesn't consider that in itself to be an issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Here is an article on the history of British Raj in India - History of the British Raj
Here is a video about British bias against Hindus - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkk8-7NUdVg Swami Adi (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
There is history, absolutely. That doesn't mean British sources will be disqualified on Indian topics for being British, or vice versa. Or that Indian sources will be disqualified on Pakistan topics for being Indian, because history. And of course, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, it can be edited by anybody (a lot of the time, anyway). We'll see if more editors have opinions, and WP:DR is open to you (but give it at least a couple of days). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
The day that Wikipedia agrees to a partisan request to remove something that the party finds inconvenient would be the day that the global encyclopedia died. Wikipedia's neutrality and ability to cover all aspects of any topic, no matter how much some people don't want those covered, is of vital importance. Given that the allegations are extremely well-cited to multiple reliable sources including major news organisations, it would be utterly remiss to remove them. The material on Medium is from the yoga expert and published author Matthew Remski. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
That said, Julie Salter's Facebook post and the Medium-blog are not extremely good sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Salter's post is a witness statement that is plainly relevant to this article; it is named and discussed by the BBC source, so it makes sense to provide access to the original. Medium is being used by a notable author as, ahem, a medium of communication. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Relevant? when did hearsay become relevant.  When did wiki become a court of justice?  If people want to read BBC, let them go directly to BBC, not to wiki.   Swami Adi (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
With respect, you are rather missing the point here. Wikipedia works exclusively from Reliable Sources, and it presents a concise summary of all points of view verifiably based on those sources. Wikipedia is absolutely not a court; it does not draw conclusions, but presents the reliably-cited facts impartially so that readers can make up their own minds. You will find it easier to follow Wikipedia policy if you read the linked pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)