Talk:Sri Chinmoy/Archive 2

message: *What is the copyright status of the poem on this article's main page?  Since the author was born in 1931, it's not free for the taking, unless he's specifically authorized that use of his work.  -Colin Kimbrell 01:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep -- I've exchanged email with someone at Sri Chinmoy Centre who is involved in their web publishing. I believe a permission will soon be emailed to permissions@wikimedia.org. There seems to be goodwill to do this, and I got a strong sense that a copyright complaint is unlikely. I'm removing the Copyvio banner with the expectation that this matter will soon be resolved, and that the banner is overkill. I will monitor and post a follow-up. Thank you. --Fencingchamp 12:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the copyright issue, I think that a poem is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Of course, there should be a "Beliefs and practices" section, but not in this way. Andries 22:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Question 

message: To Fencingchamp: I admit, that the tabloids aren't the most credible sources ;). So I tried to provide more serious published material. To further clarify my intent, im not up to paint Sri Chinmoy black but the criticism exist and cannot be reduced to some hate group. The article shouldn't state his guilt or innocence. It should inform about the fact that the issues have been raised. 
(62.168.125.215 15:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Avoid Revert War 

message: Let the truth be said. In this 21st century of ours, we have enough information on true masters and fake masters. It's amazing to see so many people still waste their time and follow these charlatains [defamation removed Fencingchamp 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm missing your point.  Sorry if I perceive your above paragraph like soapboxing.  Are you suggesting a specific change be made to the article? Regarding "let the truth be said" — it's important to note that all content must be verifiable. Truth isn't enough.  So if you have notable facts to include about Chinmoy and can cite references, go for it! --Ds13 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  True Masters - Fake Masters 

message: This article has suffered from the "Siegenthaler problem" in the past, though no one made a public stink about it. Also - as some critics of Wikipedia would be quick to note - when the article contained defamatory material it was scraped by a couple of spam sites which set the defamatory content in stone.
For this reason, and given Jimmy Wales' new directive on handling biographies of living persons more responsibly, I'm removing a couple of anonymous swipes which I don't believe can be justified through any reputable source. I've also rechecked whether sources previously linked to use tabloids and message boards as the basis for their criticism, and will revise accordingly.
Not for nothing, but Sri Chinmoy was invited to open the Parliament of the World's Religions with a silent meditation in 1993, and again in 2004. It's not because he was the only one who could find directions to the hall. I don't think he would have received awards from Hinduism Today, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (the Institute of Indian Culture), or the Jesse Owens Foundation if he were some shady character or bump on a log. Fencingchamp 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's Maintain A High Standard 

message: For some reason the consistent removal of everything critical related to Sri Chinmoy has been performed on this article. Even a section detailing controversy or allegations would aid in making this article less of a "Sri Chinmoy is fantastic" piece. Nothing on the archived discussions has been resolved, and Fencingchamp is domineering the edits with poor logic and voluminous replies. "defamation removed" by Fencingchamp in the above comment? Completely absurd for him to get away with censoring the talk page. Needs to stop now. Blumpalump 08:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: (note:  Not sure of all the etiquette here, hope I am doing this 
correctly)
Sri Chinmoy has been conducting meditations at the United 
Nations since the 1970's and at the U.S. Congress since
(I believe) the 1980's.  I highly doubt he would have 
been doing so if he fit the bill of his critics.
The anti-cult movement has targeted truly extreme
and frightening groups like Jim Jones and (IMHO) the Moonies
(who I personally enountered in San Francisco and felt
were scary).  And the anti-cult movement has targeted
just about every single group that does not fit into some
ludicrous kind of Norman Rockwell painting.  They have
targeted Buddhism - across the board.  They have targeted
Hinduism - across the board.  The have even targeted people
people in the gay community and people with left wing
political ideologies.  Further, many of these people are
consciously engaged in illegal kidnapping to enforce their
own views.  So, readily accepting criticism from these groups
hardly seems an exercise in unbiased academic truth.
Further, Sri Chinmoy does not take fees.  There are no communal
living arrangements.  He has been open about his finances,
he lives in NYC, though he was offered a large piece of land
in upstate New York (he refused because he felt that 
spirituality must not run away from society, but must work
within it).  His requires his students to be drug free,
not drink, not smoke and to obey all the secular laws.
Wiki9898zzz 16:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re Credibility 

message: I'd like to point out that Chinmoy Kumar Ghose is his real name, and Sri Chinmoy is the name used by his followers. Whoever put "originally Chinmoy Kumar Ghose" seems to think that "Sri Chinmoy" is his real name and not an appellate. I've revised the introductory sentence to reflect an encyclopedic approach. Blumpalump 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not relevant. I changed "originally" to "born". Not only is this slightly more accurate ("originally" implies he changed his name), it mirrors the biography given on Chinmoy's official site. -Fendersmasher 00:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd be surprised to find any Wikipedia articles on senseis, coaches, et al whose names are prefaced with these attributed titles. Case in point: Vince Lombardi. Notice how he is not listed as "Coach Vince Lombardi".  -Fendersmasher 07:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinmoy's name 

message: I removed all the gaudy quotations from the article - Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. That is what Wikiquote is for. Sfacets 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a source for this. --Tilman 16:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: I heard he holds the world record for most weight lifted over one's head. I heard there's a video of him painting 17,000 paintings in one day. This article is a piece of crap. Where are the facts. He deserves a wikipedia article that illustrates his accomplishments now that he's dead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.205.79 (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sri Chimnoy.. 

message: This text was removed recently, while it is likely applicable, it needs a reliable source to be included.
=== Controversies ===   
- Quote from the 10/13/07 New York Post, "In 2004, one former longtime follower of Chinmoy told The Post how Chinmoy summoned her for extended sex romps, then ordered her to have sex with another woman, while he watched. Other women recounted similiar tales, including one who said Chinmoy paid for her abortion after he got her pregnant."   
-    
- Rudra Tamm, a member of the group since 1968 who served as the organization's attorney until 2002, said Ghose's operation is almost entirely cash-driven, with disciples across the world funneling parts of their incomes directly to the guru to support his life and activities. Tamm said many disciples went into debt just to support the guru and to attend the group's annual three-month winter trip. "For a lot of disciples," said Tamm, "their whole existence is saving enough money to go on the Christmas trip." 
--Rocksanddirt 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can these be added with the sources? Sfacets 22:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's relevant in terms of a biography and supported by actual references, why not? This article can not be let to morph into some sort of "teaching document" or advocation of Sri Chinmoy, this is not what a biography is. As a biography, this article simply does not meet even the thinnest of definitions. WiccaWeb 02:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text Removed 

message: - Quote from the 10/13/07 New York Post, "In 2004, one former longtime follower of Chinmoy told The Post how Chinmoy summoned her for extended sex romps, then ordered her to have sex with another woman, while he watched. Other women recounted similiar tales, including one who said Chinmoy paid for her abortion after he got her pregnant."   
-    
- Rudra Tamm, a member of the group since 1968 who served as the organization's attorney until 2002, said Ghose's operation is almost entirely cash-driven, with disciples across the world funneling parts of their incomes directly to the guru to support his life and activities. Tamm said many disciples went into debt just to support the guru and to attend the group's annual three-month winter trip. "For a lot of disciples," said Tamm, "their whole existence is saving enough money to go on the Christmas trip." 
--Rocksanddirt 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can these be added with the sources? Sfacets 22:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's relevant in terms of a biography and supported by actual references, why not? This article can not be let to morph into some sort of "teaching document" or advocation of Sri Chinmoy, this is not what a biography is. As a biography, this article simply does not meet even the thinnest of definitions. WiccaWeb 02:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: You and Sri Chinmoy are both bold-faced liars. He is a possible rapist, a definite fraud, a completely self obsessed money making charlatan of a fake. He should be shot in the face, in fact I hereby publicly threaten to do so.
Now, at last, you have someone to sue for something, I hope proceedings against me will distract you from further damaging this tattered article with your ramblings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.24.72 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You want libel, Wiki9898zzz? You got it. 

message: Criticisms on here have included that the sources of the article are primarily from Sri Chinmoy Centre sources and related sources.  To assume that no other sources exist is inaccurate.
People had asked for sources not associated with the Sri Chinmoy Centre. Here is one article from a non-Sri Chinmoy Centre source:
http://news.scotsman.com/obituaries.cfm?id=1649042007
Quoting from the 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.
Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility 

message: As indicated above, Sri Chinmoy was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.  I submit this as strong evidence of his credibility.  Further, the nomination was made by an internationally respected member of the religious community - Archbishop Desmond Tutu.  I do not think it is a minor thing that an Archbishop of the Catholic Church not only does not consider Sri Chinmoy a fraud, but considers him worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. 
As the Catholic Church awards this man with prizes and honors, they go against everything they supposedly believe in. The direct definition of "Cult" from the Catholic Church is, "a group that promotes a teaching opposite Catholic doctrine." While Catholics consider cults to be the opposite of Catholic doctrine, even archbishops try to promote cult teachers' motivation with awards. I understand your position of defense for Chinmoy, however. While  WhiSri Chinmoy is considered a peace seeking man by many, but he was also the leader of a dangerous facist cult. I don't know why the Catholic Church allows Desmond Tutu to keep preaching acclaim to this man's beliefs and works when he runs something so highly against the Catholic Church. America also throws mud on Chinmoy because a cult is an example of a facist group. While Americans are in the middle of fighting a certain war on terrorism, I think Sri Chinmoy is highly susceptible to criticism. Also, in a more religious standpoint, Sri Chinmoy went against his own religion owning up to this cult of 2,000 followers. Sri supposedly practiced submission to allah, but urged 2,000+ men and women to follow him, which went against everything he owned up to. He was considered for a Nobel Peace Prize for his peace work. However, Chinmoy did have many faults. I dont mean to cause any hard feelings for his current followers, just sharing my opinion with the rest of the Wikipedia community!!!
Further, the nomination was seconded by Mikhail Gorbachev, a former world leader!  Again, I think it is no small matter that such a prominent world figure not only does not consider Sri Chinmoy a fraud, but so profoundly admired Him that he felt he should receive the world's highest award for peace work.
Owing to these two very serious endorsements of Sri Chinmoy, I urge Wikipedia to remove all critical comments about Sri Chinmoy until such criticisms come from court documents or other respected sources.
Two of the world's great men have nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize.  Must we let people continue to throw mud on the name of a person so highly regarded?  It does not seem appropriate.
Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel Peace Prize 

message: 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)
thread_title:  use of 'god' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References from non-Sri Chinmoy Centre sources: 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  One huge advertisement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Weightlifting 

message: I was appalled to read that this article didn't mention the multiple accounts of sexual abuse, dishonesty, and cult practices that Sri Chinmoy is accused of. Based on the accounts of how he 'teaches' his disciples, it's clear he rules at the very least a cult-type of religion. In addition, the high number of accounts of sexual abuse by both women and their male partners is prominent enough to be mentioned in this article. 
Please address the accusations of sexual abuse, along with his controversial practices and teachings which are akin to cult-like training and control.
This is the link to the Rick Ross cult information website examining all the controversy: http://www.rickross.com/groups/srichinmoy.html
Thank you!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.94.198.151 (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sri Chinmoy´s religion rumoured to be cult; accused of sexual abuse 

message: Looking for serious information, I first read the German version and was pleased as this affirmed what I already knew from my own investigations. But I didn't find the specific number I was looking for, namely of the paintings he is said to have made, so I hoped to find it here. Instead I found a hagiography void of real information. What a pity! (Google came to rescue: The official Chinmoy site claims that he completed the first 100,000 in 1975 within less than a year: Sri Chinmoy’s Art.) --WernerPopken (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with German version 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Following the wave of edits after is death, I've noticed all controversial accounts have been deleted yet again from the article. I've rewritten some of the controversy accounts, incorporating some into the body of the article as Anastrophe suggested, and done a little cleanup on the article itself. The article is still largely glowing of Chinmoy, so controversies look very juxtaposed. For now, some remain in the Controversy section. -Fendersmasher (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Section 

message: Before simply deleting this section, please explain why. -Fendersmasher (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santana/Mclaughlin departure 

message: The format of this article is unsatisfactory. (grade of "D.") I haven't analyzed it much, but a couple of random comments: Labeling a prominent section "Kind Words" is rather odd and not much to the point. Would anything similar be found in a bio of Theodore Roosevelt, JFK, Michael Palin? Kirk Douglas, etc. etc. etc.? At best it makes the subject seem like a piker; like listing minor awards and telling people they amount to significant biographical information. If I happened to meet the Pope, I'm sure he'd say something nice about me, too.
A "controversy" section is also dissatisfying and as a structural part of the article, it's mere laziness. The material should be simply woven into his biography if it's significant. If it's not, then leave it out. The guy made lots of claims that can be evaluated on their own merits. It's not truly a "controversy" except perhaps among a few editors here, and labeling it as such is misleading. 
I'm sure there is various stuff out there that serves to credit and discredit the guy and I think it's all part of his biography. It's not separate.  Calamitybrook (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs work=