Talk:Sri Chinmoy

message: I came across a guy who gave me a leaflet about Sri Chinmoy... it says he painted "nearly 16,000,000 'soul-bird' drawings". After reading this wiki article, I was almost convinced that this guy is an absolute angel. No room for controversy in any way? That's ridiculous. I had to dig to find this document, which quotes several books, with a variety of negative perspectives and accusations. http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/chinmoy.html 
Now, is this wikipedia or an advertorial page? If it's the former, then there has to be room for controversy, for questions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.103.46 (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been commandeered by Chinmoy’s cult followers who immediately delete any discussion of his abusive practices. This is one more example of why one should never take WP articles at face value.98.166.163.235 (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Hi, your question has been asked and answered in previous threads, so I will post links to those threads: 1, 2, 3. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In your link also mentions Santana, who apparently changed his mind: "I’m really grateful for those 10 years  I spent with that spiritual master. I don’t believe I will be lost in the evil ocean, because what I learned was very much like a West Point discipline, like a Marine.  " http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/carlos-santana-on-coltrane-trump-woodstock-drugs-w491909 --Riquix (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No controversy? 

message: Which description should we use in the article? Leaders or teacher.
To the last edits or are they just confusing games from Sockpuppetry? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Asiasiasi  
The main category is leaders : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:20th-century_Hindu_religious_leaders
--Riquix (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leader or teacher ? 

message: I see above that separate Controversy sections have been discussed here a number of times, and consensus has been not to have them, but that concerns have been raised about possible whitewashing.  has been adding a Criticism section that is poorly sourced (blog, open wiki) and not very well expressed. I do not know whether the allegations are already covered in the article because I am unfamiliar with the groups and personalities alluded to, but I do see criticism mentioned in the article already, so it is possible the new section was already repeating material; it's also possible that some of its specifics could be usefully added using better sources. In any case, I've re-reverted it so that the added material can be discussed here, as well as revisiting whether there should be a separate section on criticisms in case consensus has now changed, in particular since this is not a biography of a living person and the historical record may have been amplified by publications in recent years. I'm also going to invite SadirahFierg to come here in case they don't see the ping notification. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: appears to be a sockpuppet of Boulayp, adding the same unverified, unsubstantiated, badly sourced claims to the article that the various socks have been adding since April 2010. Softlavender (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" section 

message: First of all I would like to thank you for inviting me to discuss these topics and not banning this IP address 
The Wikipedia Team and volunteers are doing a great job at managing this website, HOWEVER I must strongly insist that if the constant 
whitewashing continue on this webpage it would give all the internet community a bad opinion on the overall credibility of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia should be about facts not opinions... And what I mean by whitewashing is removing information using fake comments like the
user Riquix did at  07:49, 27 May 2021 (→‎Move to the United States: text) and removing my contribution. So I asked him several 
times ( on his personal page ) to put the right comments what he did at 12:43, 27 May 2021 ... and started complaining about my behaviour.
I will update the thread later today giving more information about the facts that should be put together in a 
controversy/criticism section , so we can discuss if these pieces of information are worth to be mentioned on this page 
regards
SadirahFierg (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother, SadirahFierg. The "pieces of information" do not specifically mention Chinmoy and/or are from unreliable sources. If you continue to try to add the "pieces of information", you will be reported to administrators and likely blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

text: The second link does not mention either "Chinmoy" or "Kumar Ghose", and so cannot be used on Wikipedia. The first link says nothing about "bad behavior" or being "dismissed", and any relevant information in it is already covered in the "Move to the United States" section of this wiki article.  Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

text: As I stated above, that says nothing about "bad behavior" or "being dismissed". And as I stated above, there is no mention of either either "Chinmoy" or "Kumar Ghose" in the actual text of the other link quoting The Mother's Agenda book. Here is the exact text of the book: . -- Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

text: That's not how Wikipedia works. A conversation full of insinuation in an ashram agenda record, which names no names, is not a reliable or quotable source. An apparent but not direct linking of that gossipy conversation with the name Chinmoy on a website 56 years after the fact is even less reliable or quotable or usable as a citation/source on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

text: This is also a vague, self-published source that says one (unnamed) person or letter from the ashram said one thing, and another person at the ashram (Dilipkumar Roy) says something entirely different and opposite. The first source or letter isn't quoted directly or named, and this is a self-published and fairly dramatized source. Not reliable per Wikipedia/encyclopedic standards. Softlavender (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Material regarding Chinmoy Kumar Ghose, etc 

message: This page removes all the many sexual allegations made against Chinmoy by his followers and serves as nothing but advertising for his cult. I was in his cult for a decade.  When I was there I was told controlling this page was their number 1 priority and that they had people working on this page who would remove the numerous allegations of sexual abuse and general fraudulent guru like behavior. Chinmoy is a predator and this page is garbage. 84.123.73.232 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's covered at the end of the Sri_Chinmoy#Move_to_the_United_States section. However, it is a bit buried, so I've given it it's own subheading. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda