Talk:Art of Living Foundation

message: I am seeing lots of contributions, welfare achievements of this organization being removed. We can just write a big book of human welfare contributions of The Art Of Living Foundation. Unfortunately, some of the wikipedian editors are posing threat about this article. I thought Wikipedia a great site and contributed more than $100. I should have not done this as Wikipedia is not writing a good article on this fantastic humantarian organization. I have done all courses of Art Of Living and it is simply fantastic and life boosting.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimalleshk (talk • contribs) 09:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Such information will continue to be removes as blatant advertising until editors are willing to address the many problems listed in the discussions below. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

text: You're completely missing the concerns. There's a discussion below. Let's try to keep the discussions in one place. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Information about Art Of Living and its Contributions removed

message: The previously mentioned promotional tone/slant detected by some editors may partly be explained by the article's reliance on references to materials self-generated by the AoLF and its associates. These fall into the realm of self-published sources and cannot be used to reference statements about the organization without some sort of qualifier (e.g., "according to the Art of Living Foundation's website..."). I have flagged some of the instances of this poor referencing, and there are yet others which I have left which are questionable and could be challenged. There is no lack of better secondary and tertiary references out there, and a rewrite and/or re-referencing of the article using those would be very welcome.  • Astynax talk 18:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Given how long these problems have been going on, I'm for removing all sections that don't have independent, reliable sources.  If anyone thinks any of the self-published references meet WP:SELFPUB criteria for inclusion, please note them. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor referencing 

message: It is very important that people understand the difference between Religious and Spiritual Organisation. Particularly Art of Living is not a Religious Organisation; so please Don't include it in Hinduism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.17.49 (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is not a Religious Organisation 

message: Can anyone please enter details about New Initiative by The Art of Living Foundation - Volunteer for a better India. Lakhs of Youths joined have Volunteer for a Better India is registered 15,000+ social activity in few months. I am initiating the section but request further details. Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volunteer For a Better India 

message: Is anyone interested in adding such material in a manner that doesn't violate WP:NOT and WP:NPOV? Best to start here by listing some potential sources that are both reliable and independent. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued use of this article for advertising

message: Please delete section "Land encroachment". This is False. Please refer to news articles
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/185862/art-living-has-not-encroached.html
Few people wants to defame the organization for its role in Anti-corruption moviement. Please refrain from such publications where the court has not given any judgements. Sentiments of hundreds of millions is hurt.
Amgupta2000 (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an announcement from AoL, and not a reliable source for anything other than their viewpoint. Removal of other sources based on it would violate WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Not done: per above comment. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Agree with Ronz. The BLP & NPOV policies require that the content be suitable for an encyclopedia. So the presence or absence of content cant be based on opinions. This article has been needing a neutral cleanup for a long time. May be we can contribute by re-structuring the fragmented content. For instance, both the legal issues can be clubbed together in a "Legal Issues" (the name's just a suggestion) section. I'm ok with doing it. Traintogain (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

text: This isn't a venue for AoL's publicity, but a brief summary of their viewpoint would probably be appropriate, or perhaps that they just contest the matter. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 10 April 2013 

message: I had added this section that were revert by User:Ronz. Reason given was "Sources are poor and event hasnt happened yet". IMO this section deserves a mention, it has been in the national news for the last 5 days now. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , from what I can see, the edit you're talking about took the paragraph of text you added and integrated it into the preceding paragraph. The information is there, it's just more concise. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The event hasn't even happened yet. Once it is over, we'll see what lasting impact it has, but so far it looks the press is hyping and sensationalizing it. We shouldn't do the same per WP:NOTNEWS. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cultural Festival Legal issues 

message: The article has quite a bit typo errors and outdated information. It is as if it still exists in the time period of 2013. Only updating that has taken place is in already contentious Legal Issues where it has managed to speak as if its early 2016. Why is it that the edits in these regards have been undone? The River Rejuvenation has well cited by News reports, The World Culture Festival was widely covered by media both for legal issues and its magnanimity. If the article is to be neutral it should contain actual information and up-to date information, not based on bias some editors my have. Improving upon edits is one thing and completely undoing it is another. We owe it to the readers that they be presented with correct and up-to-date info. --Santoshskcp (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Try fixing the typos separately from anything else. Make sure that any updating of information is reliably and independently sourced. Without independent sourcing, information can easily violate WP:NPOV or WP:NOT. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

text: See also WP:COPYVIO. DMacks (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it that the article info has not been allowed to be updated?  

message: I had added some text to the page about Sudarshan Kriya. It has disappeared without any notification and reasoning. It was a factual information with sources from scientific journals quoted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantanu Deshmukh (talk • contribs) 04:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution deleted without notification? 

message: The sources look rather promotional, even WP:NOTNEWS. I'll take a closer look when I have more time, but hope others will comment. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also linking to Talk:Art_of_Living_Foundation#Courses, because this is a continued discussion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewlyHookedToWiki (talk • contribs) 16:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Programmes and Courses

message: The notice about undisclosed payments seems like an unsubstantiated allegation to me. Anyone has thoughts on why should it remain on the page? 71.245.186.73 (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We can look as to who and when it was added, but given the history of this article, I see no reason to doubt it. --Ronz (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Without WP:OUTING, we probably can't discuss at least some of the specific evidence on-wiki. DMacks (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand, there should be some evidence to continue using this banner. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  Ronz has alleged that one of the contributors is a paid contributor because they volunteer with the organization - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art_of_Living_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=874270341. I think this is a rather absurd assumption that anyone volunteering with the organization is a paid contributor or doing promotional advertising. According to the organization description it is a volunteer-based organization, and someone volunteering with the organization is probably more likely to explore this page. One could argue for a COI, but that COI would be same if one of the Wikipedia editors edited the page about Wikipedia (editing the page about Wikipedia would make you an editor - Catch 22?, btw :D). I would like to appeal to the editors to follow the guidelines suggested by Wikipedia and assume good faith instead of framing speculations and allegations. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a general assumption that volunteers with an organization have a WP:COI, yes. And it's not unreasonable to assume that even "volunteers" might get non-monetary benefits. DMacks (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  The organization of this scale and presence only has a budget of $4M in the US (https://www.guidestar.org/profile/77-0240101). They quite possibly don't have budget to pay anyone to edit wikipedia pages. Just to look at the issue practically. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Please feel free to add COI. Currently the Criticisms section is described in a disproportionate manner as compared to other work done by the organization. This may be because you have found all sources talking about the organization to be puff pieces, if they are not being critical. I just wanted to point that out, since neutrality of the article would in fact be questioned not from the side your are accusing it to be. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Given the comments above, removing the tag is inappropriate. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would dispute the COI as well, but there is no evidence for payments involved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewlyHookedToWiki (talk • contribs) 17:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

text: The UPE tag was put by User:Jytdog here .  has been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee . They have also had several COI-related issues and actions taken in the past. I would like to appeal all the editors here to re-evaluate the notice by reviewing the article again. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem I'm seeing are these attacks on other editors. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But, that's what you are doing, right? If someone is spending time contributing you are claiming they are paid to contribute? Is that not an attack? Are we not 'editors'? NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  Just to re-iterate the user who tagged this article UPE has been involved in other similar controversies. I am just requesting a re-evaluation of the article in this light. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Based on that editor's extensive history on multiple article areas that are often full of COI editors and fringe topics, I give strong credence to their UPE detective-work. DMacks (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. Who is willing to take ownership of the tag now, given the user who tagged is no longer here? How do I seek clarification to fix the offending portions? Is there a way forward or do we want to stick with the tag forever? NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see multiple editors in the article history who have COI, including some who I suspect might be employees. As I already said, some of this evidence cannot be discussed here (it would be against wikipedia policy to do so). But as one example I can mention here, User:Jaimalleshk is blocked for making legal threats in the name of this organization. DMacks (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  An organization like Art of Living, which is a volunteer driven non-profit, has hundreds of thousands of people connected with it (their website claims 370 million+ -- artofliving[dot]org/us-en/about-us). They may have taken one of the courses offered, volunteered at one of their social service event etc. The organization is like Wikipedia in many ways, and is accessible to everyone and anyone interested in being involved. We cannot establish anything from the statement here  that User:Jaimalleshk was officially representing the organization in any way. Here's his statement on this very talk page , where he says that he has merely taken courses offered by Art of Living. In any case, we would be better off discussing how to fix the article and how to clean up anything due to "paid" editors. I did a quick search and found that almost all of his contributions have been reverted or removed, unless minor edits . NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  Related issue: It seems like User:Jytdog had also requested black-listing of the whole domain artofliving[dot]org. See here  for details. Undisclosed paid-editing was used as one of the reasons for the request. I would like to leave this documentation here in case anything is done about UPE. Personally I believe, black-listing the whole domain seems rather extreme even if you suspected wrongdoings from a few editors. Some of the links from the website could serve as the official source for statements missing proper references in the article. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was already clearly stated that specific links for specific purposes can be whitelisted. DMacks (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It just makes things more complicated and takes time for someone to review and whitelist. Nevertheless, I have submitted one request here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewlyHookedToWiki (talk • contribs) 04:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  The request to unblock a specific link was archived without any conclusion. See . Documenting this here so that we know what happened. It is very hard to edit this page with such aggressive policing... NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undisclosed payments 

message: I didn't find any good citation for the following statement:
The Art of Living is a DPI NGO (Department of Public Information), which means it plays an active role in communicating and contributing to various United Nations goals (such as the UN Millennium Goals and the Stand Up initiative).
Please feel free to add it back with a proper reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewlyHookedToWiki (talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No citation for DPI NGO 

message: Needs more info about partner organization. I have requested to whitelist artofliving[dot]org/us-en/partner-organization-iahv. This can be referenced to statement about IAHV. There is also a relevant media that can be used here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IAHV,_Jordan_Program_At_Syrian_Refugee_Camp.jpg which is used on the article on European_Union. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already some information about IAHV dispersed across Wikipedia as seen in this search result .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewlyHookedToWiki (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a subsection on IAHV 

message: Should any of this be added to the page?
List of notable persons connected with the organization. These pages acknowledge connection with the organization
Rhea Pillai, Niraj Gera, Maheish Girri, Gayatri Asokan, Swami Purnachaitanya, Bhanumathi Narasimhan, Pakhi Tyrewala, Pradip Somasundaran, Iman Mutlaq (IAHV)
List of related pages:
Sri Sri Ayurveda, Gurudev: On the Plateau of the Peak, Sri Sri Centre for Media Studies, Sri Sri University, World Forum for Ethics in Business, World Cultural Festival
--NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested See Also 

message: The care for children section doesn't provide much details. The following may be added: 
According to 2015 Tax returns filed by their American chapter, the foundation provided grants of half a million US dollars under Care for Children's Dollar a Day program. . This increased to almost $US1M in 2016. 
Although I am not too sure how cite this link  from ProPublica search tool.
 
NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are primary sources. I don't believe any weight is due to normal business reporting. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. But on the other hand we will have to have some primary sources given that the organization and its activities are current. It may not be possible to find secondary sources for many of these facts just yet. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I would like to make a list of similar sources already used in the article. If removing them would help clean up the article: NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Care for Children 

message: Section on cultural events has been removed. Despite shortcomings, a few of those articles deserve separate articles on their own, such as World Cultural Festival. I am moving it here for a discussion. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Events 

message: * bangladesh source right away says it's a press release. 
* Purported UNEP source is a dead, archived link to a spammy site. Of the only two hits on UN associated sites to ever mention this mission, one is from a 2021 survey of faith based orgs and AoL themselves mention it without UNEP/UNMP association. The other includes a submission from AoL's sister org to UN Economic and Social Council, where they only say "Activities aligned with Millennium Development Goals" and mention no UN agency association). Archived ToI & Hindu links are barely more than PRs and based solely on comments from AoL. 
* In trying to find reputable sources, there's the issue of there being only 700 hits if AoL related sites are excluded (and just 8 before 2010) for "United Nations Mission Green Earth". Of the few non-spammy hits, all seem to be just PR copies from AoL. 
So there's nothing to say it's a UN or UNEP program. UN refs should ideally be dropped and the text should just say that they announced a campaign aligned with UN millennium goals. Hemanthah (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  mission green earth UNEP associations? 

message: Hipal Sir, the reference used in the line shows nothing to me. Ambalangirl (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hipal Sir??? Ambalangirl (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't understand. Is it or is it not a proper description referenced by independent, reliable sources? --Hipal (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional tone.