Talk:Gurumayi Chidvilasananda/Archive 1

message: The phrase 'Siddha Yoga meditation and philosophy path' seems a bit awkard. Can anyone think of a way to combine all of this information a little more gracefully?
:I would suggest leaving off "mediation and philosophy path", just say "she became the head of Siddha Yoga.  Short and to the point.  If the reader wishes to read more about SY, they can follow the link.TheRingess (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siddha Yoga description 

message: I wonder if it's correct to describe Gurumayi as a Hindu. Siddha Yoga is regarded as an autonomous spiritual path and I doubt if Gurumayi would describe herself as a Hindu if pressed on the subject. Does anyone have any thoughts on the subject?
Neilrobertpaton 09:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree. I hesitate to call anything about Siddha Yoga Hindu. Siddha Yoga has a Hindu flavor and appearance, but I don't think it's any more Hindu than it is Christian or Muslim. I wouldn't want to have it in the 'New Age Religion' category either, though. Is there a category for Mystical Philosophies and Practices?
MahaDave 01:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be silly. She was born a Hindu, and Swami is a Hindu title. Siddha Yoga engages in tradition Hindu practices such as the Guru Gita. Muktananda was Hindu, his tradition is a Hindu tradition. There is no doubt that she is Hindu. IPSOS (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I'm interested in hearing your views, I'd suggest that you don't call other people's views 'silly'. I agree that Gurumayi shouldn't be classified as a 'Hindu' guru because while she teaches many Hindu scriptures and supports many Hindu traditions and was born a Hindu as you say, she she so profoundly transcends all religion that she doesn't belong to any. Neither would many of her followers consider themselves Hindus, or be considered Hindus by other Hindus. I would agree that this question should be left open for the time being. MahaDave 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an opinion. She's Hindu by birth, and it is she and not her teachings which are the subject of the article. In any case, Hinduism is all-absorbing. It has no problem with teachings which, in your opinion, "transcend all religion", being taught by a teacher who is still considered Hindu. To argue that she is not Hindu, you would have to document her renunciation of Hinduism. Nothing short of that would negate her status as a Hindu.  IPSOS (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I say that Gurumayi is not a 'Hindu guru' I mean that she is not JUST a Hindu guru. To define her as a 'Hindu guru' in the first sentence of the article puts a false limitation on her and her teachings. I disagree that the article is not about her teachings. You can't have an article about a teacher and leave her teachings out of the picture. You wouldn't write an article about Einstein and say he was a 'Swiss physicist' without descrbing his theories and their influence on society; or an article about Microsoft and say it was an 'American company'. Even though Microsoft is based in the U.S. it is international in its scope and presence . If you want to say she was born a Hindu and is considered by her followers to embody the essence of the teachings of all religions, then I would agree. But it seems to me that to call her a 'Hindu guru' puts a box around her that she would not agree with and nobocy who has seriously studied her life and work would agree with either. So for that reason it is not entirely accurate to call her a 'Hindu guru'. While calling her a 'Hindu guru' is not as clearly a personal opinion as my saying her transcending religion is, it is a use of words that supports a particular viewpoint that is not born out by the facts of the larger picture, namely that she and her followers would not consider her to be JUST a 'Hindu guru'. It is certainly not necessary to document Gurumayi having reounced Hinduism in order to decide on a better way to describe her relationship with Hinduism. If you want to get technical about it, orthodox Hinduism traditionally required that its adherents never leave the country of India. So by that definition, Gurumayi is not a Hindu any more. Please work with us here. MahaDave 13:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, I'm going to edit it to remove the word, and I like "was born in Mumbai" more than she came from Mumbai.  Not to sound too picky, but we probably need a source for the number of people who belong to SY.  I suggest leaving off any mention of numbers until we have that source.TheRingess (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all biographical articles start with the nationality of the subject. The first sentence gives the broad but essential items, date of birth, nationality always important and included. The fact that more detail on the place of birth is given later does not mean that the first sentence doesn't need this information. IPSOS (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu?

message: Does anyone know at what specific age she met Muktananda?  If you know that please edit the article to use that information instead of "at a very early age".TheRingess (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her specific age when she met Muktananda 

message: I like the way the organization of the first two paragraphs is shaping up. One suggestion: I don't know what the standard is on Wikipedia, but it seems unnecessary to date the documentation of her current status as leader. From what I understand of this community, the status will be updated on Wikipedia within hours of when it changes by some enthusiastic editor. I should think it could be assumed that 'current' means current without having to date when it was current. Could we drop the phrase 'as of 2007'? 208.29.145.8 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  It's been my experience that a number of articles are edited sporadically only by those with an interest in them.  This article will be around as long as Wikipedia is around, and it's a good practice to give the reader an idea of when the information was last checked/updated.  We then avoid giving them the impression that there is a group of editors working feverishly around the clock to ensure that all articles are up to date.  It's a good observation, I think I'll remove the word current.TheRingess (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Leader 

message: If she is not Hindu, that suggests that she is not a guru either. Guru is a word which denotes a Hindu teacher. It is sometimes applied in Tibetan Buddhism as well, though the proper word there is Lama. Also used in the Sikh and Jain traditions. Outside those traditions the proper term would be "spiritual teacher". I mean, I guess maybe she didn't take Hindu vows in a Hindu order, and never succeeded a Hindu guru in his Hindu lineage. Then she wouldn't be a guru at all! And not being a guru, she could not transmit shaktipat, so we'd better remove all reference to shaktipat here and in the Siddha Yoga article.  IPSOS (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a very practical suggestion.  I have no objection to your reinstating material, but to delete references to shaktipat, when the SY literature discusses it and it would be of interest to a casual reader, detracts from the article, rather than improving it.TheRingess (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let's stop removing the word Hindu as well, which is equally ridiculous impractical. IPSOS (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from using words like ridiculous.  Please assume good faith on the part of all editors contributing here, and understand that although you find something ridiculous they might not.  Their intent is to improve the article just as yours is, and their questions/concerns are as valid as yours.  Instead of labelling, propose compromises, or be bold and add them yourself, explaining your reasoning on this talk page.TheRingess (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you insisted on leaving in the word 'Hindu' even though there were several other voices against it, we didn't keep removing it, but rather offered a compromise which you chose not to accept.  The community here is willing to work with you if you will also approach this in the spirit of dialog. MahaDave 03:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guru? 

message: I have gone ahead and replaced the word Hindu with Kaśmir Śaivism.  This is more accurate.  Since Hindu is a broad term that can encompass many different sects and/or branches.  Therefore, it is somewhat accurate, but not very precise.  I also believe that the statement is supported by the SY literature (please see the teachings section of their website where they mention these two philosophies).  The casual reader can now more easily gain a greater understanding of the philosophies of SY.TheRingess (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've added Hindu as a modifier, as the reader is not expected to be an expert, and the Kaśmir Śaivism article specifically identifies it as a Hindu philosophy. Shiva is a Hindu god. Sheesh, what is the problem with being accurate. IPSOS (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no problem with being accurate. There is a problem with being relevant. I can think of many verifiable and accurate facts about Gurumayi that are irrelevant to this article. She has black hair, but that's not what sets her apart and makes her worthy of writing about. The fact that she was born a Hindu in India is interesting, but irrelevant when describing her work in the larger world as far as I'm concerned. MahaDave 02:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaśmir Śaivism 

message: Is Gurumayi a title or a name? IPSOS (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a term of endearment used specifically with Swami Chidvilasananda that has come into common usage as her everyday name. 71.75.19.219 02:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gurumayi - title or name? 

message: Women can be monks in Siddha Yoga, just like they can be priests in some Protestant denominations. Gurumayi has never been refered to as a nun. 71.75.19.219 02:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The opening sentence in the wikipedia article about monks says...."A monk is a person who practices religious asceticism..."
Perhaps we might want to link to that article or one that discusses monks in an eastern tradition.  It seems from the SY literature that they don't use Swamiji simply for male monks and Swamini for female swamis as other traditions do.  I could be wrong.TheRingess (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  monkhood 

message: I understand the need to honor everyone's input, but the term 'Hindu Kashmir Saivism lineage' is a pretty awkward construction in my opinion. I'd like to suggest either 'Guru in a lineage of the Hindu tradition of Kashmir Shaivism', or 'Hindu Kashmir Saivite lineage' as a replacement. I also want to add the caveat that Gurumayi has never called her lineage a Kashmir Shaivite lineage that I know of. Swami Muktananda said only that Kashmir Shaivism is the philosopy that most closely resembles Siddha Yoga. Kashmir Shaivism is only one of the traditions referenced in Gurumayi's teachings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MahaDave (talk • contribs) 02:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kashmir Shaivism 

message: I recently made an edit to this page which included the correction of several dubious points. It was amusing for me to find that my entire edit had been reverted with the comment... Muktananda didn't create it out of thin air, he had a Kashmir Shaivite guru, that's parampara. Sorry to say, this is incorrect and a highly deceptive commentary. Firstly, Muktananda did not have a Kashmir Shaivite guru, or a guru holding any form of parampara. There is no valid reference to this assertion anywhere. Secondly, having a guru has nothing to do with parampara. Parampara is soley related to the clear succession of an established lineage. In his lifetime Nityananda made no claim to parampara of any known lineage, let alone a Kashmir Shaivite lineage. Nityananda made no reference to even having been initiated into any lineage or even being devoted to any particular guru. Please don't mislead people. While Chidvilasananda received the mantle of Siddha Yoga from Muktananda, all claims that Nityananda passed any form of parampara to Muktananda is soley based on the claims of Muktananda. All of my edits related to WP:MOSBIO were reverted. The full titles of the subject, birth name and place, etc. I clarified that the Dashanami Sampradaya was a sannyasa order. This was reverted also without mention. Please be more careful in your edits. I will edit the article accordingly when I have time, unless some fine editor beats me to it. -Vritti 06:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Items in need of editing

message: That's why it's so hard to make any headway with the SY articles: because someone comes along the next day and undoes it all, but I guess that's the nature of Wiki. I gave up on the SY articles for a while, but have now drifted back. Couldn't help myself.
Have just enlarged the Bibliography and deleted the title "Books", which was superfluous.
Sardaka 10:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: That's Why

message: Have just looked at this article and seen the new pic of the guru. I don't think I've ever seen a worse picture of her. It makes her look like a stick insect. Can anyone dig up a better picture of her that can be used under fair use? Shouldn't be too hard.
Sardaka 10:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: I have replaced the other photo with another taken from an SY publication that shows her in 1984, looking somewhat more agreeable (in other words, not looking like a stick insect). Hope we don't have to have a revert war over it.
Sardaka 11:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo again

message: I see the stick insect pic is back. Do we have to have a revert war over this?
Sardaka 10:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem with the photo? It seems nice to me. The "stick" that troubles you so much is nothing but the bindu worn by Hindu women in their foreheads.--Orlando F (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: As a member of the wikipedia community, I extend to you the same invitation extended to everyone, to add content from reliable sources to the articles in which you have an interest.TheRingess (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I have deleted material that seems more appropriate for my talk page (e.g. my interests, my background).TheRingess (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo again

message: I reverted this sentence:  "Muktananda being the first, that's makes her second of this so ancient lineage."  It seemed redundant, the lead establishes that she succeeded Muktananda.
I also reverted this sentence:  "Results from the PRASAD project dates from the 1970s http://www.prasad.org/about-prasad/milestones.php." Yes, this is true, but seems more appropriate for an article about the PRASAD project than here.
I also reverted this paragraph:
In 1994, the New Yorker published an article reproduction of a New Yorker article about the whereabouts of Chidvilasananda and Muktananda. Many sites http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/SYDA-Yoga/. http://www.leavingsiddhayoga.net/ have material from past siddha adepts. There is also a usenet group : alt.support.ex-cult.siddha-yoga.   
- Also, no source can say what Chidvilasananda has become the last few years. 
The 1994 New Yorker article did not discuss the subjects whereabouts.  The sites listed are mentioned on other articles about SY and the sentence does not establish there relevance here since they are not used as sources for the material in the article.  Nor is there a need to mention a usenet group.
The last sentence says nothing.  Even if we had a source that states exactly where the subject lives, we might not want to include that information in a biography per WP:BLP.
TheRingess (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is not a forum for discussing the subject but for discussing improvements to the article.  Please read WP:AGF.  I have deleted external links when they were not used as sources for the material in the article not for the reason stated above.  Please see WP:EL for reasons why the community tends to discourage adding external links to an article.  The page does mention that the brother quit his role as co-guru.  To say that he was forced without providing a source to back it up is original research and a non-neutral point of view.  Of course, if there's a reliable source that supports the assertion that he was forced out, then someone can rewrite the article using that source.  Ditto, for the material about removing photos, it's original research unless we can find reliable sources that state it.  I'm not going to comment on my edits, anyone can check the history of the article.  Calling sourced material "propaganda" is itself pov and does not belong in the article or on the talk page.  Siddha Yoga is a lineage, perhaps not ancient, but the first sentence also serves to disambiguate which NRM she is the head of, as there is at least one other tradition that uses the same name.  I still see nothing non neutral on this page, yes it can be expanded to include material from reliable secondary sources, but that does not mean the material currently in the article is non-neutral.  BTW, I have deleted material on this page that was focussed on myself, believing that material more appropriate to my talk page.  Once again this talk page is not a forum or discussion group.TheRingess (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to see an anon conflicting with the TheRingess who is and has been a fine editor in my opinion. I would like to second the opinion that the talk page is not a forum. Obviously, there are a number of issues regarding the SYDA organization as a whole. I too wonder where Chidvilasananda is. When someone writes and publishes a qualified book on the subject, then I fully expect some factoid from it to be entered into this article. In the mean time, gossip or original research is best kept out of the article. This is the way things are done around here. Please have some patience and review the WP guidelines and heed the advice of seasoned editors. If you feel your issues are being ignored, consider asking an admin for an impartial opinion. Maybe they can explain things in a way which makes sense to you. -Vritti (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "There are a number of issues with SYDA as organisation as a whole". I am happy to see that someone at last admitted it.  This is a understatement and strangely the article is totally silent about it. Some don't desserve place in this article, like all the stuff surrounding the scandal about the garden and the artificial lake and the arabic guy who dealt with finance and has eventually been kicked out. I am more concerned about people wasting their life hanging around in manipulative organization obssessed by secrecy. And I am ill at ease when you use the same word "gossip" as SYDA does about now known problems. These problems are discussed in "leaving siddha site". There is a link to that site in the muktananda article and this fine, so why not in the Chidvilasananda article. The New Yorker article is a fine article  from a reputable paper that took information as many sources as possible (hardly gossip or academic research). The disappeance of a guru which is still asking  money  desserves a mention. This is not a service done to the yoga/tantra/shivaism...  to present on a equal footing people who are recognized as guru without history rewriting, censorship, intimidation of past adepts and those who have a very weird history. I thanks TheGoddess who has accepted many of my modifications on the article even if it has been a painful process. That would be an balanced  article with a sentence about the guru disappearance and links to the new yorker article and the "leaving siddha site".  For people not reading beyond the first few lines, if there is a mention of lineage, it must be explicitely said she is the second of the lineage. I am happy when one can add positive information about SYDA like PRASAD being recognized as genuine even if I doubt that that enough money raised by SYDA goes to PRASAD.I am not a naysayer. And sorry, I am no more an anon as you are, I am writing always from the same IP that is a private ADSL line.  When I will get back my password from wikipedia I will sign by my real name and not a fancy pseudo. And sorry about my French, I am not a english native speaker. 82.67.232.89 (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Once more, please do not use this talk page as a forum.  If you wish to add material from the New Yorker article please do so.  Also this person has not "disappeared", it would be incorrect to say so in the article.  Perhaps, a sentence might read that the frequency of her public discourses has decreased to about once a year.  Although, there's no way to verify that or verify that it will remain that way for the forseeable future or provide a context for why that figure is significant.  Regarding external links, please see WP:EL, you don't need anyone's permission to add information from reliable sources with links to those sources.  If you characterize your edits as painful, it is only because some of your edits so far have not been in accordance with Wikipedia's core content policies (at least in my opinion).  Cheers.  I hope that we can continue to discuss the article and not use this talk page as a forum or to discuss personalities.TheRingess (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent reverts

message: ````January 2nd, 2009 - Normnip-````Perhaps it is in the way a person looks at this but I see Sri Muktananda's guru, Bhagwan Nityananda, as the start of the lineage, not Sri Muktananda himself. I speculate that the confusion may come from Sri Muktananda being very well known, outgoing and extraordinarily well-spoken. His Guru, on the other hand, whom Sri Muktananda greatly loved and feared, was an ecstatic realized avadhut who rarely spoke and when he did so it often was in broken sentences and hard to understand. Even so Sri Muktananda witnessed how just one word from his guru to someone would change their life. This ability of Bhagwan Nityananda's to bless someone with just a word is commonly recognized in scriptures to be the mark of a great being. You can clarify all that is said here by reading a few of several books written by Sri Muktananda.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normnip (talk • contribs) 03:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of lineage 

message: I have checked with the Help Desk and their advice is that Swami Chidvilasananda or Gurumayi Chidvilasananda would be perfectly correct as titles for this article. Unless anyone has any serious counter-arguments, I will redirect this article to Gurumayi Chidvilasananda in a couple of days. Sardaka (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles

message: Have redirected this article to Gurumayi Chidvilasananda after consultation with Help Desk. Article title should be natural name that anyone would use if they were searching for Gurumayi.
Sardaka (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: While Gilbert's book and the Julia Roberts film are interesting, there are reliable independent sources not connected with that thread that we can use in the article.
Marta Szabo lived 10 years in the South Fallsburg ashram, as Gurumayi's secretary, so her book is known to be about that experience. "The Guru Looked Good"
Beyond that, we have primary accounts by William Rodarmor (also cited in the New Yorker, a reliable secondary source) and by Joan "Radha" Bridges - both accounts cited by Riddhi Shah on Salon.com - from leavingsiddhayoga.net.  Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good. Although I'd still say that we'd better make clear when we are repeating opinions versus when we are repeating actual allegations.  I'm not sure how useful Rodarmor's article is because it seems to deal mostly with Muktananda and allegations against him, which are already detailed on his page, and only tangential to here,  unless of course we are trying to assert guilt by association, once more something to be avoided in a biography of a living person.  Ditto with Bridges story, because her allegations are about Muktananda, and as far as I can tell not about Chidvilasananda, except perhaps to say that she believed that Chidvilasananda was an accessory to criminal activity or directly participated in criminal activity.  Both persons make some very specific allegations against Muktananda about criminal activity.   To imply that she knew about this alleged criminal activity or participated in it is very potentially defamatory material.  Looks like we're making progress.TheRingess (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, one step at a time. We have to use crystal-clear words like "alleged" to refer to people's claims. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Another question I have, is since we are presenting some of these specific allegations, shouldn't we also present any rebuttals (though they seem to be few and far between, especially since the subject does not seem to give interviews, although I do seem to recall that both Rodarmor and Harris did talk to her, and perhaps even Szabo recounts some positive conversations with her.  Since the rest of the article makes no mention whatsoever of the controversies, it seems to me, that without including one or two statements from the subject herself, where we have published accounts, might be more in line with our neutrality policies.  One might make the argument that her statements are likely to be unbiased, and this is probably so, but it hardly seems to me to be neutral to not at least publish one specific sentence from her about allegations about her specifically.  it's just a suggestion, and I'm tempted to find some time to track down a few published statements, but want to wait until the article is more fleshed out and I have a little more time.  Believe it or not, I cannot and do not spend all day editing Wikipedia.TheRingess (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Beyond Eat Pray Love

message: I think that we should keep the external links here to a minimum in order to maintain neutrality.  The New Yorker article is already copied verbatim without error or exclusion on the leaving siddha yoga website, and it's used as a reference.  So I see no upside in adding it one more time, and the downside begins to tilt the article towards a definite negative bias.  The two main links one to the "pro" site and one to the "con" site are sufficient right now.  Not to mention that one of Wikipedia's own guidelines is to keep external links to a minimum.TheRingess (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, yes, it looks balanced like that. Let's get the rest of the article into that state! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The sentence we drafted above seems to me to go beyond what the secondary sources like New Yorker actually say, so I have toned it down and provided direct quotes in evidence of wealth. We already have sufficient evidence of celebrity; so I've simply placed Linda Johnsen's recognition and acceptance of the wealth as a counterbalance. I feel the result is now brief, fair and in keeping with the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I briefly changed one sentence to help ensure that it is clear that we are stating the critics' opinions.  I also changed Johnsen's material slightly.  The original material, although quoted, weren't exact quotes, I suppose because the quotes were too lengthy to include in their entirety.  So I included a quote from the Brahmin priest.  His quote makes the point that wealthier types of yoga exist alongside the ascetic types.  So it's no longer just that Gurumayi is making wealthy people at home, it's simply another style of yoga which has never had to justify itself. I think this balances the opposite view better, since the critics seem to be saying that making money is bad in and of itself.TheRingess (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very happy with the new Johnsen quote; still worried about the sentence "Her critics claim ... renunciate." because can't find support for it as written. I'd rather remove the sentence, and just begin the paragraph with 'Linda Johnsen observed...' for which there is clear support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel the sentence doesn't accurately reflect the critics stance on the whole money/celebrity thing, then I say yes we should remove it and replace it with a sentence that accurately summarizes their position.  Without some summary sentence, we're left with just a few facts about celebrities who joined in the 80s and some financial figures, again from the 1980s.  We also include a few negative phrases, such as "sleekly modernized...".   Putting myself in the place of the critics, this seems to me to be a weak summary of their criticisms (vis a vis money, glitz, celebrities).  The Vatican is opulent and priceless and the income of the catholic church each year enormous.  Is that by itself, a criticism of the Catholic church?  Is the opulence of certain Mosques a criticism of Islam?  Or the fact that the Beatles, Donovan and Mia Farrow visited the ashram of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, by itself a criticism?  I hope I'm not making a straw man argument.  Nor am I trying to argue the other side. Long story short, (too late), I think that without a summary sentence, we are leaving it up to the reader to try to decide what the critics are saying regarding money, and that seems to me, that we are not presenting all sides fairly.  I won't argue further, if you feel that the material without the summary is good enough, then I accept your position.TheRingess (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, we have excellent support for the main parts of the sentence - people criticised the money and the celebs, and there is no doubt about the vows of renunciation either. The bit that isn't easily supported is the linking of the two. As it happens I'm not trying to argue either side, just to find clear evidence of the arguments - and it turns out that nobody citable seems actually to have stated the logic of their argument - perhaps they think it obvious. Just makes it tricky for us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totally, and I understand you aren't arguing either side.  We need to understand both sides in order to present them.TheRingess (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I just re-read Harris, and certainly her article does not support the summary statement.  But I can't see removing the summary statement without removing all the stuff about celebrities and money.  I'm tempted to remove all of it, unless we come up with a good summary statement.  I'll wait a few days to give us time to discuss it.TheRingess (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gosh, that would be a pity as the facts are correct. I will edit it very slightly, if that's all right with you, to "Associating with celebrities and running opulent ashrams could seem to contradict what is expected of a renunciate, but Linda Johnsen observed ..." This does not go beyond the evidence, and uses Johnsen to tie together the celebs and money paragraphs. How's that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:   I don't like the passive voice version.  As we said before, we are not trying to make the critics arguments for them, we are trying to present their side and the other side as well.  Let's answer the question of who is making this criticism.  It's not us, we are neutral bystanders.  You use the phrase "expected of a renunciate."  Whose expectations are these?  Once we get that ironed out, we are no longer making an argument, but presenting one.TheRingess (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. Well, we are certainly presenting arguments that are or were totally real and indeed heated out there in the big wide world: the challenge for us is that many of the clearest statements are a) primary and b) very aggressive, so we aren't keen on quoting those, I think? And the secondary sources are careful to state the evidence but to leave the (very obvious) conclusions unstated. But we have clear vows of poverty; and clear evidence of wealth; and Johnsen saying that she saw the wealth, objected herself (in the other quote), and was corrected: and (in the current quote) herself stating that wealth is acceptable. So a plain answer to "expected" is everyone who takes the vows, and everyone who knows the renunciate has taken them. The organisation too. But to go back to the wording - when we write articles we always explain things, we always paraphrase (indeed we are instructed to) and then we always supply citations to support what we explained; it is only much more occasionally that we actually quote people, and many articles don't include any literal quotations at all, and nor should they: so I feel perfectly at liberty to interpret people's views, as long as I don't go beyond the evidence. The current active-voice sentence is not bad, but I'd be happier with "Her critics believe..." at the start of it. Can we go with that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at it, "Her critics believe..." is a better statement.  Regarding the heated arguments out there in the bigger world, most are taking place on forums, blogs and other websites that don't fact check the material.  Most of them are arguably not reliable sources.  As we said somewhere near the beginning, the Leaving Siddha Yoga website has lots of negative material but much of it is not usable for Wikipedia because of the lack of fact checking.TheRingess (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Threads of criticism 

message: Statements like "Swami Chidvilasananda "is a superb singer", with a "deep, resonant contralto" voice which she uses to great effect when leading her devotees in chanting" is peacock. There are quite a few of such kind. Ssriram mt (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  advertisement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gurumayi Chidvilasananda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111113183417/http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/eat_pray_zilch_i9geyDJpY1z16Maa31JTYI/1 to http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/eat_pray_zilch_i9geyDJpY1z16Maa31JTYI/1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gurumayi Chidvilasananda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070421045938/http://www.prasad.org/about-prasad/index.php to http://www.prasad.org/about-prasad/index.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Material has been added cited directly to SYDA, which is the WP:PRIMARY source here. Policy permits limited use of primary sources to establish basic facts; it must not be used for any kind of opinion, must be strictly neutral, and must avoid any semblance of promotion in tone or content. Removing secondary sources in favour of primary is clearly moving in the wrong direction. I'll cautiously revert as far as necessary on these principles, in the hope of moving forward gracefully with any basic facts that can be recovered from the primary additions.  I note also that some accurately-reported journalism, described as tabloid, has been removed on the grounds that it can't be used alone: but it is in fact corroborated by the SYDA material. This is an instance where both primary and otherwise-wobbly secondary sources support each other and can rightly be used together. I'll therefore also cautiously restore what seems to be necessary of these mutually-supporting materials, per policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, thank you. I have just written a long and detailed request for you to discuss so I'm glad you're here. I do not agree with your cut; there are multiple sources available. I'll have a look at the form of words and see if we can find something mutually agreeable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually don't mind the sources.  However the phrase "largely vanished from public life..." has little meaning and is only an opinion.  What seems clear is that she reduced the number of public discourses available to the public at large from around 1 or 2 per month to 1 or so every 3 to 4 months which hardly counts as "vanishing".  It makes little difference as no one seems to have researched exactly how many public discourses she gave in this time frame.  Now it is moot as she is currently giving far more talks that are available through the website.  At best the period of reduced public appearances is just a short note in the biography, since neither she nor the SYDA foundation have given a reason for this, a reader of the article has no means to establish how significant this period of her life is to her biography.  Also, some of the statements previously included seem to me to be libelous and slanderous. For example to say that she is denying the allegations against Muktananda, essentially says that those allegations are true and she is covering them up.  What is acceptable for an author to speculate about is not necessarily acceptable for a Wikipedia article.  Statements like that are very non neutral.  But I am not a lawyer.TheRingess (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. But you have cut statements from the lead which are reliably cited (to scholars) in the text, and also the (undeniable) and reliably-cited statement that she and Siddha Yoga became fashionable among actors and singers; that is of course supportable by a large number of somewhat devotional books by those people, which I'd rank as somewhat primary sourcing (not primary to Gurumayi, but still). Fashionable is not the same as "popular" which I see we agree on; there is excellent evidence that Hollywood stars went in numbers to South Fallsburg during the 1990s. I think we need to mention that element of fashionability in the lead, as it was an important part of Gurumayi's life history. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, on reflection, the salient points in her life history are 1) initiation 2) taking vows 3) succession with fight 4) becoming fashionable, with multiple celebrity devotees 5) downsizing and decline. Any biography that doesn't include that sequence with all of those five steps is failing to describe the facts objectively. The MoS requires the lead to summarize the main points of the article; it should make all five of them, simply and clearly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

text:  Please excuse my delay in replying life and work do not permit me too much free time.  My primary objection to the use of the word "fashionable" is that this is an opinion not fact.  Who determines what is fashionable and what isn't?  Is there an accepted scale of fashionability?  I disagree with point #4.  It is not really important that in the 90s a handful of celebrities attended some programs.  The article cited was more about the celebrities than her.  Arguments by example are rarely helpful, but I will attempt one.  For example, multiple celebrities read the works of Eckhart Tolle?  Is that really relevant to his life story?  What is relevant is that his books are widely read and translated.  How about AdyaShanti?  The same thing can be said about him.  Regarding #5 that seems more relevant to the article about SY itself.  But both articles are heavily slanted towards a US centric point of view.  No mention is made of the ashrams in other countries nor the centers nor about the composition of devotees in general around the world.  Again there seems to be an emphasis placed on the "celebrity" devotees rather than the non celebrity devotees.  There is almost no mention of devotees around the world.  However I digress.TheRingess (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not clear why  made their "headquarters" edit when it clearly says in the third sentence of Shree Muktananda Ashram: "Shree Muktananda Ashram houses the headquarters of the SYDA Foundation, the organization that protects, preserves, and facilitates the dissemination of the Siddha Yoga teachings." Hope consensus is this change should be reverted? Ram1751 (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Okay that edit might have been hasty.   I thought that the main ashram for SY was in Ganeshpuri, however if the headquarters of the SYDA foundation is in Fallsburg (is that stated on their website?) then certainly we can revert it back.  I am not even sure why it needs to be mentioned here on her article, it is probably more important to the SY article and not just as a mention in the lead.  Happy editing!TheRingess (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary sourcing