Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi

message: A few users/IPs are regularly removing the Controversies section from the article. Everyone must understand that Wikipedia is not a place for veneration or hate speech. Article must be written in a neutral way. This is an encyclopedia, so it should cover all aspects. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: As wiki moderator Abhayakara states above, there is way too much weight given to the Satnam Singh Mann case.  It seems people are giving undue importance to this incident in order to defame.
:Why is it pertinent to this article to say that Satnam Singh Mann was later found dead?  Satnam Singh Mann's life ceases to be relvant to Mata Amritanandamayi's biography when he leaves her presence.  If his death was in some way related to Mata Amritanandamayi then it would be pertinent to her biography.  JamesRoberts (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue was discussed extensively above.  Please follow that discussion.  There was a request for a third-party moderator,  Abhayakara, who maintained that Mann's life is no longer relevant to Mata Amritanandamayi's biography after he leaves her presence.  Including his death insinuates that she had something to do with his death which is a violation of BLP. JamesRoberts (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight given to Satnam Singh Mann

message: The above is a quote from the subsection Positions.
The footnote refers to this document.
http://www.vivekananda150jayanti.org/sites/default/files/11th%20at%20Siri%20Fort%20Auditorium.pdf
The document states that Amma presented the "Inaugural Address" but doesn't name her as  President or any other officer of the committee.
Nor could I find any such declaration on the website http://www.vivekananda150jayanti.org
Clearly, she is affiliated with the organization. But is she President of the Committee? Does she hold any official post?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.75.29 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of "President Swami vivekananda's 150th birth anniversary celebration committee, India[68]" 

message: The entire section was removed by an ip with the justification that the book is self published. Is it self published? --Drajay1976 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is (or at least published by a print-on-demand publisher, which amounts to the same thing). It does not belong in this article. It gets added in periodically, and removed. The reason for adding it appears to be for the purpose of publicizing or promoting this non-notable book, in violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION. I am hesitant to semi-protect the article to prevent further occurrences, because there have been constructive edits by anonymous editors. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Amatulić thanks for the clarification about this book.  What about the undue weight given to the 2012 controversy over the death of Satnam Singh? JamesRoberts (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm here now in an administrative capacity to prevent disruption, so I won't comment on content. If you see an undue weight issue, by all means start a discussion about it, or make a bold edit and see what happens. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

text: An IP just re-added a section about the book with this article from The Indian Express as a source. I removed the content, because it was an unattributed direct copy/paste from the news article, and as I understand it, that's a WP:COPYVIO. It might be worth discussing the merits of the source, however. Grayfell (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

text: A sudden flurry of activity by a number of new users. I encourage those who feel strongly about this to (take a deep breath and) familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This guideline applies not only to Mata Amritanandamayi, but also to the people making the accusations. There's a lot to consider, but frantically reverting to your preferred content is not going to help. WP:BRD: Be bold, revert, then discuss. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, see the section below. There are various forms of protection that can be applied. The one in place now doesn't allow edits from new accounts or IP addresses to appear unless confirmed by a regular editor. This protection level can can be increased to require confirmation of all edits, even from regular editors, by an editor with 'reviewer' status. Increasing further, we can ban all new accounts and IP addresses from editing this article at all; this is called semi-protection. The most extreme form of protection is full protection, where only administrators can edit the article, and all other editors must make  requests on this talk page. That level of protection is usually reserved only for high-volume content disputes, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing this section when it shows up under the BLP guidelines that states, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I don't want to be accused of edit warring.  I guess what I'm asking is, what should my behavior be?  Myself and other regular editors of this article have been in discussions on the talk page for a while now.  And I think those discussion have been productive.  So it's frustrating when random users keep popping up to undermine the hard work of myself and others without even the courtesy of an explanation. JamesRoberts (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I have removed this section since it violates Wikipedia guidelines.  Exceptional claims must be included only with exceptional sources.  Furthermore: 
Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:
it is relevant to their notability;
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
JamesRoberts (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your thoughts.  However, consider that neither the courts nor the police nor the media have done any investigation on this matter.  There is absolutely no proof.  So far there is only a lot of "he said, she said".  Wikipedia's BLP guidelines are very strict to avoid liability.  We, as editors, have to be extremely careful when writing about contentious materials.  Why don't we let this issue play out, let they real facts come out before including material that has potential to harm the reputation of others?  I'm concerned that what you have written violates WP:BLPGOSSIP as it is merely, at this point, gossip. JamesRoberts (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Holy Hell

message: There seems to be an effort to defame Mata Amritanandamayi by adding content about a self-published book written by one of her detractors.  Furthermore, as mentioned by wiki moderator Abhayakara on this page, far too much weight is being given to the Satnam Singh controversy.  Since this page is a biography of Mata Amritanandamayi, the only content that should be included about Singh is when he actually crossed paths with her. JamesRoberts (talk)
:I have implemented pending-change protection on this article indefinitely. This is a milder form of protection than semi-protection. While semi-protection blocks edits from all new users and IP addresses, pending-changes-protection lets them make edits, but the edits don't appear in the article unless approved by a regular editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP Violations in order to defame

message: This section has to do with the finances of Mata Amritanandamayi Math.   Shouldn't this section be moved to that page?  JamesRoberts (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of Foreign Aid

message: The following facts are supported by third party sources cited in the section. 
* Gail Tredwell had leveled some allegations. 
* These allegations are controversial
* Amrtianandamayi had issued a statement in a Prayer meeting in this regard.
Is there any policy which does not permit inclusion of this information in the article? WP:BLPGOSSIP does not apply here because of obvious reasons. There are no weasel words/anonymous sources; the sources are reliable; allegations are not being presented as true, only the controversy is being presented as true and lastly, the info is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. --Drajay1976 (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the inclusion of the controversy, maintaining NPOV. Since Amritanandamayi herself has given an explanation about the controversy, I think it becomes more relevant. -- Xrie (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.  However this section may still be in violation of WP:BLPCRIME.  Which states:
"For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." JamesRoberts (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree.  I think WP:BLPCRIME does apply.  Mata Amritananadamayi is relatively unknown for the purposes of the english-language wikipedia.  This section clearly implies that she has been accused of crimes even though no charges--let alone convictions--have been filed.  Drajay1976, we seem to have reached an impasse.  How would you feel about the two of us appealing for third-party help from Wikipedia?  JamesRoberts (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: From Mata Amritanandamayi#Awards and honours, it is clear that Mata Amritanandamayi is a well known person, so I respectfully disagree with you too. (She is the recipient of  Gandhi-King Award for Non-Violence. That brings repute.) I guess thrid-party mediation can be a way out of this impasse. --Drajay1976 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Amritanandamayi is a known figure in both India and abroad. I wouldn't agree to the statement that she is relatively unknown for the purpose of English Wikipedia, in which case this very article would not have existed for notability issues. -- Xrie (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations by Gail Tredwell

message: FYI, there's a discussion at BLPN, here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Biographies of living persons noticeboard

message: :::In my opinion, the information which must be included in the section in question are the following. 
:::*Outline of the major allegations in the book. These are 1) alleged financial irregularities 2) alleged physical abuse by Amritanandamayi & 3) the allegations about the sexual abuse. These cannot be sourced from Gail's book as it is alleged to be self published. Each of the allegation must have at least two supporting independent third party source as an inline citation. 
:::*The fact that there is no investigation in this matter must be included. Possibility of including information on 1) petitions filed to initiate criminal investigation into this issue & 2) court cases against content in printmedia, visual media and social media may be explored. 
:::*The denial by Amritanandamayi (possibly with her quote) and the denial by the Ashram should be included prominently. The fact that the Ashram is exploring the possibility of filing a defamation case should also be mentioned. 
:::*The controversy surrounding the matter should be mentioned very briefly. There is no need to quote people, but the fact that leading politicians have commented on the issue must be included. 
:::*Any suggestions? --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The information to be included

message: i just want some controversies arises recently
Ishaqt (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2014 

message: Amritanandamayi was chosen as one among the 50 Powerful Women Religious Leaders by Huffingtonpost . This requires mention in Mata Amritanandamayi#Awards and honours. Request Semi Protected Edit. 
The text proposed to be added is
*2014, chosen as one among the 50 most powerful women religious leaders by Huffingtonpost. --Drajay1976 (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2014

message: The formal mediation case - Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mata Amritanandamayi - has concluded, and I've added the paragraph agreed in this mediation, which relates to allegations made by Gail Tredwell. PhilKnight (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal mediation 

message: The article fails to mention that her followers call her Ammachi. Is there no reference for this in a reliable source? David Spector (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate name "Ammachi" missing from article 

message: The article could mention that there are other female gurus named "Amma", such as Amma Sri Karunamayi (who is "revered in India as an embodiment of Divine Motherly Love" according to her biography). It could compare the philosophies and teachings of these various heart-oriented leaders. David Spector (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other "Ammas" 

message: Her name includes the honorific title, Sri.   Thus, her full name would be Sri Mata Amritanandamayi Devi. 
I wonder if this could be noted somewhere?   Amma.org and Amritapuri.org  both include the "Sri". 
63.92.241.249 (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't use honorifics to refer to people. See WP:HONORIFIC. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sri  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mata Amritanandamayi. 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/20100523092656/http://www.millenniumpeacesummit.com/wc_awards.html to http://www.millenniumpeacesummit.com/wc_awards.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120628173411/http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/index.cfm?n=1&sn=8 to http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/index.cfm?n=1&sn=8
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) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mata Amritanandamayi. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/66OzhMzGa?url=http://www.tehelka.com/story_main31.asp?filename=Ne300607Business_Of_the.asp to http://www.tehelka.com/story_main31.asp?filename=Ne300607Business_Of_the.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.tehelka.com/story_main31.asp?filename=Ne300607The_Lakshmi.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303205437/http://www.vivekananda150jayanti.org/sites/default/files/11th%20at%20Siri%20Fort%20Auditorium.pdf to http://www.vivekananda150jayanti.org/sites/default/files/11th%20at%20Siri%20Fort%20Auditorium.pdf
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) 18:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mata Amritanandamayi. 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/20100508191638/http://archives.amritapuri.org/news/2006/601viswasanthi.php to http://archives.amritapuri.org/news/2006/601viswasanthi.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) 20:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion