Talk:Art of Living Foundation/Archive 1

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

art of living
This article presents a distorted picture. It emphasises the criticism, instead of contributions. While i agree an article should not be an advertisement for the organization, as stated by another critic, stating only the criticism, without stating the benifits paints a distorted picture. For example it criticises exaggerated claims without substaitiating the "claims" or people's experiences themselves.

Sudarshan kriya is not an aincient yogic breathing technique....It is a technique that was developed by sri sri ravi shankar based on his knowledge of yoga. There is a big difference between the two statements. Sk has not been patented, but rather it has been registered as a trademark with USPTO. While technically it is not patented, the organization recieves rights that are similar....i.e in india people se the process as patenting.

While I understand there will always be critics and supporters, wikipedia is not a place for an edit war. I have seperated the information and criticism section. Editors, please maintian this seperation to provide balance between opposing viewpoints.

I have done the art of living course, and have indeed seen immense benifits in my health. Bmitra 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC) bmitra

There is a link to a page that claims to give instructions on how to do Sudharshan Kriya. I have actually taken the course - the instructions on that page are not accurate.

the article in its current form does not conform to the guide line: "wikipedia is not a soap-box". the article's content is mainly advocacy, self-promotion, and advertising for the "Art of Living" group and its seminars and other activities. the article should deal with the subject in a more critical manner.

'''Somebody is giving wrong information about The Art Of Living Foundation and are misleading People. I am doing Sudharshan Kriya from past 4 years and practicising it regularly. I have seen remarkable changes in my daily life. Please do not post / criticise false information about Art Of Living Foundation.'''.

 Let us be good, promote good people, organisations instead of spreading false critcisms on a non profit philanthropic organisation ````--- Jaimalleshk

--

I have done the course & the technique as described in the newspaper article is incoorect. Regards --

I removed the following clause from the article: Independent research, published in international journals such as the Journal of Affective Disorders, Biological Psychology, Physiological Pharmacology, and others, suggests that the Sudarshan Kriya has many mental and physical health benefits, including significant relief from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder and a possible increase in the body's resistance to cancer.

Please include actual links to the research. I couldn't find it through a perusal of PubMed. Unless there are actual links to the appropriate articles in those journals, this sentence is not appropriate for Wikipedia.--Thalia42 08:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the website clearly mentions published research http://www.aolresearch.org/pubresearch.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.134.235.194 (talk • contribs) 14:13, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC).

--

yeah i have done the part 1 course of the AOL and sometimes i don't know what to think. sri sri ravi shankar and his AOL could possibly bea huge scam or the man who is changing the world, the new jesus...

---> '''Who ever you are - Your brain either has stopped working or you never had one.. Before accusing the organization of being a scam you should have done your homework. ''' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.134.235.194 (talk • contribs) 14:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC).

god bless you!

this article contains many unverified claims and generally appears to be praising AOLF and Ravishankar instead of providing impartial information. __________ I do not think the page should be merged with the survey of Hindu organisations. Even though AOL started from India, it does not preach any religion - Not chistianity, not hinduism, nothing. Even though generally assumed to be religious organisation AOL is very clearly a spritual organisation that claims no alliance with any religion in the world. However, I agree that the page on AOL survey should be merged into the main page for AOL as the AOL survey page is a skeleton page with little or no information.

i have done AOL basic cource one year back and doing daily sudershan kriya and related pranayam. i was also going to attend weekly follow ups on sundays.

The regular practice of kriya has improved my health remarkably. i have overcome consipation problem, frequent cold problem, depression etc.

I do not have unnecessary fear. my day-to day interpersonl skills are greatly improved. i am not getting angree on hot issues and solve them stratagically. this is possible only because of sri sri guruji. jai gurudev

npov tag
_____________ Lets try and resolve those issues. Maybe if you list some points that you think are raise concerns of neutrality, we can either delete or find reliable sources for the same. 71.202.141.40 00:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many NPOV issues that need to be resolved in this article. The lack of cites is evidence enough of this. --Mattarata 02:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Section =Founder: Sri Sri Ravishankar= contains a sentence that needs to be cited. Section =Development Programmes= also contains a secntence that needs to be cited, and the last sentence in that section should also probably be cited. Section ==International Association for Human Values (IAHV)== in the last sentence of the first paragraph should maybe be cited. Fixing these few things will be enough to remove the tag. Also 71.202.141.40 you should register. --Mattarata 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have some more issues. The very first section "Mission" claims that AOL is a not-for-profit organization, which is disputed. Note that I am not decrying the "for-profit" stance, but an organization, which is clearly in the business of making money should not claim "not-for-profit" status. I challenge the poster to support his/her claim with audited financial statement of the organization. During my seven years stay with AOL, I did not see any. Mere registering as "not for profit" does not actually make an organization "not for profit". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freefall68 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 August, 2006 (UTC).

Thats cool. I think I should be able to help cite sources for a few of these. Maybe in a day or two, Ill update the page with sources. Karishma Anand 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I started trying to find sources, and it seems like some of the statistics have been taken off the AOL website. I'm guessing other things have been too, and this is probably why it's very NPOV.--Alexandermiller 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I was suppose to revert with sources. I need to get this information from someone and it is taking longer than expected. Karishma Anand 04:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=networkforgood&ein=77-0240101 does this help ? kalpesh soni sept 20


 * Yes, that is a good link to include as a reference. It asserts their not-for-profit status and provides factual details about programs --Mattarata 16:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the 'for profit' and 'non profit' distinction is actually dependent on how/under which section an organisation is registered. I think it has very little to do with whether you and I perceive it to be non profit. Would appreciate if someone else can clarify this issue also. Thanks! Also how to dela with the npov tag? I have tried to cite additional sources, but need to know how what else to do to remove the npove tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.139.61 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 August, 2006 (UTC).


 * If the organization is listed as a Non-profit corporation in any state in the US, then it can be considered a non-profit in the US. More globally, organizations may be listed as NGO or Non-govermental organizations, though it has been stated that "many NGOs in developing countries provide community services, but do so specifically for personal profit, unlike more developed economies where there are functional tax systems and incentives to drive the Non-Profit component. It would be quite a misnomer to thus call some of these organizations non-profits)." So calling Art Of Living a non-proft will probably depend on where specifically the organization is centrally administered and what the laws of that country are, or how the organization is viewed from the perspective of a world body such as the UN or something. Perhaps in the interim the phrase can be removed until further research is done?--Mattarata 22:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In Norway, AoL (I am also making the case of spelling it AoL and AOLF, to avoid confusion with America OnLine - although I don´t know if this is the official way) is registered as a charitable, non-profit organization by the Tax Office (Skattedirektoratet): List of volunteer, charitable organizations in Norway This means the organization is following more stricter rules than other organizations, may be audited at random (a process it already cleared a few years back without much more problems than a medium-sized backlog, nothing abnormal - especially for a volunteer organisation). Due to this status with the government, people donating to specific humanitarian projects through AOLF-Norway will actually get a tax-refund. AOLF-Norway have annual meetings as a member-organization (which are also governed by specific laws), with memberships open to all that have taken the part 1 course, and, the Board is voted in a democratic process following common practices in membership organizations. At the time of the annual meeting, which is even open to non-members and speaking permission usually granted, the accounting for the year is being reviewed, as well as the totals for the previous year. People who are in process of getting paid for full-time work in AoL, is reviewed, like in any charitable organization, that the income only covers a little more than personal expenses and is always way below market salaries and kept minimal. There must be heavy reasons for anyone to become a full-timer: they are very dedicated, usually covering many countries or working on some specific projects, like aiding youth. Their work must usually generate their funds, be crucial for the organisation, or their specific projects be funded by some other agency. So IMHO the organization deserves to be called non-profit. The structure in every country can be a bit different, to better suit each country´s laws and regulations. Every country, however, is run on common principles of welfare, humanitarian and educational work, based on volunteerism and non-profit principles. So the foundation (pun intended) is really not that much different country-to-country (otherwise it would all be a mess). I have also benefited from doing Sudarshan Kriya regularly and enjoy the benefits and renwed perspectives and health in my personal day-to-day life. It is entertaining, watching people getting frustrated easily over small matters, and by gratitude over saving my own mind, I wish to contribute to helping making people good leaders all over the world, and become less stressed in the process :-) I hope this information can be of help, and you know where I am coming from :-) Thank you for contributing to a more objective and encyclopedic article (which is in everyone´s interest here)!


 * Is there a citation for "one of the world's largest volunteer based non-governmental organizations", or even a definition of volunteer-based or volunteers ? According to, AOLF has only 101-500 volunteers; although this may be true only for the US chapter. Also, the claim "largest simultaneous meditation that the world has seen till date" is uncited, and perhaps unverifiable. --Abecedare 02 October 2006.


 * Request removel of the NPOV tag. I have re-edited the article so that (1) it clearly sperates verifiable facts from claim (hope I caught most of these!) (2) moved (or deleted) the discussion of SSR's non-AOL activities to more appropriate AOL pages. 74.135.167.85 19:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Patents section had a reference to the Sudarshan Kruya patent application that has now been removed. I have searched USPTO dbs for the patent and came up with nothing. Does anyone know why and when the reference was removed? Is there a citation available for the patent claim? Amritinder 07:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Amritinder

As there have been no NPOV objections or updates for several months, I will remove the NPOV tag. CSWarren 01:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikified
I added some references, all of the fact tags have been cleared from the article. I'm also tossing the wikify tag, the formatting seems to be good now. Not sure aobut the NPOV thing myself :/  T.K.   TALK  18:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole article is [obviously] written by a devotee of Mr. Shankar [why call him Sri Sri Sri???] to deify this man who now claims to be "His Holiness"!

Amritinder's remarks on Patent registration seems to insinuate that USPTO is the only reference for patents.. Last time I cam by, I though that wikipdeia is global in nature and that other countries also have patent registries....

Some comments by other posters also seem to highlight the US view of things as the wikipedia way of stating...

Research
I would like to point out to http://www.aolresearch.org where a lot of published research is available. - Bharat Iyer

This isn't actually research, rather claims.... Sfacets 11:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the website clearly mentions published research http://www.aolresearch.org/pubresearch.html Sandip —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.134.235.194 (talk • contribs) 14:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC).

Progress
I removed this section, since it's material overlapped and was basically a subset of what is discussed in the Development section. Any other ideas for organizing/cleaning the page appreciated.

IAHV
Wikipedia has a page for International Association for Human Values. So either that page should be merged with this one; or the detailed discussion of IAHV's organization, programs, and achievements removed from here. I invite suggestions before I pick the 2nd option.

'''IAHV is a great Organisation, and the page should be built to a great extent. Who ever has written above comment about removing IAHV is not right and he should undergo transformation in comprehension.'''

- I had just edited some edits by 64.136.146.197 and wanted to present my reasons:
 * AOLF, unlike WHO, UNICEF, UNESCO etc, is not a UN organization. It (like 2869 others ) is only in a consultative relation with ECOSOC, which is a UN body
 * Thanks for adding the Sudarshan Kriya related studies. I have moved the references to the relevant section. It would help if someone could format them to be compliant with Wikipedia's standards and provide links
 * The criticism of SK's effectiveness is not related to claims of its benefits per se, but rather some pseudo-scientific claims of its effectiveness unsupported by the cited studies.
 * Your translation of "Jai Gurudev" is superior. I have removed the non-literal translations though, since these are a matter of point-of-view. Abecedare 22:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

'''IAHV page should not be removed but extended to large extent. A great Organisation intended to help Humans irrespective of race, religion, etc should be encouraged and published in a better way. -- Jaimalleshk'''

Edit war?
There seems to be some kind of edit war here. Could someone neutral and familiar with the subject please sort it out? Shalom Hello 08:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly I don't sense an edit war on this page; just a small but regular stream of drive by editors (usually IPs/brand new accounts) who delete some facts or sections. Of course, more eyes on the page are always useful! Abecedare 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is some edit war. People who don't know anything about the AOLF are giving wrong information. Before making any changes they have to find out the reality and see the work done by Art of Living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrkaol (talk • contribs)


 * I have taken various Art of Living courses on many occasions, but it is not necessary to "see the work done by Art of Living" to make changes to the Wikipedia article. In fact, I believe Wikipedia guidelines discourage against writing from personal experiences, but rather encourage reliable third-party published sources. --Evil1987 17:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

''' Somebody is giving wrong information about Art Of Living which is a Great non profit orientated philanthrophist organisation in the World. I have done sudharshan kriya and and practising it from past 4 years. I have seen remarkable changes in life. The Criticisms done in the page should be removed and are false.'''

''' Dear all wikipedians, let us stop pulling legs of people who intend to do good to our world. We should always appreciate good work done ( for what Art Of Living has done ). Let us not be jealousy about Art Of Living appreciate the good work done.'''-- Jaimalleshk


 * Please see WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. Also you can sign your comments on talk pages by appending four tildas ( ~ ) at the end of your message, and try to avoid using all bolds since that is akin to shouting and considered impolite. Thanks. Abecedare 04:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: bringing back the criticism section
I came to this article because I just met a teacher of Art of Living and was looking for some unbiased information about it. After reading a few lines and noticing the absence of a "Criticisms" section, it became clear to me that wasn't what I was getting, which has made me now highly suspicious of the purity of the movement.

I understand that there are some folks here who are very passionate about AOL and hold it in tremendously high esteem. But you must understand that for every message, no matter how true, there will always be naysayers. And if you make effort to silence them, and to strike their views from representation--especially on Wikipedia--all you do is make yourselves and your movement look like just another group of totalitarian religious fanatics.

I've returned the "Criticisms" section to the article. Please, out of respect for AOL (and hopefully for Wikipedia), let it stand.

Floorsheim 21:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The criticism section is not up to snuff. Many of the criticisms do not attribute precisely who has made the criticism. All criticism must be sourced, it must not be a summary of what a Wikipedia editor thinks or has heard about. I've tagged the problems for now, but uncited criticism will eventually be removed. We don't get to "read between the lines" or repeat anonymous disparagement. IPSOS (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly some citations are in order. In the interest of the article and the overall accuracy of Wikipedia, let's see what we can do to track some of those down instead of just removing them.  Regardless, already there is significant material in the Criticisms section that is sourced and cited.  So the section as a whole should clearly not be scrapped.  Also, I see many strong claims, especially in the Courses section, about the effectiveness of SK that are either uncited or cited by primary sources, e.g., "The Art of Living Course gives participants the practical knowledge and techniques to unlock their deepest potential and bring fullness to life." (unsourced)  Certainly, the same standard should be applied to them.  In fact, that sentence is clearly POV (no matter how much anyone here believes it to be true--and for all I know it is), so even if it were sourced it should be reworked into NPOV format.  --Floorsheim 18:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I found a pretty good source for the Criticism section.  Most of what was there before can come back, I think, and maybe a bit more.  I won't be able to get to fixing it until next week, but if anyone else wants to chip in, here is the link: Yunus News: How Genuine is Sri Sri Ravi Shankar  --Floorsheim 01:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I came to find out information about this group as it was recommended by a co-worker. Unfortunately I have an immediate distrust of a group that makes such extravagant claims to helping people's lives but which silences criticism.  Why was the criticism section deleted again recently?  I would like some unbiased informations pro's and con's. 209.157.254.99 (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Courses section

 * The courses section has been updated and links to MSNBC and Fox News have been added.

Floorsheim, most of the information in the criticism section has no factual evidence and really needs to be updated and kept nuetral. I hope you can do that, Thanks NarenmsNarenms 06:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, some of the information presented in the criticism section has no factual evidence of which either you or I is aware. This does not mean the evidence does not exist.  I will do some looking hopefully within the next couple of days.  I would appreciate it if you and IPSOS would do the same despite beliefs you may have (which may be correct beliefs) concerning whether the information is true or not.  Thanks for your work on the Courses section.  Similar attention is required in the Service Projects section, e.g., "The Art of Living Foundation is a global service project that has made an extraordinary impact on local communities and the world family." (unsourced)  The only two sources for the entire section are primary.  Also, in the Mission Statement section, I followed the link it cites.  The page that comes up says nothing about AOLF's mission statement.  Furthermore, the wording, "A non-denominational, educational and humanitarian non-profit organization, The Art of Living Foundation (AOLF)'s mission statement..." is improper even if the citation said that.  I don't object to having a primary source citation for what AOLF's mission statement is (others may disagree), but I do object to having a primary source citation for describing it as "non-denominational, educational, humanitarian, and non-profit" --Floorsheim 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 23:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)