Talk:Gurumayi Chidvilasananda/Archive 1

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Siddha Yoga description
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)

MahaDave 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hindu?
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)


 * 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)

On the subject of whether Gurumayi is a Hindu, I have emailed info@SY to see what they have to say on the question. Could take a while, though. Sardaka 08:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Still having trouble with this word Hindu. Since it could take ages to get an answer from SY info, I thought I'd delete the word Hindu in the meantime, since we could easily put it back in the EXTREMELY unlikely event that SY confirms that Gurumayi is officially a Hindu guru.

Someone then put the word Hindu back in the text. It's hardly the end of the world, but could we perhaps agree to drop the word Hindu until we get confirmation that Gurumayi officially describes herself as a Hindu? After all, the chances of that happening would be about a zillion to one, and in the meantime we are probably giving misleading info to anyone who reads the article.

Sardaka 10:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

I deleted the second sentence in the opening paragraph because it was only duplicating the info that comes later, and rewrote the first sentence because it was rather unclear (no offence).

Sardaka 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the word 'Indian' is the first adjective in the article. That is a fact about her, but not a very significant one in light of all of her achievements. I'd suggest mentioning it later in the article, if at all. I think the phrase 'she was born in Mumbai, India' says this more efficiently and clearly than 'is an Indian' and the later 'she came from Mumbai'. I was trying to make a reasonable compromise on the Hindu question when I wrote that she was born to a Hindu family. Also, She is spiritual leader of hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. Can we get this in there somewhere? MahaDave 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Her specific age when she met Muktananda
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)

Current Leader
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)
 * 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)

Guru?
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)
 * 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)


 * Then let's stop removing the word Hindu as well, which is equally ridiculous impractical. IPSOS (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Kaśmir Śaivism
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Gurumayi - title or name?
Is Gurumayi a title or a name? IPSOS (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

monkhood
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)
 * 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)

Kashmir Shaivism
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).

I like your suggestions regarding the wording and I suggest that you go ahead and correct the grammar. Personally, I'm not sure that we can say that Gurumayi has never called SY a Kashmir Shaivite lineage, as this implies access to knowledge a casual reader might not have. In other words, how would a reader verify that.

To me the real objective here seems to be to come up with an accurate, brief description of SY (for the introduction of both articles only, since the real meat of the article should be detailed enough for a casual reader to gain a beginning understanding).

In my opinion, calling SY a "spiritual organization" is too vague to be helpful, although one can argue that the rest of the article would explain that meaning.

I also don't like referring to the practices/tenets of SY as "Indian yogic practices" because that is also not very useful. After all, most if not all of the world's religions have substantial adherents in India. So which of those many denominations are we really referring to?

Here's a brief quote from the SY web site:

"The Siddha Yoga teachings spring from the timeless scriptural traditions of Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta, as well as from the experience of the enlightened Siddha masters.".

In my opinion this supports the statement that Siddha Yoga is not only a branch of Hinduism, but is closely related to Kashmir Shaivism.

However I realize that statement says the teachings spring from those two traditions and doesn't explicitly state that Siddha Yoga is a school of Kashmir Shaivism.

My personal suggestion is that we remove our focus on the word Hindu and put it on the process of createing together, a description that we all feel is accurate, neutral, useful and supported by the available literature.

Any ideas?

I am copying this discussion to the SY page since it is relevant there as well.

TheRingess (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said the other day, the management at Fallsburg made it quite clear that SY is not Hindu, so why do people insist on labeling it as such? Also, to say that it is Kashmir Shaivism is overstating the case; the literature says that SY is related to KS and vedanta, so it is misleading and inaccurate to make a broad statement that SY is KS.

Sardaka 09:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Items in need of editing
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)

That's Why
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)

Photo
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)

Photo again
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)

Photo again
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)


 * 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)

This article is completely one-sided. I spent one month in 1992 at the NY ashram and things looked very strange to me. I came across the site "leaving SYDA foundation" and it explains in detail what a outside person could not see. Also this guru has disappeared for years. That deserves a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.232.89 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

A a member of the wikipedia community, I wish that the ringess ceases to delete every honest discussion. 82.67.232.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC).
 * 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)

Recent reverts
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 ." 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 about the whereabouts of Chidvilasananda and Muktananda. Many sites. 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)

I have reinstated the sentence about the PRASAD project and reworded it. According to their website, the PRASAD project's activities date to the 70's but was incorporated in the US in 1992, so sentence is now more accurate.TheRingess (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The external links have been deleted again and again under false pretenses. For example, http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/SYDA-Yoga/leave.txt because it, it was said, it did not pertained to the whereabouts of Chidvilasananda when the page mentions the Gurumayi 81 times. link to www.leavingsiddhayoga.net have been deleted again and again. Mention of her physical disappearance has been deleted when SYDA still gets money on her name using tapes from her recorded in unknown times. The page does not say that gurumayi brother has been forcefully removed as co-successor of Muktananda and that every photo of him has disappeared from SYDA controlled books and places. The wikipedia should not be an accomplice of history rewriting. TheRingess has deleted over and over during years material added by many people that dissents with the article that is an apology of Chidvilasananda without any link to alternative opinion. One cannot delete a npov after a few hours, when one or two persons delete again and again the same links added by many different people. There is a major, recurrent npov problem on this page. Also TheRingess deletes material from the present discussion page and then pretends there is no dissension and no needs for a npov. Finally, the mention of a lineage lets think Chidvilasananda is the heir of an old tradition for someone who does not got past the first few lines. There is certainly a lot of work to do on this page with the light of information external to the SYDA propaganda. Please review the article history to get a sense of how this page is managed. 82.67.232.89 (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * "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)
 * 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)

Start of lineage
````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)

Titles
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)

Moved
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)

Eat Pray Love
I think the Salon and NY Post sources are justification enough for mentioning the association with Eat Pray Love. In adding that information, I did not specifically describe the sexual abuse scandals described by Salon, or the cult associations mentioned by the Post, but I have no real opinion (don't feel informed enough) on whether any of that information should be included here. I would certainly hope that if it's being omitted, there are good reasons for omitting it, and not simply an interest in promoting this person and presenting her in a positive light. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. The question of what we should include ought to be answered by doing our best to tell the reported truth in a fair and balanced way, without giving offence or worse. The persistent allegations of celebrity association are I suggest of similar kind to the Eat Pray Love thread - throwing a different light on G; and the split with G's brother - already reported in the Siddha Yoga article - are also, I suggest, highly relevant to any biography of G, because it contradicts the projected image: so (at the risk of slight overlap) I think the story needs to be summarized briefly on G's article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks a bit better. Since Gilbert never mentioned the guru, and may have no desire to be associated with Siddha Yoga (see mention of controversies above), we may be straying once again into potentially libelous material not against the subject, but against Gilbert herself.  It probably isn't significant, but I can imagine why Gilbert might not want to be associated with this person, and her organization. Perhaps, someone with a little more familiarity with libel issues might weigh in.TheRingess (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still have a slight issue with the following snippet..."although both sources said the book and film did not reflect various controversies surrounding Chidvilasananda and the Siddha Yoga organization. Gilbert has not identified by name the real-life ashram and guru featured in the book." As the first part of the sentence reads, the sources are alleging that Chidvilasananda is the guru mentioned in the book, and we do later mention that Gilbert herself has not confirmed this.  So if the Guru mentioned in Eat, Pray, Love is her, then the sentence is somewhat accurate, if it isn't her, then the second sentence makes no sense, in other words, why would the book mention controversies surrounding someone who isn't even mentioned in the book.  I think I will strike this sentence, because we can't just say that the sources are alleging something, and then write a sentence that only makes sense if the allegations are true (which we have no way of knowing).  It would be much better anyway to come up with some facts about the controversies.TheRingess (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're getting a little too complicated here. All the sentence does at the moment is make it clear that neither WP nor anyone else is alleging that Gilbert said she was writing about Gurumayi. That carries no risk, indeed it removes one; but others - in the references (which should not be removed) do make the connection, which is a relevant fact: and perhaps we should say so.Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's agree to disagree regarding whether or not I'm making things too complicated, let's keep the discussion about the material and not about each other. I deleted only that snippet and left in everything else.  As I mentioned, the snippet is not part of any quote, seems to be a summary of the material, and only makes sense if the allegations are true (which if they were true, we wouldn't need the word alleged, it simply would be true), and no sense if the allegations are incorrect.  In other words, is it really relevant that Gilbert did not write about someone she didn't even know?TheRingess (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do beg your pardon - it wasn't an ad hominem remark, I simply meant that the reasoning as written above seemed more complex than the problem at that moment. But I think I must have misunderstood the status, as it seems you had already snipped the not-needed text by the time I saw it, and I am perfectly happy with the sentence as it is now - no doubt your reasoning was correct with the text before you snipped, but as that's now history I'm not going to look at it. Let's work on the other sentences that we would all like to add. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No harm no foul. I'm also tempted to change the word alleged to speculated.  Seems more appropriate for the sentence.TheRingess (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself and say that my edits have never been motivated by wanting to present this person in a positive light. In my edits I have attempted to present the facts that I am familiar with in as neutral way as possible.  I think we should refrain from speculating about why the article is the way it is, and simply concentrate on improving it.TheRingess (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Let's do our best to "tell the story like it is". Each part of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason I had (somewhat awkwardly) included the part about the controversies is because both articles emphasized that the book presented the guru/ashram in a more positive light despite the real-life accusations that the guru is a sexual abuser and the ashram is a cult, respectively. Both articles focused on the discrepancies between the real and the fictionalized versions, while I think the current text used here misrepresents them as just pointing out that the awesome, idealized guru from the book and movie was based on this particular guru, implying that she's just as awesome. So I don't think the current text here is faithful to what the sources say. But it's not a hill I'm going to die on if others disagree. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmm, that's right. What we need to do is to find and use sources such as these to make it clear, politely but firmly, what the discrepancies are, and that there are (therefore) two versions in existence, not only to do with the film but also about the alleged abuse, the split between G and her brother, and the alleged recruitment of celebrities. We have more or less covered the Eat Pray Love bit, but as you say without biting the bullet.


 * The crucial thing we have to do to the article is to make it clear that the official picture is one side, and that there is another - and WP is not identified with either of them. At the moment it looks as if WP takes the official side, which it mustn't. I've drafted a sentence on celebrities, please feel free to rework and comment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw the new sentence. Looks good, and neutral and well sourced.  As it reads it looks like just an interesting factoid, but not really that relevant.  I'm not contesting its inclusion, just saying that in order to improve the article further, we need to add some more well referenced material, preferably from the celebrities mentioned, about why they joined, their level of involvement, any reasons they might have had for leaving, etc.TheRingess (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My point is still thus. Gilbert was the one who visited the ashram, she knows which ashram she visited, yet hasn't officially stated which one she did.  If it wasn't a siddha yoga ashram, then the book has nothing to do with subject of the article, if it was, then of course the book and movie present an idealized view.  Gilbert might not have known about the controversies, or she might have and not written about those controversies.  The book as I understand, was more about Gilbert's own experiences, and not necessarily about the histories and details of the religion she visited.  So far we have only speculation from several sources (however they weren't at the ashram while Gilbert was, so they could possibly be wrong) that Gurumayi and SY were the ones spoken of in the book.  Now we seem to be going further and accepting the speculation as truth, and therefore offering speculation as to why Gilbert portrayed this particular person in a certain light.  We seem to be leaning toward a nefarious interpretation, i.e. Gilbert didn't mention it because she's part of a cover up, or something.  A guilt by association type argument, Gilbert was really writing about Gurumayi, she didn't write about the controversy, therefore the book and movie are cover ups.  As I mentioned before, even if the person in the book was really Chidvilasananda, we have no way of knowing why Gilbert wrote what she wrote.  So further speculation about speculation seems inappropriate for a Wikipedia biography.  Just my 2 cents, based on my understanding of Wikipedia's policies and such.TheRingess (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Beyond Eat Pray Love
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Factual content of the article
As the article reads I believe that most of it has been pared down to only non-disputed facts.

I would an opinion from other editors about the biographical details still left.


 * 1) Of those details, which facts are potentially disputed?
 * 2) Of the present material, leaving off the argument that some crucial viewpoints have been omitted, which material still presents a non-neutral viewpoint.

Of course, I'd like to discuss the disputed facts so that we can either remove them or find additional secondary sources to establish verifiability. If any language is still not strictly neutral, I'd like it to be cleaned up so as to be non-neutral.

Thanks. TheRingess (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up the ref to Meditation Revolution. The article now (item 1) contains nothing contentious so I've removed the tag. That just leaves (item 2), errors of omission (or if bare facts are included, of explanation), I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Found a source we could use to introduce the celebrity paragraph: "...the Siddha Yoga Foundation. It's a spiritual movement which seems to appeal particularly to the rich, successful and emotionally insecure" Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good start, seems to be an opinion, so can we find another source that states an opposite opinion, to ensure that we are presenting all valid opinions and viewpoints equally? Maybe it has some appeal to non celebrities. I believe a previously mentioned article quoted some estimated number of devotees at 70,000 or so (forget which one), surely not all 70,000 are rich, successful and emotionally insecure.  I think that would hardly describe most of the latin american devotees as well as the indian devotees as well as the non wealthy american devotees (just my opinion, but we need a published opinion to balance this out).  I'm not sure we should leave it in without a balanced viewpoint, since they don't say how they gathered their data in order to arrive at their conclusion (but it would be a fact then, not opinion, if they published their research).TheRingess (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I just added a link to a book that could serve as a reliable source for alternate viewpoints. It's Daughters of the Goddess, by Linda Johnsen.  I believe I have a copy somewhere but can't find it right now.   It contains a rather lengthy, well researched chapter about Gurumayi, written from the perspective of an interested outsider, and if memory serves tends to remain neutral on things that are not facts.  I suggest that we can use it, hopefully to provide a balanced viewpoint.  If I can't find it today, I might order a copy.  I believe that it should be as reliable source as any, and might provide some more factual data to flesh out the sparse biography.  It looks like the entire chapter is already online in google books, so no need to buy another copy just yet.TheRingess (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a well-written and very useful source. I've been (WP:BOLD) and fleshed out the 'celebrity' para with the Guardian and two quotes from Linda Johnsen - balance is starting to come. Hope you like it. I'll scan Johnsen and other sources for a bit more on the positive side. Would also like to put in a Johnsen quote on Gurumayi's fine contralto singing - certainly true from the recordings. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Kind of hate to say this, I think the article is definitely leaning towards non-neutrality now. Please help me out, I'm tired and suffering from a cold, but I'm failing to understand what controversy we are attempting to present.   Are we trying to show that rich and successful devotees are taken advantage of?  Or are they simply treated differently?  Are celebrities and/or rich people used to recruit and/or take advantage of other devotees?  Are devotees who are not so rich or successful treated in a disrespectful manner?  Are the donation misspent?  Or am I simply misunderstanding it entirely.  I am trying to shorten my replies in order to full understand the controversy/criticism that we are trying to document.  I would suggest that if any of the above statements accurately represent the controversy, then it seems to me that Szabos book is a much better source since it seems highly unlikely that the author of the LuLu article would have information she didn't.  I merely ask this, because it seems to me, that as with the celebrity information, the fact that some of her devotees are rich (I leave off the adjective most, because a single opinion piece does not establish that as a fact) is not really a criticism by itself (again only my opinion).TheRingess (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The accusation is surely that since 'no man can serve God and Mammon' (quite a well sourced quote, that one) - either an organisation is doing all it can for spiritual ends, or it is trying to make itself rich. 'Leaving Siddha Yoga' definitely thinks it's Mammon, and that the effort expended by the organization to woo celebrities is intended to bring money, fame and so more followers (and more money). Several of the quotes including those that just got hidden for a moment point as strongly as journalists and publishers dare at that belief. Plenty of the probably-unprintable material on LSY says so a great deal more bluntly. If you're not well this week, there's no hurry, we can discuss next week, but I am quite clear that this is a central point. Sorry if I was being too cautiously oblique about it!


 * As for non-neutrality, may I suggest that the balance here is not between a line or two on celeb or non-celeb; it's between the (very well sourced) claims of favoritism towards celebrity on the one hand, and the story about the Siddha Yoga Succession, Shaktipat, etc on the other. Since the latter occupies pride of place at the head of the article, it is surely fine to have a few lines of counterbalance a bit further down - indeed, it's unbalanced without it. One could even argue that it's the claim to enlightenment etc that is poorly sourced, because it all comes from sources close to the subject of the article, and hence not reliable (WP:SOURCES). But I feel that might be a bit harsh here.


 * The other accusation that won't go away is of abuse, especially of long-serving staff at the NY ashram; and again, if it needs stating explicitly, the argument is that harsh treatment is incompatible with enlightenment, so it's directly about the guru not just the ashram. Obviously this needs extremely sensitive and balanced treatment, and the best sources.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay now I think I have a better understanding of what you are trying to present. Cold not withstanding (and I really only mentioned it as a possible reason why I was having some difficulty understanding the conversation), I'm happy to continue the conversation.  Firstly, let me address your concerns regarding enlightenment and claims of enlightenment.  The article does not mention those claims, only the Siddha Yoga website does.  In my edits, I've tried to avoid that word, its arguably at best a claim.  It would be well beyond the scope of this article to establish whether or not the claim was factual.  The siddha yoga website can freely make that claim, the leaving siddha yoga website can freely make the alternate claim, but that only relevant to the extent which we as editors, feel they should be included here.  In absence of any standard criteria universally accepted as establishing the state of enlightenment, in a person or persons, it seems to me to come down to a his word against their word type of argumenbt.  Even if there were a universally agreed upon criteria, I still think that it would be beyond the scope of this article to determine/disprove that she is enlightened.  I think we can both agree that if claims of enlightenment on this page don't belong, then neither do claims of non-enlightenment.  That's why I've tried to leave in only the non-disputed facts.


 * That she is the head of SY certainly is not disputed, nor is the fact that she once shared that responsibility with her brother, or that he now heads his own separate organization. Of course that can be expanded.  I realize that one sentence still uses the word shaktipat, which seems to be an acknowledged phenomenon in both SY and several other Indian organizations (including her brothers), however in other parts of the world, its not even recognized.  I've left the line in, because it seems kind of clear that shaktipat is an ability claimed by the organization.  However I'm willing to strike it in order to help achieve more neutrality.  Regarding the other claims, I believe Harris' article about SY is the one that makes the claim about overworking and abuse of long serving staff, though that article documents policies that might be out of date.  Again, regarding treatment of staff, Szabo's book might have a bit more details.  Either way in reference to that, both articles could probably be adequately summarized without much fear of libelous material.  I'm not sure what you meant by the sentence that "journalists and publishers dare".  Most reputable publishers do care about defamation issues, they hesitate to print material that might 1) prove to be false after publication 2) be shown to be damaging.  This is just journalistic integrity.  What does that say about the LuLu article, since it contained no possible defaming material about LuLu, that left only the opinion expressed by the author, that the majority of followers of Gurumayi were rich, successful and insecure (personally the authors inclusion of the word insecure seems to me petty, but that's probably just me).  I can only conclude that the publishers either deemed that it wasn't defamatory or simply chose to ignore since it was so obviously not meant to represent any real facts, but only the author's opinion.  Please excuse the length of this reply, it's my opinion, that this authors opinion does not really support nor adequately reflect the controversy you are trying to summarize.  Sorry once again about the length, I'm still trying to understand your viewpoint and represent my own opinions while trying to make sure that it all fits into Wikipedia's policies.TheRingess (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Am starting to believe we are very close to complete agreement - let me clarify where I think we are:


 * I'm perfectly happy to have the account that she is described as a guru and is said to give shaktipat (and other such facts, I think we could usefully add more) on the one side (and I agree with you that the claims are well documented), while on the other we document the allegations that celebrity and profit look to some published observers as if they might be the motive. I feel that would be balanced. Since all the materials we propose to use have been published for many years I agree they are safe, as you imply.


 * I think you are saying above that the Lulu quote in the Guardian doen't say what we mean? I kind of agree; it's a bit of a throwaway remark in the article. I'm coming to the simple view that we don't actually need any more quotes on the issue, we have quite enough citations to be empowered to write


 * "Monastic life is (agreed to be, understood to be) incompatible with the pursuit of money and celebrities; but (here we rejoin the existing text) the New York Times, New Yorker and Salon.com have all claimed ......."

(with the citations just as they are now, right after that). It's simple and exactly what thousands (no, millions) of other WP articles correctly do - summarize, introduce, and explain the facts, with proper citations. If you want a citation we can quote the vows of a Sanyassin, after all.


 * It is fine for us to describe events even long ago (e.g. Harris and abuse of staff, as you rightly say) - as WP:N says, "Notability is not temporary". I totally agree with you that it is not WP business to try to decide whether claims (shaktipat, enlightenment, celebrity-seeking etc) are "true" - it is just our task to document the notable claims clearly with proper sources.


 * I'm not sure why you removed the harmless and well-documented para about G's singing voice and CD recordings - it's well-sourced, unexceptionable and surely just the sort of thing most biographies would say about someone who had those things?
 * Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeppers getting closer, I really have no problem with inclusion of singing material, I merely felt that it was borderline non-neutral, and have no objection to reinstating it. The article itself mentions that she took a vow of poverty, so we don't really need to mention any other definitions.  The sentence might read more strongly without defamation, something like "Given that she took a vow of poverty, some critics in the New York times, New Yorker and Salon.com have all claimed that she has (insert appropriate summary).  Just feel its stronger, since Siddha Yoga is allowed to define how its own guru is supposed to behave, and according to their own criteria, she is not supposed to own anything (well depending on what poverty means, is she allowed to have money to buy food? clothes?, I don't believe anyone, even her detractors expects her to walk around unclothed and starving).  Of course to balance this we can now include Johnsen's material, that seems to suggest a different more positive view.  In other words, Johnsen observed much of what the other writers observed, but seems to have reached the conclusion that she has not somehow broken her vows.  I believe that you originally included some quote to that affect, though I might be mis-summarizing her material.  Regarding celebrities, I propose the following sentence that I think summarizes the critics stance:  "Her critics claim that she recruited celebrity devotees in order to receive larger donations."  I think something like accurately summarizes the criticism and does not stray into potentially libelous material, as it mentions only her and makes it clear that the celebrities themselves are not being implicated as well.TheRingess (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. OK please do that, and I'll read and tweak if need be.
 * On the celebs, the point isn't only to receive larger donations, but also to attract further followers. (The Observer calls that part of it 'celebrity endorsement') Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Linda Johnsen writes on wealth on pages 78-79. Here's a draft for you to use as you like:


 * Linda Johnsen observed the same appearance of wealth as other writers, but took it positively. She notes the "life-size photographs of Siddha masters on the wall" and wonders aloud "if Gurumayi is taking Siddha Yoga in a direction the siddhas themselves would not have recognized. 'Yuppie yoga?' my guide laughs." The guide explains that Gurumayi has "created an atmosphere" where well-off people can "feel at home". (Linda Johnsen 1994, pages 78-9)
 * Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Getting closer. So here's a first draft.  "Her critics claim that she has recruited celebrities for the purpose of receiving larger donations and attracting followers to her ashrams in order to further increase donations and further sales of the organizations books, cds and other items.  They claim that this behavior contradicts a public image of her as a renunciate and enlightened guru."  Do you feel that accurately represents their viewpoint?  Can we use the existing sources or do we need a few more?  Since we are using a few direct quotes from Johnsen, are there a few short direct quotes we can use from the critics that speak to this?TheRingess (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Maybe we can shorten it very slightly: (v2) "Her critics claim that she has recruited celebrities to attract larger donations and followers to her ashrams, and to further increase income through donations, workshop fees and sales of merchandise. They claim that this behavior contradicts what is expected of a renunciate and enlightened guru." Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have only really one concern that I might voice this way, and I'm not sure the critics are even implying it. From a brief reading of the material, there does seem to be some potential implications that the celebrities knowingly participated in a scam to defraud the regular devotees.  If I'm reading more into it than is actually there, I'll say no more.  However if some of the critics are implying this, I think we should be very careful about allegations that deliberately implicate living people in fraud.  I've said my piece and probably repeating concerns I've already brought up so am not going to argue any further.TheRingess (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of any such scam, and don't imagine either that anyone did it, or that anyone (SYDA or celebrity) would want to. Not even the worst of the blogs I've read has suggested such a thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I'm guilty of projection and flogging a dead horse. The truth seems to be that people want to be around celebrities and they tend to want to give money to organizations and charities that those celebrities are associated with.  The truth is that organizations do tend to take advantage of that.  Her critics think she's attracting them deliberately and in some sense misrepresenting herself to her followers, Johnsen provides a more positive outlook.  I know that I'm glad that no one is asking me to decide who's right and who's wrong.  The stress would kill me. I like the new sentence as you wrote it.  I say go ahead and add it and the Johnsen material if you are satisfied with it.TheRingess (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I also now recognize that my original objections to the Nityananda material were unfounded. So I've gone ahead and added back a sentence or two that you had originally included.  As with the other material we are adding I still feel that it belongs in the biography section and not a separate section.  That leaves us with several other threads of criticism that also need inclusion and work.TheRingess (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Threads of criticism
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Super. I think we have it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

advertisement
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)

You're right. I changed it to say "in the opinion of some..."

Sardaka (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

Primary sourcing
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)

In the "Guru" section, the statement "From 2004, Chidvilasananda largely vanished from public life..." is supported only by tabloid journalism, Salon.com. It is not corroborated by the SYDA reference "History and Narrative" at the end of the same sentence. Therefore, it violates Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, and I am deleting it. Editors who wish to restore this statement must provide a reliable, non-tabloid reference. Ram1751 (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)