Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi

---

Controversies

I have serious doubts about the appropriateness of the various components of the Controversies Section, as per the Wiki Guidelines for BLP. See Wikipedia:Verifiability -- specifically the section "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources."

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream

assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when

proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence

them.

I would think Sreeni Pathathanam's book would fall under the category of an unexceptional source. It should be stressed that the author is attributing conspiracy of multiple homocides to Amritanandmayi--a worldwide respected humanitarian and spiritual leader. In the 20 years since his book was first published (by a small Malayalam press, basically self-published) no one of any legal authority has ever taken these claims seriously.

Furthermore in the BLP guidelines it also says:

• :Persons accused of crime
• :See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Criminal acts and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators
• :Shortcut:
• :WP:BLPCRIME
• :A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively

unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[5] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[6] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.

Furthermore, On September 24, 2002, Deshabhimani, a Malayalam newspaper, officially apologized for an article that had appeared in a similar vain in its pages. The retraction, titled "Report that Suspicious Deaths at Amritanandamayi Math Are Growing Was Incorrect," states: "We now state with conviction that there was nothing suspicious about deaths that happened in the Math. Some of the deaths mentioned in the article did not even take place at the Math." The retraction article goes on to describe how relatives of the deceased had personally contacted Deshabhimani in order to correct the misinformation conveyed in the article. In several cases, the deaths were of elderly people, and the editors explained how the relatives had contacted Deshabhimani and explained how they were the bedsides of the people who supposedly had died suspiciously during the time of their passing. ("Report that Suspicious Deaths at Amritanandamayi Math Are Growing Was Incorrect," Deshabhimani, September 24, 2002, Page 6).

I wish someone with more experience with Wiki than I could make some sort of judgement in this issue and remove this entry from the section.

Furthermore, I feel that this recent addition to the section, regarding the death in prison of someone who attacked Amritanandamayi, has no business in Amritanandamayi's Wiki page. It has been put their in order to insinuate that the attacker's death in prison was somehow the work of Amritanandamayi's organization. Allowing this to be placed in Amritanandamyi's section is akin to putting as a controversy on Walmart's page that someone who'd been caught shoplifting at Walmart was killed in prison. It really should be removed. (Please check this link to a Times of India report: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/special-report/Satnams-mysterious-death/articleshow/15455639.cms. The controversy has nothing to do with Amritanandamayi.) It is clear this is a prison/mental hospital controversy and in no way relates to Amritanandmayi or her ashram.

Even the AIMS Strike controversy would be more appropriate on the Mata Amritanandamayi Math page than on the page of the hospital's founder. LanceMurdock999 14:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Even though I feel it is inappropriate as the source is just some editorials, I would be open to having the inquiry into source of Foriegn Funds moved to Mata Amritanandamayi Math page, as it is about Math's funds and not Amritanandamayi's funds. I think this would be similarly acceptable with the AIMS strike. Satnam really must be deleted as it is not a controversy regarding MAM but a controversy regarding the mental hospital where he was beaten to death. According to multiple news reports, wardens there have been arrested already. I hope someone will concur on this talk page and do the needful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceMurdock999 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The controversy is about the death of the person, I agree, but the incidents happened in the ashram and when he first attempted to disrupt the prayer and darshan of Amritanandamayi. So I feel it is worthy of mention there. It can be stated pretty clearly in the section about what happened thereafter. I think I have already put contents there justifying the views. The point is simple - the incidents that resulted in the death of the person started from them ashram when he attempted to attack Amritanandamayi. Hope you are clear about this now.

Regarding the foreign funds accusal, it is a widespread allegation against the ashram. It would be nice if the sentence about the worth of 400 crore can be removed from there. But the points by eminent people such as Sukumar Azhikode must stay as they have only demanded to audit her funds.

If everything is to be attributed to the Math alone, then the very existence of the sub sections such as Charity, Bhajans, Books and Publications etc should also be removed from the page, as it's all done by the Math and not Amritanandamayi. One more, Amritanandamayi is noted for other things, and not her bhajan. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, what I see in the article is a deliberate attempt to remove anything and everything that comes against Amritanandamayi. Everyone must understand that this is not a place for veneration or hate speech. Things must be presented here, in a neutral perspective. There have always been reverence and criticism against holy men. We must not be judgemental as to what is good and what is bad. I am FOR removing deliberate praise and deliberate hatred. The retained contents were subject to vandalism many times in the recent past. It even resulted in legal threats and blocking of an IP. The corrective measures were implemented by people who were NOT involved in the edits. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

LanceMurdock999, I see that you attempted vandalism by modifying the content in the section "Demand for probing source of foreign aid". The reference links already given in those section clearly state (in local language Malayalam) that the demand for the probe is against Amritanandamayi. I see that you tried to tone it down by changing it "against her organisation" and not against her. Please refrain from such deliberate attempts in the future. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sreejith, I only added "Math" because that's what it says in the cited article (http://www.sify.com/news/writer-demands-probe-into-amrita-mutts-wealth-news-national-jegrA0jgegf.html?ref=false). ("Eminent litterateur Sukumar Azhikode on Saturday wanted the government to probe the source of foreign aid received by the Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt as part of the ongoing drive to expose spiritual rackets." Furthermore, "Amritanandamayi" when used in this sense can only be referring to the Math as Amritanandamayi has no personal income. If they have referred to the Math's income has "her" income, we should not pass on the poor journalism. I still feel these so-called controversies go against the BLP guidelines. I think perhaps we should seek guidance from an administrator at BLP. LanceMurdock999 09:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceMurdock999 (talk • contribs)

There are a couple of other links on the page which shows the controversy is about the person. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lance, attributing alleged controversies pertaining to organizations connected to a person don't belong on a person's BLP page. Including the AIMS controversy is akin to posting an article about employee suicides at FoxConn (apple manufacturing plant) on Steve Jobs' BLP page. -- JamesRoberts1949 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRoberts1949 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Maintaining a neutral perspective is key here. That's why I think the the edits LanceMurdock made are in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Unsubstantiated controversies which are poorly documented do not fit in a biographical page like this one. Pritivarma1985 (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)PritiVarmaPritivarma1985 (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is surprising to note that both the IDs above (Pritivarma1985 and JamesRoberts1949 are newly created with the only edits on this page. While you are free to create new IDs on Wikipedia, request you to use it responsibly. There is not poorly documented unsubstantiated controvery written on this page. Whatever is written in the Controversy section has been backed with proper third party references. You may also note that there is no wilfull intent to damage a BLP as evidences are present. The versions of the Math are also given in the respective places. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I edited out the subsection about the hospital as it does not pertain to the person this page is dedicated to. Sreejithinfo it is clear to me that you are including these articles in a defamatory manner. Please refrain from violating Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRoberts1949 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

@Sreejithinfo, FYI a newly created ID does not discount the fact that one might have been editing without an account. I have done numerous edits for academic work without an ID. I wanted to sign my name with this edit therefore did so through my Wikipedia account. Please keep conversation relevant. Thank you. Pritivarma1985 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)PritiVarmaPritivarma1985 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason I asked is because you said the controversy section is unsubstantiated. Didn't you see the authentic external references? -- SreejithInfo (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we add an article about the catholic priest sexual abuse scandal on the Wiki Page for Jesus Christ since he was the inspiration behind the founding of the church?

Removal of Links

I removed a link to an online petition against Mata Amritanandamayi as I felt that it was a promotion of the petition.

I am still not very comfortable with the tone of the rest of the article. As an encyclopedia, I feel that an article should not take sides. I do not know how to re-edit it at this time, will probably visit it at a later time

The whole movement has spawned a whole load of bunkum spouting foriegn dollar searching fake gurus in southern India. You ought to mention the effect such fake sadhus have on societies that are gullible enough to be taken by a row of neo-hippie foriegners waiting for "darshan". This article needs more clarity, skeptic voices, a list of copy-cat sadhus and saints, and what to do when you spot bunkum like this. For those interested, south indian TV channels now chronicle the lives of such fake sadhus. The trick here is to amass enough wealth and connections to muzzle the press fast enough. (www.kairali.tv),(www.sunnetwork.com)

Its good to profile people, but bad when skeptic voices are actively filtered out.

This comment doesn't seem to relate to Amma at all. You talk about 'fake gurus', but provide no evidence that she is one. If there other 'fake gurus' about whom you have useful information, please edit their profiles instead.

I am very confused as to why the Criticisms immediately get edited out of this article. There are several major criticisms, including a recent beatings incident, mysterious deaths at her ashram, the LAX Hilton boycott and others. These are major issues that have been discussed and addressed on other websites. I have noticed that whenever these criticisms get posted, they are immediately deleted. It has been suggested that this Wikipedia entry is monitored by the devotees of Mata Amritanandamayi in order to keep a clean image. This is unfair reporting of information and a monopolization of the Wikipedia service for political reasons. The criticism section should be updated appropriately. Every time someone posts something critical, it vanishes within seconds. What can be done about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValiMP (talk • contribs) 07:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have observed that. The article tone is like that in the website of the person and her organisations. That does not suit Wikipedia. I have been updating the article section with some widely known controversies too. I also observed that there are people who want to keep out anything that criticises the person or her organisations. That is bad. For such purposes, they can use their own websites but not Wikipedia. I even observed that there are newly created IDs that make edits only on this page. That is not healthy as well. Wikipedia must stay neutral and must contain the maximum information on BLPs. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Too negative.

The page still looks unacceptably negative or biased against Mata Amritanandamayi, in my personal opinion. I will try and place a few lines about the charity and other good aspects of the mission, to balance out the criticism.

Too vacuous.

The real trouble with this article is that it says nothing about the theology of a religious figure. There are many religious organizations founded relatively recently in America, and others, founded in the Middle East centuries or millenia ago, which could fill a dozen or a thousand screens with descriptions of their philanthropic, essentially secular activities. But seen from the outside, by a neutral Wikipedia visitor, the questions remain the same. Who are these people? Why do they themselves purport to do what they do? Why do they choose these activities, and these locations, and these recipients? Why do they almost always strongly reject other rather similar acts and targets? Do they think that the world is real? Created? Monitored? Manipulated? Permanent? Improvable? Corrupt? Doomed? How did the subject of a biographical article attain supreme prominence? Who says so? Who is qualified to monitor or remove that person? And then what is supposed to happen to the world?

I propose that such questions could be made into a standard outline for any article about a supreme organizational religious figure, or a uniquely self-appointed religious figure, or any combination of those factors. Benchmark: a typical article on the Papacy, or the Mormon Presidency, or the Dalai Lama, would immediately, lucidly, and self-consistently contain answers. Should then a travelling Hindu or a televised Christian be exempt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.1.30 (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Links

Please avoid peppering the article with links to non existant topics. Insert one only if you are seriously requesting someone to provide an article on the topic or if you plan to provide one yourself.

Links & Weblogs

I don't find anything wrong in creating links to non-existent pages because some readers may provide an article with that title. But there is no point in creating links to names of ashram authorities such as Swami Amritaswaroopananda, Ron Gotsegen, Dr. Prem Nair, swami Amritatmananda, Ramakrishnananda and to some of the people who were allegedly murdered in the ashram.

As to links to Weblogs, Personal webpages and public discussion forums, they can be linked to if they are relevant to the topics under discussion and provide additional information all of which can not be accommodated in Wikipedia pages. Afterall, how can one differentiate between pages/websites created by ashram authorities for their own publicity and weblogs created by individuals. Atleast the pages created by individuals (some even anonymous)are not for boosting their own images. Yet it is better to have links to well-developed websites than to individual weblogs. Until we have such skeptical websites, let us bear with the existing links.

Award

AT least now after the investigation and subsequent controversies about the deals of United Nation's food for Oil programme, now it is easier to understand that award is not a big deal. Only question is "how much?"

Proofreading/English usage change?

In the article, the wording "has sang" (in more than 30 languages) is used. In formal English, the wording "has sung" has been used throughout my lifetime; should it not also be used here? (--Yes, I know many people in the southern United States say "has sang" informally, perhaps elsewhere in the world as well.) --Steve, December 4, 2005

Refactored from top

I am new here, so forgive me if I am making mistakes. I added an update to the "criticism" section to reflect recent events that have transpired. The references in question were

• the LAX Hilton controversy, in which esteemed Rabbi Michael Lerner refused to accept an award from Mata Amritanandamayi.

• The recent attack on residents of a New Delhi village by ashramites of Mata Amritanandamayi.

Both of these references are accurate and truthful. They were immediately removed within 20 minutes of my adding them. I was accused of being a "POV pusher", yet I have only documented criticisms that have been in the media as of late. I am a bit confused and think the references should stay, as they are completely relevant.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Common12 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 Jul 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a reply to this concern. Hornplease 06:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Better to say the recent alleged attacks by Ashram residents, since there are no legal findings. It's fine for WP, but given that Ammachi herself is not implicated, it doesn't belong here per WP:BLP. Moving to MA Math article. Actually, taking a look at the source (Metro Now), it appears to be a tabloid and probably not a reliable source per WP:RS and WP:V. Better source needed to include in WP. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 18:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair that several devotees keep removing these very relevant stories just because they don't want them made public. Is that fair? Please talk about this, as I think it is important. Common12 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I will stop trying to make this entry fair and balanced by adding the latest critical news of Ammachi. After several attempts, it is clear to me that this entry is carefully monitored by either her organization or devotees to ensure any recent news is deleted immediately. Hopefully someone else will take up the cause of getting this entry to include a more balanced view of "the hugging saint". Good luck! Common12 13:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Balanced doesn't mean poor sources such as sensationalistic tabloids. That's not something I made up; it's Wikipedia policy. Come up with a good source and it can go in here or the MA Math article. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 18:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jim, criticism from some random Rabbi in L.A. is hardly indicative of anything. It should be removed, especially since it was not covered in many sources.Bakaman 21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the Michael Lerner (rabbi) article? The founder of Tikkun is very far from a 'random rabbi'. Hornplease 00:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Rabbi Lerner is well known. While I must disclose that while I am somewhat a devotee, I am also a Wikipedian. When controversies are well cited with reliable sources, they should stay. Those which have no sources or which are based on unreliable ones should be removed immediately. If better sources are found, they can be returned. Those are the game rules and I am most happy when they are followed. I also remove unsupported negative claims from the articles of people of whom I disapprove. Living people deserve no less, and Wikipedia does not need legal complications. IPSOS (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically agree with all IPSOS said. My comments above are meant to refer to the alleged New Delhi altercation, not the hotel boycott. Agree the latter is adequately sourced and appropriate here. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think there is an argument to be made that the MA Math article is the correct location for the Delhi story. Metro Now, however, isn't much more of a tabloid in style than most other Indian newspapers. In some ways, it is as reliable as the Times of India, its parent; indeed, the TOI city section now mainly seems to be in Metro Now.Hornplease 11:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that personally. But other editors may question the reliability of the source a/o the convenience link, and they'd be within their rights to do so, since (per WP:V) the burden lies on those who want to include material. The best thing would be to find some evidence (say, from another reliable publication) that the source meets Wikipedia standards. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Added Green Avenue story with a more substantial reference. Changed wording to "allegedly". Common12 10:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And I've reverted it on three grounds:

1. It has a link to a polemic site
2. The site violates the copyright of Society magazine
3. It is not about Amma, per se, and, as I understand, was already moved to a more appropiate article.

IPSOS (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead: "widely respected humanitarian"

Regarding my revert[1], other possible wording could be "she is widely recognized as a humanitarian". But even that seems unduly weak since she uncontroversially meets the definition of "humanitarian"; the BBC source established that she is widely respected by virtue of the numerous awards she has received. Anyway, if the wording I've reverted to goes further than editoral consensus would like, the "widely recognized as..." wording seems like a good compromise. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 04:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

How are they related to each other?

Millennium Peace Summit, UN General Assembly and The World Council of Religious Leaders?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.108 (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Different honors received by the article's subject. --Jim Butler (t) 10:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe. what else?

• [2]
• [3] quotation from that site: "The World Council of Religious Leaders, an independent body, works to bring religious resources to support the work of the United Nations in our common quest for peace. WCRL is not an official part of the United Nations, nor does it have any status with the United Nations."

The formation of the World Council of Religious Leaders was one of the stated goals of the Millennium World Peace Summit. The objective of this Council is to serve as a resource to the United Nations and its agencies around the world, nation states and other international organizations, offering the collective wisdom and resources of the faith traditions toward the resolution of critical global problems.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.73.13 (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. What is your opinion? (BTW, if you're new here, welcome.... and I encourage you to set up a username and password; it's very easy to do and much easier for other editors to collaborate with you. Once you do so, you can sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~, which will give your name and the date & time.) regards, Jim Butler (t) 21:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to know who is organizing whom? Did the world council of religious leaders organize the millenium peace summit? what is the connection to the United Nations?

The quotations I cited didn't bring clarity, at least to me, I find them confusing. (BTW, it's fine how it is. thank you.)

Austerlitz -- 88.75.65.68 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the world council of religious leaders is an internationally recognised forum. It may not be officialy associated with UN. It may be used a technique in 'propaganda' of Amrita devotess, nevertheless it is widely respected forum. (Niketsundaram1977 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Quote

Is there a reason to change the quote every day or two? It's not that big a deal, but a quote-of-the-day section is more appropriate for a personal site or a blog, not Wikipedia (see: WP:NOT). The goal is to improve the article, not constantly change one section for its own sake. (This makes it hard on other editors who watch the page, and I don't think most readers are interested in a new quote every day. Please don't misunderstand me; it's a nice idea, but I don't think this is the site to do it.) regards, Jim Butler (t) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about changing the quote another time, chosing the following for "permanent":

"“In these times strength is found in unified action and the unifying force is love. If we can open our hearts and minds to these voices—in whatever form they appear—there is no limit to what we can achieve,” says Amma."

Austerlitz -- 88.75.81.16 (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Civil

user:rabid, Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Quotation

“ Only when human beings are able to perceive and acknowledge the Self in each other can there be real peace.—Amma ”

maybe the wikilink should go to Atman?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.69.185 (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely it should, specifically to Atman_(Hinduism). Done, as a pipelink. --Jim Butler (t) 08:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

External links

Trimmed out some links, added {{No more links}}. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Quotation no.2

I want to quote it elsewhere, that's why I need a printed source. Can somebody please tell me?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.220.221 (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Childhood Seizures

According to the autobiographical video of Ammachi, River of Love (Mystic Fire Dec 1999, Directed by Michael Tobias,) Ammachi suffered numerous seizures during her childhood which were witnessed by her family and teachers. When asked about them Amma explained that she was experiencing a blissful state. 32.178.221.103 (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Where to put it best?

• Create a world filled with Cooperation, Love, Truth and Justice

Austerlitz -- 88.75.220.243 (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

World Union for Progressive Judaism

-- 88.75.220.243 (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Amma's Father

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D4XPyorcQo A tribute to Sugunacchan, Amma's Father

--88.75.82.74 (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

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