Talk:Satyananda Saraswati

Alleged abuse - sentence relevance

I think there is an issue with WP:RELEVANCE in the alleged abuse section. Specifically the sentence:

The Ashram accepted that child sexual abuse had occurred, and apologised for it.

There are a few issues I have with this sentence:

"The Ashram", referring to Mangrove Yoga ashram, "issued an acknowledgement and apology to the survivors of Akhandananda’s sexual abuse" (pg 8. of RC report). I.e. specifically in relation to Akhandananda, not Swami Satyananda. Looking at Wikipedia guidelines on WP:RELEVANCE, this is a "Lower" level of relevance (twice removed) - once because it relates to child sexual abuse by Akhandananda, and twice because it is talking about what the ashram did in response.

The "Lower" level of relevance of this sentence gives undue WP:WEIGHT to the alleged abuses of Swami Satyananda, in manners that could show him in both a questionably positive and questionably negative light. By talking about an acceptance of and apology for the child sexual abuses at the Mangrove Yoga ashram, it could confuse readers into thinking that this was by and for Swami Satyananda. Implying that there has been an acceptance and apology for alleged child sexual abuses by and for Swami Satyananda, when there was none, is not only incorrect, but can be seen as being disrespectful to the alleged victims. Alternatively, the sentence could throw a questionably negative light for readers without prior understanding, assuming that the sentence is in reference specifically regarding the alleged abuses of Swami Satyananda, when it was not.

This sentence exists in WP:ANOTHER Wikipedia article, specifically the Royal_Commission_into_Institutional_Responses_to_Child_Sexual_Abuse#Mangrove_Yoga_Ashram

Removing this line will not remove necessary context for what happened in the Royal Commission. This is because the sentence that follows it, namely "Alleged abuses by and against multiple individuals took place in ashrams primarily in Australia, and in India, between 1974 and 1989", provides this information.

As a result, I think this line should be removed to make the article more relevant, neutral, and give it better due weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.64.106.190 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'll reply to this, but it's my final say on the matter, for reasons that should become clear. Firstly, what we may call Smolenski's law of orders of magnitude applies: when the amount of discussion, mostly on your talk page in this case, exceeds the word-count of the matter under discussion by a factor of 100, something isn't well, and when it reaches a factor of 1000, something is seriously amiss. Secondly, your editing career here on Wikipedia has focused entirely on abuse in yoga, and almost wholly on this one article, which would flag to any editor unhappily accustomed to such single-purpose editing that either a fixed point-of-view was involved, or a direct conflict of interest, both deleterious and contrary to Wikipedia's interests. Personally I'd rather do something - anything - constructive than endlessly cycle through such matters. Thirdly, on WEIGHT, you are applying a standard that essentially applies to large chunks of material where a brief mention would suffice: but here, we definitely have a brief mention. Indeed, the entire section is brief, visibly a short and I'd say entirely appropriate summary of a lengthy article on a massive Royal Commission report on a long-running series of alleged abuses. That does not fit the picture of undue weight. The same (fourthly) goes for ANOTHER, where the issue would be large-scale copying or duplication creating substantial overlap: clearly not the case here. In short, you are grasping for policy WP:XYZs to give the appearance of a substantial argument, without checking to see if they are actually relevant. Fifthly, on relevance, the sentence makes clear that the abuses that were "tested" are accepted to have been genuine, i.e. they are not in dispute and need not be described as "alleged". No other sentence in the brief paragraph makes this important point: abuse certainly occurred, in the one part of Satyananda's domain where the question has been examined by an authoritative third party. That demonstrates that Satyananda set up a (worldwide) system whose governance failed disastrously to meet his undoubtedly spiritual goals. That is unquestionably a relevant matter for this article.

I will repeat one thing I said elsewhere, which is that it is not proper to make any inference on the number or severity of abuses in other parts of Satyananda's domain, including in India, for two reasons: the evidence such as has appeared has not been tested, and no systematic attempt has been made even to gather such evidence. Therefore, the situation is much like the man searching for his keys under a streetlight - he has no idea where he dropped them, but under the light is the only place he can see. Australia is the only place we can see the evidence of abuse; we cannot thereby assert, or even risk giving readers the impression, that the abuses were "primarily" or "mainly" or "mostly" there, that is utterly wrong and misleading. It is true that evidence was gathered there, and that the Royal Commission was interested only in evidence from Australia; it is also true that a small amount of out-of-scope evidence (from India) was profferred by witnesses, noted, and dismissed as out of the Royal Commission's scope. It does not follow that most of the abuse that occurred was in Australia: that would be a false inference, and it is totally unacceptable for the sentence to be worded in such a way to make that appear to be the claim. It might be that 99% of the abuse occurred in India: we do not know, and must not guess; the article must clearly distinguish between the sample (which is non-random) and the population (which is unknown); these are completely different things. If editors do not understand that difference, they should not be editing such statistical claims at all. I will therefore reword the "primarily" mention and will note here that any attempt to reinstate it would be both inaccurate and against consensus, indeed it would constitute edit-warring. Finally, I will note that this article has been edited by many hands, and that consensus remains necessary here. I suggest that anyone wishing to make any further changes to the Alleged abuse section seek, wait for, and obtain the consensus of at least two other editors before proceeding. Personally, I want no more of this matter, and don't want to hear about it on my talk page either. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Chiswick, in response to your post above:

• It's interesting that you feel that you have the authority to simply make edits to the Alleged abuse section without gaining consensus, while others must wait to make edits. Why are you different? Why are you making edits without gaining consensus from myself and others?

• You have repeatedly questioned my POV and conflict of interest, despite my constant reference to facts and Wikipedia policies, first on my talk page and now here. This is a pattern of assuming bad faith on your part on my edits to this article. The repeated nature of these insinuations is unacceptable, and not in line with the spirit of Wikipedia.

• Smolenski's law : I'm a little dumbfounded that you seem to be blatantly implying that I should stop working on this section. Are you saying that my extended justifications are unnecessary, given the contentious nature of this topic? Or is this another case of assuming bad faith because I am passionate about representing this section in a neutral way, more than you are? (You've stated multiple times now, on my talk page and now here, that you do not want to be working on this section)

• WEIGHT - this section is not about the Royal Commission! This section is about the alleged abuses of Swami Satyananda, of which the citable sources are those put forth in the Royal Commission. There is another full separate page about the Royal Commission. Regarding your claim that WP:WEIGHT essentially applies to large blocks of text - let me quote WP:WEIGHT - "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.". Juxtaposition of statements is what I am talking about in this section.

• ANOTHER - I take your point on WP:ANOTHER. My point regarding the fact that this information is in another article still stands.

• RELEVANCE - This statement is not about "testing", it is not about whether or not abuses occurred - it is a statement of fact about what Mangrove Yoga ashram did - they acknowledged and accepted that Akhandananda had carried out child sexual abuse and apologised for it. You seem to be trying to use this statement to make a judgement of Swami Satyananda's movement. Please do not use this statement as a surrogate, as it misrepresents what the ashram acknowledged and apologised for. The statement is highly misleading, given that it sits in the section about alleged abuses against Swami Satyananda, not in a section dedicated to the Royal Commission (which it also does).

• Number or Severity of abuses - You are repeatedly misconstruing that I am trying to make inferences. There is no inference about the fact that the number of allegations put forth to the Royal Commission were largely to do with abuse that occurred in Australia. Please clarify how this is an inference! This is a matter of counting the number of people that gave evidence, and the allegations put forth. You are making this more complicated than is necessary!

I am sorry, but if you do not wish to work on this article any further, that does not mean I cannot do so. Is this what you are suggesting? If nobody else replies to my discussion, are you suggesting that I simply stop asking for discussions and make edits? I would like to see which Wikipedia policy page recommends this process. 148.64.106.190 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

————————————

I think the following sentence has issues relating to relevance:

In their view, this was protected by a "culture of silence and denial [which] prevails at the highest level of the Satyananda Yoga community".

This sentence in Josna & Jacqueline's original article refers to the leadership of the Satyananda Yoga community during the time of the Royal Commission, not Satyananda himself. The sentence is under the section 'Vulnerable still at risk' in the original article, and that section talks about the Indian and Australian leadership and their responses at the time of the Royal Commission. This Wikipedia page is specifically about Satyananda, not the current leadership of the community.

As such, keeping this sentence as-is is misleading, as it could cause the reader to think that it is referring to Satyananda himself. It should be removed. SourabhJ (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Get real. Removal is not an improvement. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, this sentence does not say anything about the alleged abuse of Satyananda, which this section is about. It is misleading, and so removing it would improve the relevance of this paragraph in this section. Why do you think this would not be an improvement?

SourabhJ (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I am far more persuaded by SourabhJ's argument as it is about relevance to the guru, i.e. it concerned the situation in the ashram rather than the guru, who it is agreed had over-arching authority but not necessarily detailed knowledge of the goings-on in the ashram. I am more persuaded, too, because the argument appears neutral, seeking to convey the truth; I have been less persuaded by editors in the past who certainly seemed non-neutral, seeking to whitewash the guru regardless of what happened in the ashram. I've therefore removed the statement as requested; but the rest of the text is both robustly cited and robustly linked to the guru, so I hope there will be no further attempts to chip away at the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This whole allegations and talk of sexual abuse crime must be on Akhandananda's wiki page and on Satyananda Ashram, Mangrove ( an institute ) wiki page. No one should be spared for such heinous crime but then we should be very much alert that no one should be blamed without any evidence too. This is not a small crime that we should use "alleged" and move on. Adding Akhandananda's criminal acts on Satyananda wiki page suggests as if Swami Satyananda was somehow involved here despite no such evidence. Let's stay fair to every individual.

On "2 witness who blamed Satyananda for abuse" should also mention that one of them was an abuser herself and helped Akhandananda in this crime during 1970-80. This gives a fair context to readers. Let's be very precise and very open on such topic because people don't read detailed report but make a mind on these few sentences that we write here on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupam.munger (talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)