User talk:Just Desserts

Welcome!

Hello, Just Desserts, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Sri Chinmoy have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Rhowryn (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be more clear about your edit on the lawsuit, the reference provided may link to a filing of a lawsuit, but the filings themselves are inaccessible. The content is also not very well formatted, and it is not the responsibility of other editors to correct it. Because the content you are trying to add has been reverted by multiple editors, you should also take the matter to the Talk Page of the article before adding the content back in. Build Consensus among other editors and look for a possible compromise. Rhowryn (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Chinmoy

Don't get me wrong, I agree that your additions should be included in the article to some extent, but the material you add will likely be challenged. You need to ensure that whatever you write is dispassionate, unbiased, and reliably sourced. See WP:PRIMARY for more information. WP:BLPPRIMARY specifically forbids using court proceedings as references to support allegations.

Why not use your sandbox to draft a compliant version? I may not be able to comment on content, but I'd be happy to read it and make suggestions as to tone. Rhowryn (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your message on my talk page Rhowryn (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just Desserts (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Rhowryn:[reply]

Thank you for your comments - as a new contributor to Wikipedia, I am still learning the ropes (including how to use the "talk" medium - hopefully this message gets to you).

I do of course appreciate Wikipedia's standards for the submission of sourced material, and have tried to follow it carefully in almost everything I have submitted.

However, what I have found in trying to add some material to the Sir Chinmoy page (by the way, since he died in 2007, I expect the constraints on BLPs should not apply)is that you have rejected every single one of them. I am extremely puzzled, since the bulk of the material on this page does not adhere to a higher standard that the existing material, which in fact makes use of what appears to be non-questioning acceptance by his cult members. For example, any medical expert will tell you it is physically impossible for any human being to lift 7,000 pounds with one hand - even for Mr. Universe with hydraulic actuators instead of muscles, the bones and connective tissue will break. The only explaination for this claim is supernatural. It is fine for Chinmoy devotees to write articles claiming this happened, but it should be OK for rational people to cite scientific and medical sources that dispute it.

Similarly, citing excerpts from a published book by Jayanti Tamm should be allowed, yet you insist on scrubbing it. If it is OK to claim that Chinmoy wrote 1,000,000,000,000 poems and drew 1,000,000,000,000 paintings, shouldn't we be allowed to question how anyone can write 1 poem and paint one painting every 10 seconds of their life ?

The New York Post published an article on claims of sexual abuse by Chinmoy at the site below:

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7398/sleazy-swami-dubbed-lying-sex-pest

Would you delete any references to this article as well if I tried to refer to it ?

From the totality of your edits, it almost seems that you are functioning as a "gatekeeper" of this site, and really will not allow any counter-balancing modifications whatsover. I hope that somehow you are not associated with the Sri Chinmoy site, or have been subjected to any undue influences from his dedicated followers.

Perhaps you could demonstrate your neutrality by providing a single example of how any one of the multiple edits I have sumbitted would be acceptable to you. I'd like you to know that I have not proposed editing or changing a single word in this entire page that praises Chinmoy to the heavens, and only seek to provide a more balanced view. Of course, for those who consider Chinmoy an avatar, a presence of God on earth, any critique must be treated as heresy.

I look forward to seeing the good faith example I have requested from you. If you cannot do so for any reason, I propose this interaction be brought up before a higher level of authority.

Thanks. Just Desserts

Just Desserts (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. It does not seem you are being totally logical. For example, you recommend that I "See WP:PRIMARY for more information. WP:BLPPRIMARY specifically forbids using court proceedings as references to support allegations."

However, as I pointed our previously, and which I expect is very clear to you, Chinmoy is dead (unless we are believers who believe his spirit is still alive), and should not be governed by the BLP rules, since they only apply to living persons. If you agree, I would expect you will now support reverting back to the version containing material from the legal briefs.

As I pointed out earlier, I did not attempt to delete any of the existing material, even though I feel it on shaky ground, especially the portions that are not biography, but hagiography. If every mod I propose is going to have to go through the wringer, I suggest that every word and every citation in the current writeup undergo the same scrunity.

Lastly, since you did not comment on whether I could include material from the NY Post that quotes Anne Carlton regarding claims that Chinmoy sexually abused her, I assume you will not object if I try inserting this new material, and find out what the "guaranteed" expected challenge will be based upon. Such a challenge in my mind, would also allow you to delete oral histories from Holocaust survivors, in support of Holocaust deniers. Excluding the statements of victims of sexual crimes doesn't seem to be an ethical or rational way to write either biography or history....

If these challenges continue to be supported at your level, I would appreciate it if you would direct me to a process for appealing to higher authority.

Thank you, Just Desserts

I've read over the entirety of your additions, and I have a few things to note:

The entire section on weightlifting is unsourced. The one source you do list there is for the Archimedes quote. That is not even remotely acceptable. You need to be able to source the rest of the section as well. "Chinmoy's lifting feats were conducted with special apparatus constructed by his followers" Needs a source. "were not subject to examination and confirmation by official weightlifting bodies" Needs a source. "leading to some charges of misrepresentation" Needs a source. Who charged him with misrepresentation? Who reported it? This information needs to be sourced!

As for the rest of the addition, you must provide a clear, reliable, and legitimate source, not the sales page from the NYT, and a lawsuit reference page that won't allow access to the documents listed.

Actually I didn't know he was dead, I hadn't read the article too thoroughly.

The holocaust is a well-documented historical fact. There are a multitude of reliable sources to cite. Your addition has almost no reliable sources. Could you leave a list of sources that are reliable according to WP:SOURCES on my talkpage? I have to go to dinner, I'll be back in an hour. Maybe your friends at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sri_Chinmoy_Information/ could help you out? I found it while googling for a source on that apparatus. Rhowryn (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey, I found this: http://www.scribd.com/yogaloy Looks like a list of legal documents regarding the various lawsuits. This is the case document listing: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2010cv02768/228976/

Things like this are preferable, since they are accessible. I don't know why the lawsuit source you listed won't give access to the court documents. As to the blog you posted, I have no issue with it. Rhowryn (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a review of Tamm's book from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/14/jayanti-tamm-carwheels-sari-opinions-book-reviews-cults-sri-chinmoy.html Rhowryn (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article yesterday and removes as many unsourced claims as I could find throughout the article, as well as expanded upon a different lawsuit in the controversy section. The article is much shorter now, so if we can add some words on the lawsuit Stagg v. Ananda and the allegations in the book "The Joy of Sects", I think we'll be in reasonable shape. I'll look at the addition regarding Tamm's book as well, the section isn't terribly clear. I've never read any of his books, so I don't know if those sources are accurate; I err on the side of caution there, though. Rhowryn (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 26

Just Desserts (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhowryn:

If you can access the sandbox for "Just Desserts", please note I followed your suggestion, and have now organized my major proposed mods to the Sri Chinmoy article. I look forward to your comments. A few points are in order:

1. I do understand that I did not back up my proposed changes to the weightlifting claims correctly. I will work on a better way - we all know that unless you accept that Chinmoy had supernatural powers, the claims he has made in this regard cannot be anything but a hoax, and such a hoax would pretty much make us suspect his entire operation.

2. It seems that citations don't have to be actually provide you with the actual material on line. As such, in referring to a lawsuit, it would have sufficed to just provide the case number, court, date of filing, etc., so that it could be checked. However, since you seemed to insist that we provide a working on-line reference for the lawsuit, I've tried to provide this in addition to the detailed citation above. Since you now understand that Chinmoy is dead, I assume you've dropped your objection to citing the lawsuit under BLP rules.

3. I don't want to make false Holocaust analogies to support my point that oral histories of individuals should not be discarded. In dealing with a serial sexual predator, a handful of supporting narratives should be worthy of publication. IMHO, the totality of these allegations (there are numerous heart-felt tales on the ex-disciple forum) is overwhelming, and given the fact that rape by coercion and authority IS rape (see Wikipedia definition), there is a strong possibility that Chinmoy was a serial rapist....Perhaps the fact that he coerced abortions perhaps also makes him also a serial murderer (I am pro-choice, but feel forcible abortions against the will of the mother are a form of murder).

4. I am curious that you mentioned that you needed to independently judge on whether you feel Jayanti's book is credible. Her book was deemed worthy enough to be reviewed by the NY Times Book Review (as well as Forbes), probably the most prestigous venue for book reviews in the U.S. As such, I feel you should allow Wikipedia readers to decide how much they wish to believe it.

5. I think some of the the existing stuff in the article is pretty shaky: for examples, there are a handful of citations that derive from an on-line Q&A forum Chinmoy used to interact with his disciples. Citing these as references hides the fact that we are letting Chinmoy write portions of his own biography.

I changed your dashes to numbers for my convenience : P

1. I also know that Jesus didn't walk on water, but he and Chinmoy still make those claims a large part of their careers.

2. That's true, but it's also very interesting to see what Scientology does when they're questioned. Cults are crazy, best to have sources in the open.

3. Yeah, the comparison was a little overboard. But that's fine I agree with you anyways.

4. I didn't mean to give that impression. The book is fine, but anything it says should be a cited as a claim.

5. You should remove content that links to discussion boards, community pages, etc. The claims the website makes though, should stay; what he says about himself is very relevant. It should be noted though, that anything the website says, especially the superpowers he claimed to have, should be clearly labelled as claims.

Also I took a look, it's much clearer and properly sourced. Citing the section at the scale you have there, though, is kind of bad style. We provide references so interested people can look at the source material, encyclopedias are meant more for summary than reprinting sections of a book or review. Also, using too much of a book or review can invite copyright trouble. Rhowryn (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Section 1

Unless you have any improvements to make or objections to the way I rewrote it, you should post the lawsuit bit in Chinmoy's controversy section. If anyone objects, we'll take it to the talk page there for deliberation, but I think it's good to go for now. I've been meaning to look at the other sections, but it's a lot of material. Just remember to keep cool no matter what people say. If you don't see this by Dec. 25th or 26th I'll put it up. :D Rhowryn (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nature of the Sri Chinmoy Movement concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nature of the Sri Chinmoy Movement, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nature of the Sri Chinmoy Movement

Hello Just Desserts. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Nature of the Sri Chinmoy Movement".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nature of the Sri Chinmoy Movement}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Cartwheels in a Sari

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Cartwheels in a Sari, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/14/jayanti-tamm-carwheels-sari-opinions-book-reviews-cults-sri-chinmoy.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Cartwheels in a Sari and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Cartwheels in a Sari, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Cartwheels in a Sari. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Cartwheels in a Sari with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Cartwheels in a Sari saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Murph9000 (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Just Desserts/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Just Desserts/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/14/jayanti-tamm-carwheels-sari-opinions-book-reviews-cults-sri-chinmoy.html and http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_4CqWGeAUZikroE7M8bi9AI. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Murph9000 (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]