Talk:Sri Chinmoy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions:
Archive 1 is 97 kilobytes. It mostly discusses NPOV, cult/anti-cult issues, what constitutes reputable sources and good faith research, what is peer review, what is religious vilification material, what policies religion editors follow, whether or not religious tolerance should be a factor when editing, and what types of references are appropriate to represent the anti-cult POV. Contributors: Alex576, Maikel, Fencingchamp, Fadix, Andries, Zappaz, and Rozencrantz. Thanks again to all contributors. --Fencingchamp 08:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Copyright Question
- What is the copyright status of the poem on this article's main page? Since the author was born in 1931, it's not free for the taking, unless he's specifically authorized that use of his work. -Colin Kimbrell 01:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- I've exchanged email with someone at Sri Chinmoy Centre who is involved in their web publishing. I believe a permission will soon be emailed to permissions@wikimedia.org. There seems to be goodwill to do this, and I got a strong sense that a copyright complaint is unlikely. I'm removing the Copyvio banner with the expectation that this matter will soon be resolved, and that the banner is overkill. I will monitor and post a follow-up. Thank you. --Fencingchamp 12:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Regardless of the copyright issue, I think that a poem is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Of course, there should be a "Beliefs and practices" section, but not in this way. Andries 22:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Update Jan-1-2007: The Columbia Encyclopedia describes Sri Chinmoy as a "mystic and poet," so it's appropriate to discuss his poetic works. Excerpts from his writings have been released under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) on a page located here. The Wiki article does not contain any copyright violations. Fencingchamp 03:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] To Avoid Revert War
To Fencingchamp: I admit, that the tabloids aren't the most credible sources ;). So I tried to provide more serious published material. To further clarify my intent, im not up to paint Sri Chinmoy black but the criticism exist and cannot be reduced to some hate group. The article shouldn't state his guilt or innocence. It should inform about the fact that the issues have been raised. (62.168.125.215 15:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Ex disciples
To find all the information you need, look for the huge amount of ex disciples and their stories. You'll find all sort of things... [defamation removed Fencingchamp 15:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)] It's not just one story, neither two. It's plenty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.41.169.217 (talk • contribs).
If Sri Chinmoy is the monster the ex-disciples paint him to be, why, in 40 years in the West have there been no criminal charges pressed? Why does the United Nations and the U.S. Congress allow him to hold meditations at their very facilities? People can make all the claims they want, but where are the affidavits? There are none.
Why have these ex-disciples not come forward and put their views down in an affidavit? Because they would go to jail. Just because it is easy and fun to try and criticize and pull others down, doesn't mean the rumors are true. To this day people doubt Shakespeare's authorship of his plays, though any serious historian knows that there are volumes and volumes of direct documentation that he, in fact, wrote all the plays. To this day people believe that in Columbus's time that the people believed the world was flat. Take any course in the history of science and this will be proved ludicrous. It was been know since the Greeks, and probably before, that the world was round. Yet, rumors become truth, when not well researched.
If you truly believe Sri Chinmoy is a fraud, do you own independent research and you will not find any documentation of any fraud or abuse. Why? Because, however much our jaded minds refuse to believe it, some people are sincere.
People should understand this, and very clearly. Libel is a crime. Defaming another's reputation is a crime. One can't merely make claims because you dislike someone. You must prove your allegation or you are guilty of a crime.
The so-called "anti-cult" movement supports kidnapping people in order to "convince" them. These people's word is not some kind of "counter-balancing" equality in the search of truth. It is extremely biased testimony of people who are often involved in criminal kidnappings in order to "convert" people.
Wiki9898zzz 16:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- These disciples have come forward. But: It isn't illegal for a cult leader to preach abstinence and
fuckget laid with his adult female fans. At most, a civil lawsuit would make sense if coercion was involved. (Of course, these ladies would risk to be called "sluts" by Sri's attorneys). - Same for his bogus sports achievements. It isn't illegal to claim to be superhuman. --Tilman 16:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted a section which posted allegations about Sri Chinmoy's behavior. If you have references from credible sources which are critical of Sri Chinmoy, please present them, not undocumented accusations which amount to both character assassination and illegal libel. Can you reference an article from a respected psychological journal which declares Sri Chinmoy and his practices to be harmful? The reason I mention this is that professional journals, or even professional magazines like Psychology Today maintain standards of journalism which protect themselves from lawsuit. Therefore, they check facts. If you have criticism of Sri Chinmoy, do you have some from a respected source? From a university professor?
Wiki9898zzz 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do not delete comments by others.
- Criticism doesn't have to come from a university professor. --Tilman 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in a sense these disciples have come forward. But they are lying. Ok, if not an affidavit, then how about testimony under polygraph examination (lie detector)? They won't do this either...because their allegations are simply false. He did not sleep with his students. That is a lie. People just want to throw mud on everything, just want to drag everyone down to their own miserably depressing level.
I am sorry if people refuse to believe in transcending physical limits, but his weightlifting events are not stunts (by the way, an Indian student of Yoga in the 1920's did incredible physical feats as well and his efforts were published in the papers of the day. Mahatma Gandhi, by the way had an appendectomy without anesthetic, remained conscious the whole time and joked with friends while the operation was going on. That is also documented).
The weightlifting has been done in public places, and videotaped, often with public officials looking on. The documentation is there, the tapes (and photographs) can be analyzed for fraud. There is none.
The movement to discredit Sri Chinmoy is often promoted by fundamentalist Christian groups who do not believe that any group outside of Christianity is a legitimate religion (and, they don't even believe that some other Christians are legitimate either). Allowing these kinds of extreme people to make statements is like allowing Nazis to argue for the lynching of African-Americans.
As far as ex-students are concerned, let them take a polygraph and assert their testimony. These are consciously disgruntled people, with an ax to grind. They tried to find truth and they did not have the strength to persevere in that discipline. This is hardly unique to Sri Chinmoy's path. People have been leaving monasteries for centuries and then blaming the monastic life for everything under the sun...simply because they did not have the strength to persevere in the disciplines. That spiritual topic is discussed broadly in all monastic traditions, not just on Sri Chinmoy's path.
No, people have fundamentally gotten this wrong. This is not some crazy Jim Jones character. This is a traditional Hindu monastic path; from a traditional which dates back at least 4000 years. That is the path that produced Mahatma Gandhi and the Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore. There is reason that it produced them, there is a reason that meditation works and its expression is a pure benefit to society.
Wiki9898zzz 04:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: the deleted comment.
I've been polite here. I used the f-word in a general meaning, that it isn't illegal to "f" adult followers, that is all. It may be sleazy, but not illegal. I did not say "f you" or "f person XY". But to make you happy, I'll strike it and put another word. I did not post defamatory comments, I did not bully other editors. I did, however, make statements that include a different opinion as yours.
- A polygraph is not a scientific instrument. --Tilman 16:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, polygraphs are used by corporations all over the world and thousands and thousands of institutions.
Wiki9898zzz 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- That still doesn't make them scientific. --Tilman 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- If the weight lifting was done in public and is shown on video, provide me an address where I can download it. --Tilman 16:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Tapes of these events are available through the Sri Chinmoy Centre and other avenues as well. Professional forensic techniques can verify that these videos and DVD's do not include doctoring of the images.
I have seen in your posts that you are opposed to Scientology. Personally, I think they are a little wacky myself. However, I have met a bunch of them who are not only very nice people, but used the techniques to get off of drugs and solve other problems. So, perhaps I don't know everything. I do not believe that you have truly examined the evidence, personally, about Sri Chinmoy. If you do, I do not think that you will find that this is a cult. Why is the U.S Congress and the United Nations letting him conduct meditations in their facilities if he is such a monster? Do you not think they have security people capable of doing background checks?
Wiki9898zzz 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- The question is not what "can" be verified. The question is whether it has ever been verified. At least one witness has come forward that there has been some doctoring. --Tilman 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
-Pardon me for intruding here. I believe that if there is a significant amount of SUGGESTED abuse of power on the part of Sri Chinmoy, then that becomes a notable point of consideration in a fair and unbiased biographical account of the man. If part of Sri Chinmoy's effect on the world has been to arouse suspicion and doubt concerning his objectives, methods and results, then that is worth mentioning. cheers
[edit] True Masters - Fake Masters
Let the truth be said. In this 21st century of ours, we have enough information on true masters and fake masters. It's amazing to see so many people still waste their time and follow these charlatains [defamation removed Fencingchamp 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)]. It could be understandable in the past, with the lack of informations. But come on guys. It's more than time to wake up. It's been a long time now since the 60's and 70's. There is no easy path. Self knowledge is the hardest path of all. If you can't take it, go practice something else, but don't think you'll know yourself by taking drugs and having sex, self knowledge is not a party. I'm sorry. It just won't happened without self effort and sacrifice. The words of one charlatain compared with the words of all the real masters is like comparing a spark with the sun. This is not an opinion. Go ahead, study all the great spiritual classics of humanity, such as the Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, Upanishads, Puranas, Mahabharata, Yogasutras, The tibetan book of the dead, Buddha's gospel, not to mention the Bible and Coran, and these books will confirm what true masters state, such as Krishna, Buddha, Lao-Tse, Nanak, Patanjali, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Abedananda, Ramana Maharishi, Trailanga swami, Nagendranath Baduri, Sri Yogananda, Sri Yukteswar, Morihei Ueshiba, not to mention western masters and saints. It's all there, the same truth, the same words, the same life-examples, in very similar practices. So please, give us all a break. Denying what is writen here is nonsense. "Only fools follow fools, bad Karma of disciple, even worse of socalled master".
Yogi. December 5th 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Advaitananda (talk • contribs).
- I'm missing your point. Sorry if I perceive your above paragraph like soapboxing. Are you suggesting a specific change be made to the article? Regarding "let the truth be said" — it's important to note that all content must be verifiable. Truth isn't enough. So if you have notable facts to include about Chinmoy and can cite references, go for it! --Ds13 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Let's Maintain A High Standard
This article has suffered from the "Siegenthaler problem" in the past, though no one made a public stink about it. Also - as some critics of Wikipedia would be quick to note - when the article contained defamatory material it was scraped by a couple of spam sites which set the defamatory content in stone.
For this reason, and given Jimmy Wales' new directive on handling biographies of living persons more responsibly, I'm removing a couple of anonymous swipes which I don't believe can be justified through any reputable source. I've also rechecked whether sources previously linked to use tabloids and message boards as the basis for their criticism, and will revise accordingly.
Not for nothing, but Sri Chinmoy was invited to open the Parliament of the World's Religions with a silent meditation in 1993, and again in 2004. It's not because he was the only one who could find directions to the hall. I don't think he would have received awards from Hinduism Today, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (the Institute of Indian Culture), or the Jesse Owens Foundation if he were some shady character or bump on a log. Fencingchamp 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Fencingchamp, I'm hardly an anti-cultist or even a critic of Sri Chinmoy. However, I have no respect for the way this entry is written, which in turn makes me suspicious of Chinmoy adherents. Even if, as we know, encyclopedia entries are hardly free from subjective assessments, this one is over the top. Wikipedia should not be the place for a glowing article written (and controlled) by one person, in what comes across as a PR spin. For instance, there is a difference between "His music is simple, spontaneous and appeals to a childlike spirit" and "his music can be described as simple, spontaneous and appealing to a childlike spirit" (the first being your original and revert, the second being my edit). The first is debatable, the second proposes. Please realize that propaganda does not necessarily put forth your agenda more effectively. In some cases it only hurts your cause. RKlassen 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV Tag
For some reason the consistent removal of everything critical related to Sri Chinmoy has been performed on this article. Even a section detailing controversy or allegations would aid in making this article less of a "Sri Chinmoy is fantastic" piece. Nothing on the archived discussions has been resolved, and Fencingchamp is domineering the edits with poor logic and voluminous replies. "defamation removed" by Fencingchamp in the above comment? Completely absurd for him to get away with censoring the talk page. Needs to stop now. Blumpalump 08:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I am amazed of this one-sided hagiography, about a guy who is basically a fraud and has been exposed for it multiple times. I recommend a look at [1]. --Tilman 13:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The Chinmoy entry has a whole lot of undisguised interpretation! This sort of language simply should not be in an encyclopedic entry: "Browsing a list of Chinmoy's achievements, one might imagine that he operates from an ivory tower high above the plane of human suffering. But in fact, he spends most of his time with his students, helping them deal with everyday human problems like depression, illness, the loss of a loved one, and the struggle to remain cheerful in a world filled with hatred, bloodshed, and myriad natural disasters. His efforts to gain acceptance for his teachings make life easier for his students, lessening the likelihood that they will be subjected to religious discrimination." What is this? I would edit it except it seems that it would just be reverted. RKlassen 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re Credibility
(note: Not sure of all the etiquette here, hope I am doing this correctly)
Sri Chinmoy has been conducting meditations at the United Nations since the 1970's and at the U.S. Congress since (I believe) the 1980's. I highly doubt he would have been doing so if he fit the bill of his critics.
The anti-cult movement has targeted truly extreme and frightening groups like Jim Jones and (IMHO) the Moonies (who I personally enountered in San Francisco and felt were scary). And the anti-cult movement has targeted just about every single group that does not fit into some ludicrous kind of Norman Rockwell painting. They have targeted Buddhism - across the board. They have targeted Hinduism - across the board. The have even targeted people people in the gay community and people with left wing political ideologies. Further, many of these people are consciously engaged in illegal kidnapping to enforce their own views. So, readily accepting criticism from these groups hardly seems an exercise in unbiased academic truth.
Further, Sri Chinmoy does not take fees. There are no communal living arrangements. He has been open about his finances, he lives in NYC, though he was offered a large piece of land in upstate New York (he refused because he felt that spirituality must not run away from society, but must work within it). His requires his students to be drug free, not drink, not smoke and to obey all the secular laws.
Wiki9898zzz 16:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Issues: Poetry, Religious Vilification Sites, Accuracy of Edit Summaries
I was once a sophmore myself, so I can understand the playfulness and good humor behind adding the Vogon poetry banner to articles about poets who are off the beaten path and for whom one feels no kinship or sympathy. But because the Sri Chinmoy article space is a frequent target of vandalism, it would be a kindness if the friskier members of the Wikipedia community could please restrain themselves from teasing minorities.
Among many aesthetes of good will, there is a gentleman's or gentlewoman's agreement that one writes about the poets whose work one finds worthwhile, and doesn't trample on those working in areas where one has little interest. Sri Chinmoy's specialised field is devotional poetry rooted in the Vaishnava tradition. Many of his finest English poems are translations from his original Bengali. This area is not everyone's cup of tea. If you're into Charles Bukowski, write about Bukowski! (or Douglas Adams).
Wikipedia is an effort at something resembling democracy, but it has no Bill of Rights. This means that majoritarian views, stereotypes, and prejudices can sometimes ride roughshod over the minority, if enlightened sysops do nothing to help.
I would like to assume good faith on the part of all editors. It's possible some new editors haven't read past discussions, or haven't fully made the connection between not directing readers to religious vilification material (unless the article is about religious vilification), and the problems (vis-à-vis slander and libel) this causes in biographies of living persons.
One important theme which did emerge in prior discussions is that a basic article on beliefs and practices should not include religious vilification material à la The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or similar material. This would (quite rightly) outrage members of the Wikipedia community who happen to be of a particular faith (Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, etc.). It would also tend to lower Wikipedia's reputation and standing among people who hope to find here high quality information unsullied by hatred or prejudice.
I would caution against using RickRoss.com, since an in-depth examination of the site shows that it contains much anonymous or poorly sourced material, including gross defamation, coarse language, and strong sexual content - what might be generically described as "hate material." Using such material in biographies of living persons is exactly the kind of irresponsible editing that Jimbo Wales has warned against as placing Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Adding links to RickRoss.com seems to encourage vandals to cut and paste anonymous rants from that site randomly into the Wikipedia article - surely not a desirable outcome.
Also, where some editors have removed links to the Ross site, to reinstate the link with an "rvv" (revert vandalism) edit summary is inappropriate, since the removers would appear to have been acting in good faith.
Thanks to all editors for their contributions. This is a research-oriented article still in progress. For over 3 years, the Sri Chinmoy article has been little more than a stub, and has been subject to frequent drive-by shootings (which continue to this day). The new, detailed article is the product of much effort, and is a measured response to past problems. I hope editors (and sysops) understand that this article space has suffered from the "Seigenthaler problem," and that defamatory versions have been scraped from Wikipedia by spam sites and set in stone. No one has complained about this or written any outside articles saying that Wikipedia is bad. Rather, there has been an effort to raise consciousness about the relevant issues, and to contribute a detailed, accurate article covering beliefs, practices, lifestyle, artistic works, and historical context. In other words, those unhappy with the continuing problem of defamation are working within Wikipedia to address it. Surely that's the way it's supposed to be.
It seems unfair to demand immediate perfection from the new, detailed article. Please give it a chance to develop. I believe the footnotes, which are now about 2/3 done - and are beginning to be added - will support the accuracy of the body of the text.
I believe most Wikipedians are intelligent people of good will who also appreciate the value of sweat equity. And when you see what people trying to do serious scholarship in the Sri Chinmoy article space have to put up with, it's not surprising they sometimes get a bit defensive. :-) Fencingchamp 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rick Ross is a well known cult expert, who is frequently quoted by the mainstream media. His site is mostly newspaper articles about the topics he is an expert on. These are on-topic here - Sri Chinmoy is the super-human that he and his followers are trying to make him look. --Tilman 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
While I have no direct knowledge of Rick Ross being directly involved in illegal kidnappings regarding so-called "deprogramming," my best recollection is that he was connected with some groups who had some links to these acts. The extreme people in the the "anti-cult" movement, in this regard are like members of the Klan. They may get up and say that they are promoting the rights of working people, but behind the scenes they are responsible for beatings and worse. I think it is reasonable to make some connection between this kind of "anti-cult" activity being a front for an organization for behind the scenes illegal acts. It this kind of irresponsible hatred that comes up with these crazy notions about Sri Chinmoy being disreputable. Again, it is like taking testimony from the Klan or Nazis. If some credible theologian, from a university, wants to make negative statements about Sri Chinmoy, with documentation, then let him. Otherwise, these blatant lies are conscious attempts to defame his character and are illegal acts of libel. There is no right to print libel. If folks want to print these kinds of allegations, they must only do so with accompanying documentation. And not just testimony of disgruntled people, but with actual documentation. Otherwise, this isn't some internet debate, this is criminal activity.
Wiki9898zzz 04:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is a reference to a website which lists allegations of Rick Ross's criminal behavior, some of which he admits to, including a felony arrest. He also apparently admits to being involved in kidnapping people (which, of course, is an illegal act) in order to "de-program" them.
Wiki9898zzz 05:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have reinserted the neutrality tag, and also the unsourced tag. This article is still a one-sided hagiography. This is wikipedia, not the poetrypedia. Factual statements should be properly sourced. Wikipedia is not the correct place to make PR. The article shouldn't be a praise, it should describe his activities in a neutral tone.
- Spare us stories about Maria Monk & co. Like every guru, Sri Chinmoy has his critics, so these should be mentioned, possibly with a rebuttal, of course all properly sourced (newspaper articles, academic articles, government statements, etc). --Tilman 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Why "should" every single article, written about every single person, include some section which spews all kinds of negative things about that person? Are people innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? In the article on George Washington, does it list that he molested children? Where is the proof that Sri Chinmoy has done horrible things? Provide it with a reference to a reputable source. Psychological journals have discussed the cult phenomena. Provide a reputable journal which references the negative actions of Sri Chinmoy. If you do not have a reputable source, absolutely none of this material should be published - here or anywhere else. On his side, the U.S. Congress and the United Nations both let him conduct meditations on site. Those are just two of the innumerable positive endorsements and recommendations he has had by all kinds of reputable sources. So, if there are 1000 reputable sources for him and none that speak negatively, why should anything negative be printed about him? Why? Where is the justification?
Since this internet site has rules about academic verifiability, why not let that be the standard by which this article is judged, not just some vague comments by unnamed people? You reference Rick Ross. He admits to both being convicted of a felony and to have engaged in illegal kidnappings. Why should this site publish anything from him or from people connected to him?
These comments against Sri Chinmoy really feel like they are coming from a hate group, not from fair impartial academic debate. I am sorry if you personally hate him, but if that is the case, that is not enough of a reason to justify the publication of your views. You must provide some independently verifiable facts.
Please sir, this is not a contest. This is someone's legal and moral right not to have their reputation damaged.
Wiki9898zzz 05:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see that you're adding sources, this is good. What is bad is that you've removed all the weblinks - this may be a mistake, or you may be in the middle of some editing so I won't revert it right now. Also, don't remove the neutrality tag.
- About criticism and that every Guru has some, see here: Sathya Sai Baba#Criticism. Of course nobody asks YOU to add criticism. Just let other people add, and check the sources, and add rebuttals if available. --Tilman 06:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I found the last comment (not the above) to be personal, so I deleted it. I would appreciate no personal comments about myself or others who post here. Just because someone posts some text on a website, does not mean that people can glean from that who they are or what their motivations are. I would appreciate no speculation on such things.
The act of freedom of expression, includes the freedom to allow people to express their ideas and opinions. Judging why someone posts what they do presumes knowledge that is not in play here.
Wiki9898zzz 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I see that the weblinks (including the only criticism) and the POV tag are still missing. Please put them back (or explain why you removed them), or I'll do it soon. --Tilman 16:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles must be written from a NPOV. This article however is written like a Chinmoy press release. Editors may personally believe what they want about whether the criticism is valid or not, but Chinmoy is widely criticized, and not only anti-cult sites, but atheists, and ex-followers like Carlos Santana. A criticism section will be created like that for other gurus, and customary critical links like [2], and [3] will not be allowed to be suppressed by Chinmoy advocates who view criticism as "hate". NPOV is non-negotiable. --Dseer 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I made an attempt. It won't stay long, however; I've got an editor on my trail whose main activity in Wikipedia is to delete. The summaries are usually a random choice of (WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:LOGO). For example, he claimed yesterday that Skeptic Magazine is not a reliable source. --Tilman 12:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chinmoy's name
I'd like to point out that Chinmoy Kumar Ghose is his real name, and Sri Chinmoy is the name used by his followers. Whoever put "originally Chinmoy Kumar Ghose" seems to think that "Sri Chinmoy" is his real name and not an appellate. I've revised the introductory sentence to reflect an encyclopedic approach. Blumpalump 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The tile "Sri" is a traditional religious title given to teachers from the Vedantic (Hindu) tradition. It has been used broadly and probably for at least 4000 years. Wiki9898zzz 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- That is not relevant. I changed "originally" to "born". Not only is this slightly more accurate ("originally" implies he changed his name), it mirrors the biography given on Chinmoy's official site. -Fendersmasher 00:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quotations
I removed all the gaudy quotations from the article - Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. That is what Wikiquote is for. Sfacets 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] One huge advertisement
One might as well visit Chinmoy's official site for the kind of information listed in this article. The magnitiude of original research (references to Chinmoy or Chinmoy's organization are too numerous to count) and POV (particularly in the Teachings and Awards sections), combined with the article's history of edit wars, combined with the poor use of English grammar, may warrant this article for deletion. -Fendersmasher 01:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
