Rhowryn

Sri Chinmoy

Just Desserts (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Rhowryn:

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

My reversions were not the result of the content of your edits, but the contrary way they were inserted. If an editor objects to an edit, whether it adds or removes content, the changes should be discussed on the talk page of that article.

It should be made it clear that I think your changes should be included in some way, but other editors seem to take issue with them. While Wikipedia is a place for unbiased truth, it also requires a certain level of agreement. Consider how doomed the religion pages would be if everyone could change it to their version of truth! I'll go ahead and paste the section into the talk page now.

My suggestion is that we post the proposed section in the talk page and give dissenting opinions a week to surface. If no one objects, the section goes in. If someone brings up a legitimate concern about the piece, it gets revised. I do agree that the lawsuit is biographical; we should include it. But try not to accuse everyone who gets in your way of being "in cahoots" with his people. "and efforts to squelch them arise from devotees who have taken upon themselves the whitewash of his transgressions" (Just Desserts, 17 Nov, 2012). I'll likely support your changes, but that kind of language is accusatory and unsupported, and won't help our case. Rhowryn (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.

• Main Introduction — What is Wikipedia?
• The Five Pillars — What are the principles behind Wikipedia?
• Quick Introductions to:

• Policies and guidelines — How does Wikipedia actually work?
• Talk pages — How do I communicate in Wikipedia?
• Referencing — How do I add sources to articles?
• Uploading images — How do I add and use images?
• Navigating Wikipedia — How do I find my way around?

• What Wikipedia is not - even though everyone can edit it, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the help pages.

Where next?

• If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
• If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
• If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Wikipedia's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
• For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page should be your next stop!

See also

• Help:Starting editing

Good luck and happy editing. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! 5 years of having an account here and I'm finally welcome. Heh. I do appreciate the information above in this kind of centralized location, though. Rhowryn (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)