Talk:Eknath Easwaran

Untitled

I am removing the following anonymous allegations until I can find evidence that they are true:

Eknath Easwaran left India to avoid prosecution for biagmy and avoidance of child support, by the Nagpur High Court. He came to the Univeristy of Minnepolis where his Fulbright scholarship was revoked after which he quickly established the Center. Shortly thereafter, quite true to his nature, he sexually abused several of his disciples including his step daughter (San Jose Mercury News, 30th April, 1989).

Google search: "Eknath Easwaran" bigamy

Google search: "Eknath Easwaran" "sexual abuse" -books

Google search: "San Jose Murcury News" "Eknath Easwaran"

Google search: "Eknath Easwaran" "step-daughter"

Google search: "Eknath Easwaran" stepdaughter

Goethean 17:06, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The ISBN for Gandhi The Man by Easwaran is: 0-915132-96-6 if anyone wants to add it to the list, I'm a new editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wubrgamer (talk • contribs) 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to the comment to provide evidence for the "much acclaimed" I have added to the article the citation from Huston Smith that is quoted on the back jacket of 2 of the 3 translations. Such citations are approved by the author (ie by Huston Smith) himself and so are bona fide.DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

cover blurbs do not qualify as reliable sources. If Huston Smith said this, he must have said it somewhere, and we need the exact reference. If you take everything you read on book covers at face value, may I interest you in this bridge I am selling? --dab (𒁳) 12:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The publishing house set up by Easwaran (Nilgiri Press) would not have quoted Huston Smith on the cover without first getting his permission - it is standard practice for publishers to ask well-known authors or reviewers for citations about a book, for quoting on the cover, and bona fide publishers like Nilgiri Press will have sought Huston Smith's permission to quote his citation. I'm sure Huston Smith will know of the citations given the popularity of the Bhagavad Gita, Dhammapada and Upanishads translations.DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also just added another citation from A Huston Smith book, which supports the previous one. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Notability. There is much more evidence that could be added to establish notability. I have just added a list of foreign (non-English) languages into which his books have been translated (and list is probably not yet fully complete). Furthermore (though I don't know of a document to support this), these foreign language editions almost without exception have been published when pre-existing foreign language publishers examined the books (in English), and determined that their content would be of interest to the readers in their local market (source for claim: past conversations with representatives of the US publisher). It is also my understanding that in most (all?) cases, the non-US publishers translated the books through their own efforts. Would not such wide cross-cultural interest (20+ languages across many different cultural zones) conclusively demonstrate the notability of this author? Such wide cross-cultural interest would seem to far surpasses the notability for many other individuals deemed notable by Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., if my memory is serving me correctly, I recently read on the relevant Wikipedia page that a professor who has once been an editor of a professional journal is considered sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia page; in constrast, inspiring publishers in 20+ languages to devote resources to translating one's books might perhaps be regarded as more noteworthy). Health Researcher (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I also found two works that list Easwaran as the leader of a new religious movement. I suppose notability can be considered met. As for the bestselling publications, it would be nice to see some sort of trustworthy source for these figures. I have googled numbers of both 95,000 and 195,000 copies of Passage Meditation sold. If more than 100k copies of PM have been sold, the book and its author should meet WP:BK/WP:AUTHOR. --dab (𒁳) 12:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

His most popular book is Meditation. — goethean ॐ 13:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like they changed the title to Passage Meditation. — goethean ॐ 13:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Passage Meditation

Are you saying "Passage Meditation" isn't EE's own term? That would make sense, as it is a silly coinage. I note that chapter 1 is called "Meditation on a Passage", which makes ever so much more sense. After introducing the concept, the text does refer to "passage meditation", but uncapitalized, just as an incidential reference to the concept explained earlier. --dab (𒁳) 15:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

it turns out that the 1991 edition was indeed simply called Meditation: a simple eight-point program for translating spiritual ideals into daily life.[1]

The book is organized in eight chapters, corresponding to the eight "points". In the 1991 edition (as, we must assume, in the 1978 original), chapter 1 is simply called "Meditation". This was changed to "Meditation on a Passage" in 2008. "8. Reading the Mystics" was changed to "Spiritual Reading". They also cut nine pages of "Passages for Meditation" and the "Further Reading" section, but introduced an "Afterword" instead. --dab (𒁳) 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

...and if you search on the phrase "passage meditation" in the Google books edition of Meditation, zero hits are returned. Stunning. — goethean ॐ 15:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting. I note that the 1991 edition has the apposition "meditation passage" for "passages suitable for meditating upon", but, as you say, never "passage meditation". Nor does the term appear anywhere in the 2008 edition other than in the preface. I wonder who is to blame for this term. I also note a general tendency towards increased cheesyness. The refreshing subtitle "commonsense directions" becomes "the Deep Wisdom of the Heart". In spite of being a posthumous revision, the 2008 edition does not name a responsible editor other than the "Blue Mountain Center of Meditation".

The earliest occurrence of the term "passage meditation" I can find dates to 1996[2], interestingly the context is Wicca and Easwaran is not named, even though the concept under discussion is clearly his. Beginning in 1997, the term appears in blurbs of editions of Easwaran's books[3]. From 2004 or so[4][5], it becomes increasinly more common as a short hand term for "EE's method of meditating on passages". So, it seems that "passage meditation" is a 1990s neologism that sprung up a few years before EE's death. --dab (𒁳) 16:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1994 usage. A slightly earlier use of the phrase "Passage Meditation" for the Easwaran method is in the 1994 book by Flinders, Gershwin and Flinders (see quote from book inserted on Talk:Passage Meditation page). The title of chapter 2 was "Passage Meditation". I don't know if that's the earliest, but it might be. Health Researcher (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Function of 'passage meditation' phrase. Regarding the function of the phrase 'passage meditation, please see new section on "Passage Meditation" talk page (scroll down to bottom section). Thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

please refer also to TALK pages on the article Passage Meditation where I look at the term itself and its application to the method.DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Are the participants in this discussion suggesting that the article on Eknath Easwaran be merged with the article on Passage Meditation? (Reasons to keep them separate are given here and on the Passage Meditation page: essentially, Easwaran is an established author and known best for his translations of the classics of Indian mysticism; he is also known as a meditation teacher and for his book on meditation - in the Passage Meditation article his meditation method is explained and various uses and research studies referenced). Or are you suggesting that the short listing here of the eight points of his meditation method should not be listed out, because they are in the Passage Meditation article? DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now expanded this article, to make clearer (I hope) that Easwaran (as a teacher of spiritual values through classes and books) and Passage Meditation (the meditation method he developed of "meditation and the allied disciplines", and the book about it) both have sufficient interesting material to merit an article each. Thank you for prompting me to add this material - I think it'll be helpful to people trying to find out more about the man. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Photograph

I have added a photo of Easwaran - as noted, this has come from the publicly-available photo on www.easwaran.org/media where the photo may be downloaded and used free provided there is a credit line naming the Blue Mountain Center (which i have included) DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ways to Expand Easwaran Page

There are various ways that the Easwaran page could be expanded to help it climb beyond the "stub class" category. Please comment about these proposals, below. I have done research on the Passage Meditation program he developed and must be careful about WP:COI, so I want to get feedback, or at least allow quite sufficient time for feedback, before proceeding to implement changes along these lines (thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)):

Classification of works. While bearing in mind proper proportionality of various topics (WP:DUE), it would seem useful to describe the major categories of EE's books -- i.e., their function within his corpus of works, audience, and what sort of reception/influence they have had. This would not mean mentioning every book (they are listed in biography section). I am imagining something like 4 or 5 paragraphs, with most paragraphs a few sentences long, and corresponding to a major category. Categories might include instructional/resource books (e.g., Meditation / God Makes the Rivers to Flow); Biographies of spiritual figures (Gandhi, Abdul Ghaffar Khan); Scriptural commentaries and other works (e.g., BGDL, Christian commentaries, Your Life is Your Message); and quasi-biographic works about Easwaran (e.g., Making of a Teacher, WMLB). Details of some paras could include:

1. WRT biographies of spiritual figures, it would seem worth citing the 1990s statement by Arun Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi's grandson) that Easwaran was the person in the US who best understood nonviolence.

2. Also WRT biographies of spiritual figures, Easwaran's mobilization of the nomination of Abdul Ghaffar Khan for the Nobel Peace Prize (see EE's Nonviolent Soldier, 1999, p. 11, for EE's brief statement; additional accounts should be located). If it can be confirmed, the article could also mention EE's appearance in T.C. Mcluhan's 2008 documentary, The Frontier Gandhi, recently shown at the Middle Eastern Film Festival.[6] Is there any evidence that EE's 1984 book on Khan had an influence on the making of the film?

3. WRT to commentaries/other books, it might be useful to mention a few reviews and try to characterize the general tone/content. My impression is that the reviews are generally positive (should be balanced proportionally if there are non-positive reviews, subject to WP:DUE). What, if anything, are the recurring themes in reviews? There may also be a few things that noteworthy individuals have said (e.g., I see the publisher has a blurb from Barbra Streisand at [7]). Of course, the page shouldn't overdo the celebrity stuff (again, keep within WP:DUE).

Other influences. I think one of Easwaran's biographies states that he influenced the community of his students to produce a best-selling vegetarian cookbook, which I think sold over a million copies. At any rate, searches online show that The New Laurel's Kitchen (1986) is dedicated to him -- see [8] (pages 13 and 513). Perhaps of interest, given high sales? I think this was also among the first vegetarian cookbooks with a large nutrition section, developed with the guidance of university-based nutritionists. Not just a hobby, the vegetarianism was a reflection of his Gandhian nonviolent philosophy.

Way to cite sales - I notice that "over a million copies sold" appears on the back cover of The New Laurel's Kitchen [9]. Health Researcher (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Expand bio. Of course, the biography itself at the top could no doubt be expanded. For example, I think some of his biographies may talk about him having had a regular show on all-India radio (wouldn't that listening-audience have been in the tens-or hundreds- of millions?) before he came to the US?

Recurring themes/teachings. Later, it might make sense to go into more details about recurring themes/teachings in his writings (there are many beyond the passage meditation/ 8pt program). But for now, maybe this stuff above could create a context for adding that other stuff.

Pls offer feedback about these proposals. Thx. Health Researcher (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the early section to give a categorization of many of the books, as suggested by Health Researcher DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Intent to continue. No one has objected to the above suggestions in almost 5 days, and DuncanCraig1949 has gone ahead and implemented some of the suggestions. In 3 or 4 days, when I have time, if I don't hear significant criticisms or concerns, I will continue implementing anything not done. Thanks. Health Researcher (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal - proposal to drop merger proposal

Oppose Merge Now that this article has been extended significantly to give a fuller picture of Easwaran and all his works, and has been re-rated from "stub" to C class, and now that the Passage Meditation article too has been expanded to explain more about the method, I'd like to propose that the Merge Proposal be removed from the article. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[also oppose merge] I support dropping the merge proposal. Health Researcher (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been no further discussion of this topic since 4 November, with two "opposes" vs one "proposal", so I'm removing the merge proposal tag. Since the merge proposal was made, there have been many changes to both this article and the Passage Meditation article, and I believe that the article on Easwaran (as a spiritual teacher, as an academic and as prolific author) serves a different purpose than the article on Passage Meditation (which is a book that meets WP:BK and is one specific meditation program as compared to various others which have their own wikipedia article), with only minimal overlap between the two, and so there is no benefit to the wikipedia user in merging the two articlesDuncanCraig1949 (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not an ad

Have we now addressed the tagged concerns about being "written like an advertisement"? More than a week ago, I implemented some fixes of my own, as well as some fixes suggested to me by Goethean, who inserted the tag. If no-one points to any more specific concerns, I'll go ahead and remove the tag. -- Health Researcher (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

After almost 3 weeks there have been no changes and no additional concerns expressed, so I am removing the "advertisement" tag. If any remaining or new concerns arise about the article being written like an advertisement, please consider fixing them (while being careful to "Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't", as per Wikipedia: Editing Policy). Many thanks to all the editors who have contributed in various ways to this page. Health Researcher (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

new photo added

I have added a new photo, which is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 and shows Easwaran teaching a meditation class at UC Berkeley DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eknath Easwaran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008155001/http://monasticdialog.com/a.php?id=576 to http://www.monasticdialog.com/a.php?id=576
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724173503/http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/bookstall/img.php?pat=../mpath/1968/July//204.jpg to http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/bookstall/img.php?pat=../mpath/1968/July//204.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Podcast accusations

Update - One of Eknath's accusers came forward with her story on the Conspirituality podcast. The episode is Patreon-only, but there is a 7-minute sample published on their main feed that contains the person's name and the name of her accuser. The story is otherwise hard to track down, but the person on this podcast seems to be legitimate. Her parent's were devotees of Easwaran, and there is concrete evidence of this fact. They wrote a biography of Easwaran that is still available for sale by the publisher, Blue Mountain (Easwaran's meditation center).

Source of claim -

Evidence of familial association - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.122.225.132 (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Copyrights must be respected on Talk pages

I just deleted a 4000+ word copyright insertion by an IP. WP policy forbids copyrighted material (see WP:COPYVIO), including on talk pages. See WP:Talk on the appropriateness of editing others' comments, as I have done, for "Removing prohibited material such as... violations of copyright" --Presearch (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

External Links to Copyright Violations Prohibited

I've removed an external link in the article to what appeared to be a copyright violation. Note that WP:ELNEVER Advises: "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: 1. Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation." --Presearch (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Podcast

I've removed recently added sourcing to a 2022 podcast in a section on abuse allegations. Wikipedia aims for encyclopedic content based on reliable and verifiable sources. Near the start of that podcast the host states "We’ll be taking a conversational rather than an investigative approach … corroborating on record abuse claims would entail months of, like, full-time work. But we do have good enough resources to platform Christina’s story in good faith and within, like, a limited listener community ... Our comfort level would reach a limit if this were either, like, public, which means not paywalled for Patreon discussion, or, you know, if we were contracted by a mainstream outlet to nail the story down." With that disclaimer the podcast should not be considered a reliable source for encyclopedic content. --Presearch (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Wrongful sourcing of this page to a non-RS podcast was removed four days ago [10] but was restored yesterday by User:Satyagraha108, who made their first-ever edit only 4 days ago. I have now removed it again. SG restored this invalid content contrary to advice that they sought out and received at the WP Teahouse (LINK), and without offering any explanations on this page, also contrary to suggestions they received at the teahouse. Here are some excerpts from that Teahouse thread:

• I suggest you discuss it with the other editor to get clarity on their concerns of reliability, or you can ask at WP:RSN RudolfRed (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• OK, it's the "Conspirituality" podcast, and it doesn't appear to have been discussed on WP:RSN. But, while it's not impossible that a reliable source (a source with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking) should publish on Patreon, it seems a bit unlikely, and my presumption would be that this is an audio blog, and so, not reliable. ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• The issue isn't whether the subject of the interview is being reliable(and no, people aren't always reliable about themselves, either accidentally or otherwise), but the podcast itself. Does it perform fact checking and have an editor examine the podcast for accuracy before it is posted? Most do not. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

SG, please in the future act in accordance with WP goals, procedures and policies for building an encyclopedia, refraining from violating Wikipedia policies, which if persistent can result in sanctions. There's lots of good advice around that can be helpful.

And as suggested in the Teahouse advice, any reinsertion of the Conspirituality podcast as a source by you or others should not only address the issues raised in the Teahouse (that most podcasts do not perform fact checking), but also reconcile any asserted reliability with the Podcast host’s statement, when introducing the episode, that that:

"We’ll be taking a conversational rather than an investigative approach … corroborating on record abuse claims would entail months of, like, full-time work... Our comfort level would reach a limit if this were either, like, public, which means not paywalled for Patreon discussion, or, you know, if we were contracted by a mainstream outlet to nail the story down"

--Presearch (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Criminal Hate Group’s Uncurated Archives Removed as Primary Source

I have removed primary sourcing to the "Old" Cult Awareness Network’s archives and categorical scheme. This organization hardly qualifies as a reliable source. In case there are ongoing attempts to employ these archives as a primary source in the present article or elsewhere on Wikipedia, this section and the two following talkpage sections provide relevant background information, some but not all of which is also available at the WP article just linked.

First, scholarship published by a University Press (Baylor) has characterized this organization as having an “apt description” as "a clearinghouse for kidnap-for-hire rings", explaining that "[t]here was a corporate crime basis for CAN's continuance and funding". The Old (pre-1996) CAN organization also had a "primary activity… to provide false and/or inflammatory opinion in the guise of 'information' about minority religions," as explained in the following paragraph of this scholarship (p21):

CAN's primary activity…. was to provide false and/or inflammatory opinion in the guise of "information" about minority religions to the media and other inquirers. All or virtually all of such "information" was derogatory, consistent with CAN's goals of "educating" the public that various new religious movements (NRMs) are "destructive cults," that all of the members thereof are "cult victims," are "brain-washed," and are therefore at risk, possibly needing "rescue." The jury's decision, under the definitions provided in Washington law, was that CAN was truly an organized hate campaign.

There is also evidence that "CAN was a money-laundering scheme in that coercive deprogrammers were expected to 'kick-back' or note, directly, or indirectly, portions of the fees they charged families to CAN in exchange for continued referrals".

In sum, scholars have found that at the time of its 1996 dissolution, the Old CAN was a hate group whose primary activity was providing disinformation and inflammatory opinion about new religious movements, combined with service as a clearinghouse for kidnap rings, and engaging in financial crimes such as money-laundering.

The text just removed from this article was solely reliant on primary sourcing to the archives of this organization, the "Old CAN" (bankrupted 1996), which should not be confused with the "New CAN", which was reconstituted under new ownership, and had a very different orientation in society, although it had purchased the organizational logo of the bankrupted "Old CAN". The post-1996 "New CAN" is irrelevant to the editing issues discussed here. After the Fall of 1999, the Old CAN's archives were contributed to the Special Collections section of the library of the University of California, Santa Barbara, where they now appear to reside (see Shupe et al 2002, page 23).

Two now-deleted claims from this page were cited to Old CAN archives: i) That CAN designated the community established by Eknath Easwaran as a cult; and ii) That, in a letter, a former disciple made some specific abuse allegations against Eknath Easwaran. The basis for eliminating the usage of Old CAN archives for each of these claims is slightly different, so to facilitate clarity, they will be addressed under separate talk section headings below: "Removed Criminal Hate Group’s Archives as Source to Characterize a Religious Community" and "Removed Primary Sourcing to Letter in Criminal Hate Group Archives". --Presearch (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

References

A-Removed Criminal Hate Group’s Archives as Source to Characterize a Religious Community

This section describes the basis for removing the archives of the "Old" (pre-1996) Cult Awareness Network as a source relevant to understanding a religious community founded by the subject of this page. Please see above talkpage section "Criminal Hate Group’s Uncurated Archives Removed as Primary Source" for a fuller description of the Old CAN and its remaining archives.

The removed text stated, without further context, that "The University of Santa Barbara's Cult Awareness Network Archive lists Easwaran's Ramagiri Ashram as a cult," and was sourced to an archive entry.

The problems with such text include the text's usage of primary sources, when WP is generally built on secondary sources; the text's misleading implication that the University of California at Santa Barbara had classified the community as a cult; and, more broadly, the implication that the CAN categorical scheme could be a reliable source for gaining insight about any organization whatsoever. Oxford University Press scholarship reports that

[I]n the files of … the Cult Awareness Network (which went bankrupt in 1996 from NRM lawsuits against it…), one could one could find folders on over 1,500 separate alleged "cults," some with only a single folder of information on it and other groups filling several boxes of folders. Alongside better-known controversial NRMs such the Rajneeshees, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, or the Divine Light Mission, there were also (among many others) both the Republican and Democratic parties, Mary Kay Cosmetics, Klanwatch, the Rev. Pat Robertson's 700 Club television program, Campus Crusade for Christ, the Amish, the Roman Catholic Church, the National Association of Evangelicals, actress Shirley MacLaine, Women Aglow, the United Pentecostal Church, the Democratic Workers Party, and the vintage rock band the Grateful Dead.

Citing the Old CAN's classification of cults on the WP articles on any of the groups listed above, as well as the community founded by the subject of this page, would not add any insight, both because Old CAN's scheme appears essentially meaningless, but because the Old CAN was a criminal rather than a scholarly organization (WP's preferred source for adding insight).

Scholarship indicates that the Old CAN was a criminal hate group that provided disinformation about new religious movements, engaged in financial crimes, and served as a clearinghouse for kidnap rings (see above section mentioned earlier). Any attempt to reintroduce article sourcing to this organization must address all of the problems noted. Presearch (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Presearch! Are you actively associated with Easwaran's organization? If so, that might constitute a COI: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest of your ongoing removal of this content. Thx! Satyagraha108 (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am familiar with his organization, but I do not think that is a conflict of interest with my role here as a Wikipedia editor, in the same way that a Quaker need not declare an interest when contributing to a bio page for George Fox. My talkpage section posting addressed fundamental Wikipedia editorial principles of not using a source as unreliable as Old CAN (“a criminal hate group that provided disinformation about new religious movements”) to justify assertions about the subject of the article. --Presearch (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do trust that someone with your long years of experience on Wikipedia is doing their best to maintain the space as democratic and in line with the goals of the larger project and not seek to remove content due to personal affinities or interests. Borrowing part of your example, if Quakers learned that their Founder had allegations against him, there may be reasons they would want to keep those from surfacing in a public forum, but as you suggest, you do not appear to be doing this. You are however minding source material for the larger project of Wikipedia. Thank you for clarifying. Satyagraha108 (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

References

B-Removed Primary Sourcing to Letter in Criminal Hate Group Archives

This section describes the basis for removing the archives of the "Old" (pre-1996) Cult Awareness Network as a primary source for accusations against the subject of this article. Please see above talkpage section "Criminal Hate Group's Uncurated Archives Removed as Primary Source" for a fuller description of the Old CAN and its remaining archives.

The removed text, referring to the Old CAN’s archives, stated that "Box 47, available for public search and requests, includes a copy of a 1989 letter from a woman detailing sexual abuse over many years by Easwaran at Ramagiri Ashram while she was married to one of his disciples, and her distress that he was continuing this behavior with other live-in women disciples at the time of her letter."

Wikipedia relies preferentially on secondary sources (WP:SECONDARY), rather than primary sources, such as this Old CAN archive. Wikipedia policy on primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) notes that primary sources may be used "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them", and that "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation".

The Old CAN archives are shot through with numerous problems, not least of which is documentation by scholars that the organization’s "primary activity [was] to provide false and/or inflammatory opinion in the guise of ‘information’ about minority religions". Among other problems besetting attempts to interpret the Old CAN archives is "evidence that during a total of more than fifty-one pending lawsuits against CAN and its directors and during discovery inquiries (all during the early-to-mid 1990s) select documents were being destroyed by unknown persons at CAN". To interpret the CAN archives' implications on financial questions, for example, Shupe et al (2002) preferred "a triangulation of evidence" from multiple sources, including deprogrammers' testimonies, former CAN officials' testimonies, and the "obvious accounting lacunae in CAN financial records".

A reliably published secondary source from scholars such as those who examined the financial records could potentially navigate the multitude of interpretational challenges concerning context and authenticity in these archives. But such nuanced interpretational attempts are not appropriate as part of Wikipedia editing, as WP policy forbids original research (WP:NOR), and such original research is arguably implicitly or explicitly a necessary accompaniment to any ongoing attempt to use these archives as a primary source within Wikipedia.

Scholarship indicates that the Old CAN was a criminal hate group that provided disinformation about new religious movements, engaged in financial crimes, and served as a clearinghouse for kidnap rings (see above section mentioned earlier). Any attempt to reintroduce article sourcing to this criminal hate group must address all of the problems just noted, and should be explained on this talk page. Presearch (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Circular Citing on This Page versus a Variety of Fact Checked Sources: How does this work?

Hi Editors,

I've noticed a strange feature of this page's citations. Most biographical information points to books that Eknath Easwaran wrote, stories/anecdotes that he told, books that were published by HIS publishing house (Nilgiri Press). It's not exactly clear that these "facts" have been fact-checked at all, but merely published as truth because they can point to a book where he said it, and on goes the cycle. What proof is there about his meeting Gandhi other than a book he wrote about it? Or, as another example, the Berkeley plaque citation is misleading, and the source is from a book from his own publishing house, which is from his own words. Or the link to a Yoga Journal article that was citing him saying something about himself. Does anyone else notice this kind of citation circularity on this page? And if so, is this permissible in the Wikipedia universe? I'm new here so I'm still learning, and am very interested in understanding how it works better. This page is an example that can help clarify this issue. I believe the experienced editors who have been working on this page might have considered this already so it would help to understand their position. Is it the case they believe that his own publishing house did the fact-checking of his stories and bio and so that is sufficient and then allows for this? And if that's the case, then the Berkeley Plaque is a clear example of content that was taken from one of his books but was factually inaccurate. I'm confused about this. Thank you. Satyagraha108 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Two relevant links are WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS. In essence, it's ok to cite a simple fact about a person to something they wrote. For example, if a person publishes "I was born in X city on Y date", and if there is no conflicting evidence, it is ok for an article to give X and Y as facts with the publication as the source. However, it is not acceptable to use "I did Z great thing" as the only source to add Z. If it's not too self-serving or unlikely, it might be acceptable to attribute Z ("so-and-so stated they did Z"). See WP:ATTRIBUTE. The noticeboard WP:RSN can be used to ask if a particular source is acceptable as the reference for a particular statement. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. Satyagraha108 (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)