Talk:Kripalu Center/Archive 1

section for orphaned comments without a section head - Jan-Feb 2009

I've added information about tax status and executive compensation. This is highly significant information with regard to public policy concerning a large land holding in Stockbridge. It also is socially significant in connection with a larger debate about executive compensation in general. The information is publically disclosed for good and important reasons and ought to be even more widely available.

I've also folded information about the founder and his resignation into a single section and omitted some information from thijs area that may be deemed trivial.

Finally, I've added nightly rates in the lead paragraph. Obviously this information would be among the foremost questions a majority of readers would want answered. Calamitybrook (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed some unsourced material introduced by Helpfulfacts, and restored information concerning the legal counsel's annual pay of $110,000 for 52 hrs/year, which are sourced in the tax return link. Very interesting. A great gig!!!

Apart from being unsourced, the information I removed was non-substantive, and akin merely to saying that Kripalu's executive compensation is responsible because Kripalu says that it is. If they said anything different, they'd be in trouble with the IRS. We don't need a section that says Kripalu says that it complies with all local, state and federal laws, codes, etc.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fee for Service

At it's most simple level, this is what Kripalu is. The services are described in great detail. Fees should be included as is various financial information including executive salaries, gross revenue and tax status. They all hang together and are relevant and interesting.

A larger interesting and highly relevant point is, this is a facility used by (as of some recent point in time) the wealthy.

To make a viable case for deleting rate info, I'd ask that you first justify the notion that wealth distinctions and financial information in U.S. society aren't relevant to this article. As of 2-5-09, this would be difficult.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, the article needs a lot of improvement and as far as I am concerned seems more of an advertisement than a article on useful encyclopedic information. I'd consider much of it to violate wp:peacock, wp:advert and based on the history and response to my suggestion I would ask you to read wp:own. Oh, and if you are affiliated with the center at some level, perhaps wp:coi --ThujaSol∆ 16:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Compensation for Richard Faulds -- Fact Correction

While I realize Wikipedia is an open forum and we may not agree with everything that is written, there is one piece of information that is factually incorrect.

Richard Faulds is the full-time legal counsel for Kripalu Center as well as the chairman of the board of trustees and a part-time workshop leader. He is not compensated for his work as a board member and logs in 50 hours a week as legal counsel for which he is paid. On the 990 form there is a space to list how many hours a week board members work and each member averages at least one hour a week for which they are not compensated. So the “one hour” refers to Faulds's time serving the board (this is an average for all board members, Faulds actually puts in many more hours). His compensation on the 990 form refers to his full-time position as legal counsel and as a part-time workshop leader. So the sentence should read…

Richard Faulds (aka Shobhan), Kripalu's board chairman and legal counsel, was paid more than $110,000 during 2006 for his work as legal counsel (he averages 50 hours a week) and part-time workshop leader (leads weekend workshops several times a year). His work as chairman of the board of trustees was uncompensated.

The information above was provided by Richard Faulds, legal counsel for Kripalu Center For Yoga & Health.

KripaluPR (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Gee, does that include lunch?

Not saying you're wrong Mr. Faulds (AKA Shobhan), but "Statement 17" on the 990 form under the column "Title and Average Hours Worked" lists both titles for you, and a reasonable person would interpret it as evidence of your having worked one hour per week. There seems to be nothing there about 50 hours per week spent on legal work for Kripalu -- though doubtless this may be.

Seems to be an unusual circumstance here, and as a lawyer and Officer of the Court, sort of like a Wikipedia Administrator, perhaps you can make special appeals. Typically, however, one must to present a verifiable source for any reasonable dispute regarding content.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Tag Removed

I removed dispute tag. It can be restored when a usable source --of any kind-- is provided that relates to the the dispute.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fee for Service

Is a widely used, well-defined term that is easily understood. It is not vague.

In this case, the services are identified in detail. Therefore, I'm going to restore the fees, through a revert.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fees, Compensation, Sociology and Economics

Fees are highly objective and relevant information about the sociological nature of Kripalu. The topic also has various implications for Kripalu's economics which are important to an understanding of the institution.

A simple mention of fees requires no subjective judgment and is therefore far preferable to descriptive terms like "highly expensive."

Somebody said in an edit note that "fees not encyclopedic." Why are services and not fees "encyclopedic." Why would the term "encyclopedic" exclude relevant information?

Another person removed the executive compensation information with the comment "abide by WP:NOR. However, the tax documents are available and linked online. This comment isn't clear.

For now I've restored the info as previously.

Soon, as a compromise, will recast, putting fees and executive compensation into an expanded section on economics and fund-raising, based on 2007 tax form available here [[1]] Interesting stuff!!! May also examine earlier tax forms to show trends.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No dicussion?

Please justify edits?

Why is completely documented discussion of economic and tax status not a justified and relevant section?:

These elements are critical to both the community and Kripalu's contituents, as well as to understanding the institution's

cultural significance.

No attempt is made to suggest otherwise by recent edits that eliminate this information. Why not?

Given complete documentation, how is this POV? OR?

At least until there is some comment, will revert.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization as compromise

Without discussion, I can only imagine what difficulties editors are having.

My rather wild guess is, they find economic information an embarrassment to the institution. In a compromise effort, I've moved the information lower down in an effort to deemphasize, and thus lessen this discomfort. I expect I will edit the "program" info to shorten to remove needless words and also in keeping with its significance.... I also feel very strongly that it is relevant and important to an understanding of this institution. Calamitybrook (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Calamity, please abide by WP: Assume Good Faith. Your edits do not abide by WP: No Original Research (excessive use of primary documents, drawing your own conclusions) or WP: NPOV (see WP: Undue Weight). Moving the section to a different area of the page does not change the fact that it violates Wikipedia polices.ShamWow (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, wp:own and wp:3rr. The entire "economic section" is not encyclopedic in nature. It should be removed. Perhaps we should draw some attention to the article and get other editors involved. No typical wp reader is going to care about employee compensation, year-end net assets or total revenue for 2007... Perhaps you should create a blog if you need to express your point of view. --ThujaSol∆ 04:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I added an infobox, but couldn't get the image to show. Anyone want to give that a shot? Also, history should go before this other info about type of yoga and financial info.--ThujaSol∆ 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for A) WP:Preserve. And B) for discussing your views. That the material you dislike violates POV and OR is incorrect. Accounting aims above all for objectivity. Kripalu's actual books are the primary source on which, for example, an auditor would rely; the document used here is from the IRS and not Kripalu, and is a secondary source. Why is it your view that "no typical reader is going to care" about executive compensation or other economic matters. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:Preserve precludes "original research," "Duplicated, irrelevant, or redundant content," and "factual claims that cannot be verified." Yes, outside editors will need to be enlisted to stop Calamity's crusade.ShamWow (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll submit it later today. Might get the most attention at WP:ANEW. Post here if you beat me to it. --ThujaSol∆ 16:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain your view that economics are irrelevant to operations of an institution. The material is verified via IRS documents. Original research or recourse to primary sources in this case would be available only to an auditor. Further, there is an additional link to reporting on these matters by The Berkshire Eagle newspaper in April 2008. Also, the material is neither duplicated nor redundant, and by definition, mere "bottom line" numbers don't imply a point of view.Calamitybrook (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've submitted for Peer review at Social sciences and society peer reviews section. Hold tight and allow other editors to contribute. You've been arguing your same pov for a while now with no compromise. --ThujaSol∆ 18:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review seems to be the necessary route. For other editors, it's important to note that the original facility housing Kripala was called "Shadowbrook." It may be more than a coincidence that the uncompromising user's name is "CalamityBrook." Therefore, this may be a violation of WP:Conflict of Interest.ShamWow (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Remarkable theory you've got there, Sham...

BTW, I think you two folks may be interested in WP:Dispute -- rather than "peer review" at WP:PR.

Also, may point out that the talk-page comments (see above) made by Kripalu's chairman and chief counsel concerning the material at issue are perhaps now resolved, with reliance on a more recent annual report from IRS, in which counsel's hours are listed at 45/wk sted 1hr/wk as in earlier report.Calamitybrook (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have trouble finding any of it to be notable or encyclopedic. --ThujaSol∆ 21:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Thujasol and ShamWow have made several assertions above, and now a new assertion about "notability," but little or no rationale to back up any of these varied views.

Where appropriate, I've offered some simple points about why these assertions may be incorrect.

As for notability, you don't mention on what you base your views but evidence of the notability of Kripalu as an economic enterprise can be viewed at links to USA Today [[2]]. Ernst & Young[[3]] and the Berkshire Eagle newspaper [[4]].

I reckon there are other sources one can dig up. But if Kripalu is itself notable, then why not its economics?

The issue of notability can also be raised on appropriate page listed at Wikipedia:Dispute. Also this recently added note

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

3PO A [[wp:3po|third opinion was requested, but there are already 3 editors involved. For content disputes, try RFC or dispute resolution. For conduct issues consult one of the admin noticeboards. NJGW (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance Tag

I have tagged the financial section for improvement per discussion above. If a true compromise can't be reached, I'll request involvement from other editors or admin to clean it up. Also see WP:ANEW for info on edit warring. Thanks. --ThujaSol∆ 05:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the "Economics and Tax Status" section notable, encyclopedic, neutral and without conflict of interest?

The section on Economics and Tax Status looks excessive and inappropriate.

The organization's tax return is a primary source, and per WP:PSTS we should limit our use of primary sources. I would not object to leaving the tax return as an external link in the article.

Such things as the total budget and total number of employees are likely to be informative to our readers and I wouldn't object to keeping those.

If a newspaper had commented on the matter of the salaries, then it would be fair game. As it is, the notability is unclear.

I did not find any comment on the economics of Kripalu in http://www.berkshireeagle.com. Our article uses one link to a privately-run blog, http://berkshireeagle.blogspot.com, that in spite of its name, does not seem to be affiliated with a newspaper. This seems not to be a reliable source so it should not be used as a reference. (It might still be kept as an external link if it's not used to back up any factual claims).

There is one link to the Boston Globe about Kripalu that looks like a legitimate source, that could be added to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Primary vs Secondary vs IRS

I'll repeat the point that an IRS document is indeed a secondary source. This is (bear with me) even apart from the fact that the source is the IRS -- and not Kripalu.

Auditors use primary sources to perform, if you will, original research i.e. their own analysis -- in this case the primary source would be Kripalu's accounting books. The IRS document is an accounting interpretation and analysis of those books, in effect, a secondary commentary. (Perhaps you needn't agree with me, but don't bother contradicting this point with IRS auditors.)

Calamitybrook (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent Press Coverage

The Berkshire Eagle commented as recently as January on Kripalu as an economic enterprise, including briefly on executive salaries. I'll repeat the link here [[5]] Please see also links above to Ernst & Young and USA Today for further evidence of notability as economic enterprise.

Calamitybrook (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Executive Compensation & Public Interest

That executive compensation is a generally notable topic of keen public interest seems especially well-established by recent events. It is also a revealing and key element of what might be called corporate culture at any given institution. These are general points, but ones which, I believe, are quite reasonable and broadly accepted by informed readers.

With regard to Kripalu specifically, the IRS makes information on executive compensation widely available because it is deemed in the public interest. This is because Kripalu is, in effect, subsidized by the public via foregone tax revenue. Similar information is made available by the U.S. SEC concerning institutions that are traded by the public on the stock market, because prospective investors and various stakeholders find the information "material" to company operations.

The subject also has a historical context regarding Kripalu that is not presently mentioned in article. See Boston Globe, 22 Dec. 1994 Page 61 city edition:

"...the guru's salary as spiritual director was as much as $165,000 annually, paid to his own company, Yoga Services Inc... The residents at Kripalu, who comprise most of the staff, typically get a monthly stipend of about $70."

See also 11 August 1995 The Toronto Star Pg A2 metro edition: "It ultimately brought him an estimated $350,000 to $450,000 (U.S.) a year - $150,000 salary, free home, free car, lecture fees, extensive travel, royalties from tapes, videos, books..."

The blog link is indeed an oversight and should be removed. Thanks for pointing this out. I've now replaced it with the correct link to B. Eagle.

Apart from these matters, the section includes, in essence, only two sets of numbers: revenue/expense and assets/liabilities. It also offers a partial breakdown of revenue into four categories, which provide further insight into the nature of Kripalu's basic functioning.

Calamitybrook (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Budget Unavailable, Non-Insightful

An institution's budget pertains to its future spending intentions and as such, won't appear on an IRS document. I'm not certain what is being suggested in this regard, or how much insight it might provide.

Calamitybrook (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok as it stands now

I was asked to come here as part of peer review - but you really want(ed) dispute resolution.

After a brief read only, the economics section looks ok to me as it now stands.

I'll add a couple of very small things "the Sarley couple" might be best changed to "Bob and Betty Sarley" or whatever their names are. I looked for these names, but it is confusing. Is it Garrett and Ila? Or Fannon and Mary? If these people are using multiple names, this should be cleared up.

I'd reformat the Board of Directors section to take up less space. BTW is Mr. White an "Associate Director" or an "Assistant Director" - I don't like the abreviation!

---

I agree with all of your comments and will act on them ---except for formatting of "Board" section, merely because I'm not much good at formatting specs. Perhaps somebody else, one day, might do it, or I'll someday take trouble to figure it out.

Calamitybrook (talk)

Newest Compromise

I've just now cut the number of sentences in the financial section by 40% to twelve, from twenty, a good-faith compromise.

I've removed content about annual payments to a former director, and Kripalu's recent agreement to support Stockbridge in the form of payment in lieu of taxes. I've also removed year-earlier revenue and expense (thus removing up/down trend information).

I've made more clear the historical context regarding Kripalu compensation practices and added two new sources.

It's bare-bones. Sources for twelve sentences include the U.S. Government, two major newspapers, the Kripalu Web site and the local Berkshire newspaper.

Still, all of my above comments remain valid about this section.

The spareness of the re-write makes a viable model for further work on this article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the section looks a lot better now. More neutrality, better flow and compared to the rest of the article it's now about the size as it deserves. I have further trimmed the the spacing down per wp:mos and linked in-line citation per wp:cite. Thanks for working together for the better of the article. --ThujaSol∆๏̯͡๏ 06:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've cut it back further, to eight sentences.Calamitybrook (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Rest of article

is too wordy, has few citations; much of it is written with a highly favorable and uncritical point of view on Kripalu.

I'll probably do some work on it.

What are you talking about "uncritical POV"??? It is a YOGA center, not a political controversy. It seems completely inappropriate for such an article and not in the interest of the lay reader who seeks general information.ShamWow (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

---

You're welcome Thuja. Nice job you did on cleaning up the clean-up.

I've given the rest of article a run-through trying to shorten sentences and remove loaded, judgmental adjectives. I've preserved nearly every bit of its content.

The lede is now more clear about its actual content which hasn't been changed. Lame though & needs improvement.

Sham, when did "the lay reader" lose interest in money and sex?

I didn't hear they did, but maybe "that's what's wrong with this country."

I mean BTW, critical as in "critical thinking" not as in "negative criticism." Specifically, Kripalu publishes stuff on its Web site with a lot of loaded terms that pre-judge its programs and that were apparently just dumped into this article wholesale.

By removing those terms, one has a more neutral description. But you can't do that without applying critical thinking.

Its a bit like changing the sentence "A spicey and delicious Big Mac looks good to eat and has only 200 calories to weigh you down." to "A Big Mac has 200 calories." The content becomes easier to digest.

Also Sham, am still all ears on your theory that I have a conflict of interest.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request an error?

The peer review tag seems to have been placed in error. Two editors have commented to that effect, besides myself.

As of now, the editor who requested the review appears to have signed off on what had previously been a content dispute, following various compromises.

Another editor who disputed content, made rather fantastic claims regarding conflicts of interest, and for the moment at least, seems to have dropped out of discussion.

I'll eventually remove tag, unless somebody objects, or actually wants a peer review --- which I'd certainly not oppose.

I've meanwhile worked further on the article and do think it could use additional, responsible and neutral editors, who are not somehow beholden to "Yogic" visions or anti-"Yogic" visions...... not actually employed by Kripalu......etc.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:ThujaSol posted a request for a peer review at PR, and I did one. I noticed that no tag had been placed on this talk page, so I added one. You can read my review at WP:PR in the social sciences and society section. It is neutral. I always hope that other editors are reading my reviews and finding my suggestions helpful. Finetooth (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Finetooth comments:

A copy of Finetooth's "Peer Review"

Am inserting copy of Finetooth's comments below, for general reference, a dozen days after it was writtenCalamitybrook (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

• I referred to Template:Infobox Venue to see a sample of how the infobox fields are to be filled. You might want to look at it too to see what to do with fields like "Opened", which I believe should be the date (1983?) the retreat opened in Stockbridge rather than the Pennsylvania date. Other fields that could be filled are "Owner", "Website", "Genre" (Hatha Yoga), and perhaps some of the others.

Citations

• A good rule of thumb for sourcing is to include at least one citation for each paragraph and to source statistics, direct quotes, and any claim that is unusual or likely to be challenged. I see "citation needed" tags on two claims in the "History section" and two of the paragraphs in this section are unsourced as well.
• Citations, where possible, should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. The "cite" family of templates is especially handy for getting the complete information in the right order. You can find the templates at WP:CIT, and it's easy to copy and paste them into an article in edit mode, add a pair of ref tags, and fill in the empty fields. I did this with citation #2 as an example of how this works and what the results look like.
• I'd avoid adding citations that don't directly support a claim. Citation #1 apparently sources the claim that the center is in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. The supporting document is an ad for Kripalu published by Kripalu, which may raise questions about why it is being cited. Frommer and the Boston Globe, outside sources, say the center is in Lenox. Why not use one of these as the source for the location and add an explanatory note about the difference? Is Stockbridge part of Lenox?

History

• Wikilink "ashram", an unfamiliar term.
• "Amrit Desai, aka 'beloved teacher,' " - "Beloved teacher" needs a source, and "aka" needs to be spelled out on first use, thus: "also known as (a.k.a.) "beloved teacher".
• "Kripalu paid $2.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit" - This also needs a source.
• "Kripalu's current chief executive, Patton Garrett Sarley (aka Dinabandhu), and his wife, Mary Sarley (aka Ila), now president... " - References to time are tricky. "Current" and "now" refer to no specific time and are ambiguous. It's better to say something like "As of X, Kripalu's chief executive, Patton Garret Sarley... " where X is a specific year. Also, it's not clear from this whether Mary Sarley is the president or whether "president" is modifying Patton Garret Sarley. Also, it might be better to say "Patton Garrett (Dinabandhu) Sarley" rather than using "a.k.a.", which has an unfortunate crime-novel flavor. Ditto for the other instances of "a.k.a."
• Direct links to outside sources from within the text are frowned upon. The direct link to the Boston Globe should be changed to a standard in-line citation and should use this as the url rather than linking to the last page of the article.
• "But Sarley returned to Kripalu in his current role in 2004." Suggestion: "Sarley returned to Kripalu as chief executive in 2004."
• "By 2007, the Sarleys together were being paid $425,000 annually by Kripalu mainly in cash -- due to their management of the charitable organization." - I don't see the point of including their compensation or citing the IRS 990. If compensation were an issue or a source of controversy raised by reliable outside sources (not within Kripalu or Wikipedia) such as newspapers, that would be a different matter. Suggestion: Delete the sentence.
• The final paragraph lacks a source.

Current programs

• Each direct quotation needs a source.

Economics and tax status

• "Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health is an accredited non-profit, tax exempt 501(c)(3) organization -- as such getting more than a third of its support from from membership fees and gross receipts related to "charitable functions." Its tax return Form 990 is therefore available in the public interest from the IRS. - This definition of a 501(c)(3) is problematic. Rather than trying to explain 501(c)(3) in the article, it might be better to just say: "Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health is an accredited non-profit, tax exempt 501(c)(3) organization". I'd suggest putting a link to the 990 in the "External links" section without comment and deleting the sentence that says, "Its tax return Form 990 is therefore available in the public interest from the IRS."
• "direct public support" - Each of these phrases in quotation marks needs to be sourced immediately after the final quotation marks. As it is, it's not possible to tell who is saying "direct public support". It could be the IRS, or the Wikipedia editor, or Kripalu, or someone else. Ditto for "key employees", and the others.
• "including the Sarley couple (see their compensation above), as well as Kripalu's chairman and legal counsel Richard Faulds (aka Shobhan)" - I would delete this as a violation of WP:NPOV.
• "Kripalu compensation was highlighted in widely distributed media reports in the 1990s concerning Amrit Desai's estimated annual compensation of $350,000 to $450,000, when Kripalu residents serving as staff received weekly cash stipends of $70." - This may be true, but the two sources you've cited don't directly support the claim. Even if you can find and provide direct support for the claim, it is of questionable relevance since it is about Desai and events in 1990 and not about Kripalu in 2009.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Here ends after-the fact insertionCalamitybrook (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Yes thank you very much. I was completely unaware of your review, which I appreciate. My point about a request for peer review, however, remains accurate.

Although the article is substantially changed since your review, you make at least several very excellent points, which I will address with editing in the article.

I would strongly disagree, however, with your comment that historical events of 1990 are of "questionable revelevance" to 2009.

This clearly implies that history itself is irrelevant (but yet it is relevant, and that's why people study history. If one lived merely in the present, one would make no sense of life at all).

Also, I don't understand why you question the citations. The articles I attempted to cite are very narrow and clear cut. You can read them in full either by paying fees to the respective newspapers, or obtain free access via various university or other libraries. If you are unable to make this effort, them you must simply assume good faith.

Also, I think your understanding of executive compensation as a culturally significant topic is uninformed and lacking insight. To back up my statement, I'd first refer you to the relevant Wikipedia article and its various links and citations.

Beyond this, I've just added three "external links" to Kripalu that you might investigate as you pursue your further research on this topic.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability / Reliable Sources

I have doubts over the notability of this subject. There must be hundreds of such cults and yoga centres in the US. Why is this place notable? I don't see that in the article. Also needs WP:Reliable sources, most citations are primary source. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability: A google search for Kripalu in news (or otherwise) is one approach to the "notability" question. Another is common sense: Kripalu has a major visual impact on the landscape around Tanglewood Music Center and the Stockbridge/Lenox area of the Berkshires. This region has a significant cultural history. (One example among many: Kripalu occupies the site on which Andrew Carnegie died.) In say, the past ten or twenty years, millions of tourists have looked at the place (whether they wanted to or not.) Common sense also tells us that kripalu is, for better or worse, one of the largest employers in Berkshire County, and occupies one of its largest buildings.

Sources: Quite a bit much to want a citation for, it appears quite literally, each sentence in an article? (Of course they are available, but to what end?).

As for "secondary vs. primary" comment, that's a misunderstanding of terminology that has been in part addressed above.

But to extend it somewhat, if a corporation, for example, says its CEO is 65 years old, the primary source would be a birth certificate. The same corporation might report details of its legal proceedings. The sole primary source in that case, would be relevant court documents.

Possibly, you have a different concern, that would be using Kripalu for three of the 14 current citations. I agree that it's a bit problematic, but also probably necessary. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed Peer review tag

See above for comment.

I've also recently removed some tags. There are a fairly large number of citations (26 I think, in this somewhat short) article. An interested reader would have very little difficulty checking the various sources. When each and every sentence lacks a citation, this is not a reasonable cause for adding fact tags.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please leave the PR tag in place so all interested parties can access it and act on its suggestions to improve the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Archived comment

Concern is that a single well-intentioned "editor" made a number of comments in "peer review," some of which were well-informed, some less so.......and the response and edit changes can't be viewed in archived area. Problematic because new editors will view these comments without context of edit/discussion history.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about - if you ask for a peer review, you get a review. The article needs work to get up to standards. Hiding the peer review won't improve the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I support Ruhrfisch here. Peer reviews are not meant to be the final word on anything, but they are done in good faith and should be available for all to see. A quick tour of the PR showed me that it has some good ideas, was apparently neutral and a worthwhile read. I implemented one of its ideas. I have another concern about this article, which I've mentioned earlier. It seems like it's a bit of a muckraker. To the extent that the center was muckraked by reliable sources, the muckraking is allowable in Wikipedia, to the extent that you are piecing together bits and pieces it moves toward WP:Original Research. When you get to the point of hiding a PR, it's probably time to cool it. Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood, I am not saying a) that anything should be removed from the article, or b) that muckraking is bad (just that original muckraking is not allowable in Wikipedia). Smallbones (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

All good points except to extent you misunderstand. My concern is that the "Peer Review" should be here in the context of this talk page. One editor's view is not more useful than another. In fact, I've just inserted a copy above, above with an eye to the chronology of when it was written. At some point it becomes more of an historical document than an active comment.Calamitybrook (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that some of the points raised previously have not been addressed. There is a mixture of inline citations - some lead to footnotes, some are just straight links. Several do not seem to me to support the statements, one (About.com) is not a reliable source, two are broken: http://www.ncrp.org/blog/2008/07/nonprofit-executive-compensation-who.html/ and http://www.advocateweb.org/HOPE/soulbetrayal.asp, some eg those in the 2nd paragraph of History are duplicates, several are properly formatted, eg footnotes 9, 10, 12, 13, 14. Hope this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Formatting citations isn't my specialty. It's not a critical point but one that can certainly be addressed.

I'd quibble with your characterizing About.com as an unreliable source. Not saying it absolutely is invariably a "reliable source," but on the other hand, the site is published by the New York Times Company, which employs and pays the various writers for their contributions with an eye to thoroughness and accuracy.

I'll try to at least attend to broken links and give additional thought to reliability.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Another thought, perhaps include this page in WP:WikiProject Spirituality and WP:WikiProject Alternative medicine. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried searching the New York Times itself (not About.com) - there seem to be many articles on the center - there is a recent one that seems like it would be useful here Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Other potential categories?

This may or may not be a reasonable suggestion.

Consider for example Michigan State University and adding it to the category or projects Liberal Arts or Physics or Basketball or whatever. You see the difficulty?

Kripalu is primarily an institution -- in other words, a Bureaucracy which hires and fires large numbers of hapless people with little or no regard for "spiritual values" or "alternative medicine" or other fringe or mainstream cultural topics.

These various categories with which Kripalu may be associated are very much secondary to its significance. Like Michigan State University. Certainly these are highly secondary to its significance to its local economy.

Critically, as an economic enterprise, Kripalu accomodates tourists, or visitors or students if you prefer. Schools likewise, accomodate students.

Your suggestion isn't entirely unreasonable. Catholic Church for example, might be part of WP:Spirituality or Alternative medicine, but it could easily be suggested that this categorization would be beside the essential point. I certainly don't know.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Reverted an edit that removed cited material and substituted uncited and overly long material.

Suggest that extensive material about "Swami Kripalu" or whatever his name, be included in separate article, as the guy has limited relevance to Kripalu Center.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

created separate page for Swami Kripalvananda

Even dumped some of the reverted material there, where I think it should stay.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Onlyfriend's Reverts

Editor "Onlyfriend," who has only contributed to this article, and only recently, removed carefully sourced information and citations of state records from this article concerning important public health and finance issues.

This sort of editing should obviously be subject to comment and consensus before it is done.

ALL the material removed had multiple sources from state authorities accessible on the Web.

Onlyfriend's motives are unknown. Perhaps he or she was operating with non-neutral point of view.

I encourage this person to add information to this article, and/or justify removal of cited material.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Added PoV flag

I don't plan to dig more deeply into the article. It is my hope that the flag may draw the attention of additional editors. Fixed some links, but some of this was rather dated and the links have simply aged out. All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's a few potential sources from google here, with additional material from google books here, and a few from google scholar here. JSTOR doesn't have anything I can find, but I imagine the local libraries might have databases which list articles and other sources which might be available as well. Personally, right now I'm working on reading up on Falun Gong for the process of developing the minimal, somewhat unbalanced, content on that subject, and that will probably take a while. John Carter (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks John.

Fanlun Gong, due to Buddist origns, may have little or nothing to do with Yoga or Kripalu, but if you can find anything solid and significant that'd be amazing! Could make for a really good addition.

Also, thanks for that tip about Google!! Bet that's a good way to look.

One does find at least a few good sources; a number of which are cited.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There are also a number of other articles from magazines which I downloaded to my email last night which at least mention the Kripalu Center. I think such information is in general preferable, both because the sites from which I downloaded the material are stable and intend to keep the content there into the future, preventing linkrot, and because they are at least initially from true print sources. If anyone wanted I could email the lot to them, but they should know thqt it is about 250 articles total, from two different sites so there might be some repitition, and I didn't have the time to go throug them to see how prominently Kripalu Center was mentioned in them, so in at least some cases it might be only a passing reference. There is an additional database of newspaper articles, which is probably available at several local public libraries, which contained about 50 or more newspaper articles, which I didn't have time to send myself before the library closed for the night. John Carter (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Flag

Generic flag indicates "dispute" but no dispute is outlined on talk page.

If those tagging seek productive outcome, the tag criteria --the perceived "dispute" -- can be discussed and editing might proceed.

Else this dispute must remain mysterious. If no dispute, will eventually remove the tag.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Or interested editors may simply proceed. The flag harms no one, prevents nothing, causes no problems, costs nothing, and cautions readers that an editor noted that the article seemed, in the editor's opinion, to be slanted.- Sinneed 04:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That's so excellent, and extraordinarily helpful to page editors.

One can therefore only be grateful for editorial direction.

Specifics make it easier to focus on improvements that may be indicated by this, or these various and changing, generic (though very thoughtful and extremely helpful) tag or tags.

Neutrality tag not to be removed "until dispute is resolved."

Am seeking a statement: "What is disputed."

Without "dispute," a dispute tag is assumed inaccurate and one imagines, can be removed?

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything in WP can be removed. Please do not remove the {{PoV}} flag. You need not understand it. You need not wp:like it. It isn't for you. It is for readers who might mistakenly take this to be a wp:BALANCED view of the subject.- Sinneed 03:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Proper, potential eventual removal of tag(s)

Without clear statement of dispute, eventually, one imagines, there is no substantive dispute, & tag becomes inaccurate.

Concept here is similar to unsourced content, which can eventually and properly be removed.

Specificity must at some reasonable time emerge, or the point of "dispute" tag is drawn into great question.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How to initiate an NPOV debate

Quote from WP guidelines:

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Am not finding statement of neutrality dispute.

Rather, a few edits that I don't understand and which I've changed.

Re-added revenue data in lede as per earlier consensus.

Revenue is for good reason a typical measure of an economic enterprise.

Gives immediate notion of size of operation and economic significance.

"Tax exempt," "charitable" and "revenue" are relevant and related terms.

Re-added "Tanglewood." It is far more established and better-known enterprise than Kripalu and can signal, to moderately informed or curious reader, why the immediate area successfully attracts tourists.

Removed tag from address. Location isn't at issue, and so easily verified on facility's Web site and elsewhere within various supplied references, that a source isn't required.

It's really a bit like asking for a citation that Albany, N.Y., actually exists, and is truly within New York State.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed "dispute" tag

It's been there for a week without definition or statement, as suggested by relevant guideline quoted above.

If any actual dispute exists, I certainly hope tag can be properly added again, with a brief summary of "issue."

Without this summary, tag is obviously unhelpful and irrelevant, to editors; readers.

Thanks!!

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Restored flag. The flag serves the purpose of letting random readers know that an interested editor sees the article as non-neutral. Also added a COI flag, as at least one editor appears to have a possible COI. Positive mention out, negative hammered-away-at. This article does not interest me. If there is a wp:consensus that the tags do not belong, I will be happy to accept it. Until then, I expect to restore them, as needed, until the content is less unbalanced.- Sinneed 03:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If one finds a flag on an article, and does not understand it, one may wisely assume that one is not the intended audience. If another editor has an interest in editing the article, the tag will encourage that editor to make edits to bring the articled to a wp:neutral point of view or into wp:BALANCE. Please let someone else remove the flag, as that will be a wp:consensus, which I will of course, accept.- Sinneed 04:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that both the disputed tag and the COI tag seem relevant. Content referring to people by what are, basically, nicknames, like "Gurudev", which is almost in extremely regular usage elsewhere, gives the impression that the person adding it is either writing a publicity brochure or has little if any real experience with much of the rest of the world, or any other content here. A google search, which can be done by going to www.google.com and searching for the relevant words, would probably find additional sources. However, I have to say myself that, based on the often objectionable and less than useful conduct of certain parties related to this article, that I sincerely doubt I will be spending much time on this article anytime soon, particularly if that party continues to display the behavior that has been displayed to date. There are roughly 3 million articles in the English wikipedia, and many if not most of them are probably of at least equal importance to this one, many if not most need work as much as this one does, and most don't have the presence of extremely problematic editors like this one has, which generally serves as a significant disincentive to anyone from wanting to work on any given article. John Carter (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Updating financial information

There is more work to be done, but the IRS Form 990 for calendar 2008 is as of now (10.09) newly available. I've made a few changes accordingly but there is more to be done.

Form is available here: [[6]]

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also did some reorganizing. Notes are now in non-preferred format and a bit untidy. All there, however.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Tags

When tagger wants to state views on talk page, I'll immediately agree to tags.

Radom tagging without relevant statements on talk page is quite properly discouraged. (See above discussion).

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Please add comments sequentially as per Wikipedia talk-page convention. Thanks.

Yogic(?) names. Catholic nuns follow analagous practice. For example, "Mother Teresa" was formerly Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu.

One notes a previous editor's comment/objection to term "aka" due to traditional use by prosecutors and related criminal connotations.

Am neutral on removal of the yogic names & don't mean to compare these people with nuns etc.

Separately, the term "conflict of interest," as widely used, connotes a financial interest that conflicts with objective treatment of a given topic.

Credible allegations regarding "conflict of interest" should include specific commentary, such as "The senator's wife works for an industry lobby" or "The Wikipedia editor is employed by Kripalu."

Otherwise it is at minimum incomprehensible; possibly wild and irresponsible.

"Our mayor (boss, co-worker, senator, president, the NY Times, WP editor, etc...) has a conflict of interest. I can't/won't tell you what it is, but I am credible."

Understand please, that though this is specific problem, it is a general, rather than personal statement about particular editors/administrators.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I

Copyright violations

Somebody just cut and pasted extensive copy from Kripalu Web site into history section and deleted some sourced material. There are various problems with this.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unpaid staff...only getting $70 a week

Um. No. Either they were paid, or they weren't.- Sinneed 15:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Calamitybrooks's list of points

Glad to see discussion moving here, rather than on my talk page.

A few random points about Sinneed's recent edits:

A judge is required to approve settlements of lawsuits. A "legal settlement" is not "a settlement that is legal," but rather the settlement of a lawsuit. "Court-approved" is term sometimes used for additional clarity and emphasis, but whether to include or not is fairly arbitrary.

Given minimum wage law, staff receiving $70/week are unpaid for the great majority of a 40-hour workweek. The $70 was considered a stipend, rather than "pay." A trivial point however. Too bad lawsuit details aren't available.

The wikipedia sourcing page explains circumstances in which self-published sourcess are acceptable. For example, if the XYZ Hospital's page says it's director is Joe Blow, M.D., then it's okay to use that information and to call him Dr. Blow. Same logic for Yoga titles. Again, a trivial point.

The NPOV tag or whatever it was, was removed by an uninvolved editor. Is there a misapprehension about this?

As for Sinneed's other various and strenuous protestations, I'd ask that he please be more specific about them because so far, I simply don't understand. Refraining from relatively obscure Wikipedia jargon and threats would help me.

Sineed may also consider reviewing earlier consensus material developed on this talk page by various editors. - Calamitybrook (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no discussion of the article on your talk page. The warnings there were for your failure to follow WP guidance documents.- Sinneed 19:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"A judge is required to approve settlements of lawsuits." - Please read wp:no original research, wp:CITE, wp:V. Laws vary greatly.- Sinneed 19:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read, understand, and follow wp:talk page guidelines. As you consider the points to be trivial, I take it you have no objection, and the changes I have made will remain in the article unchallenged by you for now. Please focus on improving the content. This is another warning.- Sinneed 19:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"threats" - Please read wp:No Personal Attacks - characterizing my behaviour as threats is a borderline or overt wp:PA. Stop now. As previously warned, remove your focus from me entirely. This is another warning. As you have been previously blocked on 3 occasions, please consider your behaviour carefully.- Sinneed 19:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is serious dispute about material which is or is not added, as there seems to be, then it is generally best to bring that to the attention of others. It would be very useful if those adding material had it reliably sourced or those who removed reliably sourced information did so with the consensus of others. I also note that at least one of the editors involved here does have a distressingly obvious tendency to comment on individuals rather than content, and that such behavior is generally found unacceptable, as per our policy WP:NPA. And, while it is sometimes a good idea to take into account previous consensus, as per WP:CCC, consensus can and does change. Finally, I can see no reason why an editor with several thousand edits who has had an account since March 2008 is not already familiar with most of the relevant policies and guidelines, and it is really rather placing an undue burden on other editors to request that they in effect "talk down" to them because they haven't done that fairly simple and obvious thing. However, I would welcome a clear discussion regarding what the contended material is and its sourcing, the reason for its inclusion, and the reasons for opposition to its inclusion, to make it easier for any other editors who may come into the discussion now or later. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong to call repeated "warnings" "threats." It seems a trivial point of semantics.

I suppose not every edit need be non-trivial.

A "legal settlement" is by definition "court approved," and based, as you accurately note, on varied laws.

A debate on sourcing is fine.

Currently there are 25 reference lines (don't understand the "a,b,c," notes).

Of this 20% are major newspapers and 20% are Mass.gov.; 16% are Kripalu.org followed by I think 12% for a couple of regional newspapers, 8% IRS and 8% major magazine publishers. There's a few miscellaneous other sources.

I don't recall removing any sourced material. (I did remove copyrighted material an editor had improperly cut and pasted from Kripalu.org.) Can you point out where I've done this?

I'd be happy to see improved and more balanced sourcing (for what is a rather simple and brief article). Where are current weakness on the existing list? Calamitybrook (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I switched to the article, and a review showed no current article flags. I see no proposed edits under discussion. - Sinneed 22:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Ah, I do see the flag on the EL list. It seems a bit long... not terrible. I found some that had already been converted to citations, which shortened the list.- Sinneed 22:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue?

(Am honestly unsure what exactly is a "flag.") That there are "no article flags"... is this good or bad? Similar question for comment "no proposed edits under discussion."

It's taken me some time to realize what an "EL list" is....I'll leave it to others.

My thinking regarding "EL" was, however, that if a reader actually finished entire article without systematically (or randomly) consulting each and every reference, and yet was interested in additional information and/or alternate treatments, then a list of external links containing general information might be useful and obvious (to the reader).

As has been helpfully pointed out, "guidelines" (or was it "policy?") suggest that MOST "EL" should be non-referenced material.

It does seem, however, that if the "EL" content is of insufficient significance to be referenced, then perhaps is of no consequence at all, and would be non-useful.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I find are mainly trivial; in large part needless, and neither improve nor detract from article. Am disappointed by recent efforts, given multiple "warnings" (not threats) that I may be "banned" for my interest, based on the promise of a wide range of Wikipedia policies...

Was looking for improved sourcing; ideas on balance, tone and general excellence... for what is a minor and brief article.

My only thought at the moment, is to tighten up "non-profit" status and define its IRS status as a "charitable" organization based on its specific, actual referenced, IRS status.

I wonder if "direct grants" (as a charity) should be quoted from IRS documents. I think these amount to about 10% or less of revenue. I suppose this would compare poorly with comparable IRS "charities" but that is nonetheless Kripalu's tax status.

I perceive the problem with this article is its vulnerability to editors who are somewhat mad Yoga devotees who seek mere "happy talk" about what is a small but somewhat notable organization that creates significant wealth for --literally --a few people, partly based on its tax-free status, as well as significant but paltry forms of employment for a small, but culturally significant region.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed

Am good with current article, thought it can be improved, especially with better sourcing.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent editor says " (Not sure why the revenue of a non-profit belongs in the wp:LEAD but it certainly isn't why it is notable.

Consulting WP:Lead as suggested, one finds "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic."

Revenue is indeed important to Kripalu, because it enables its existence.

Further, it is a significant, easily grasped and objective measure of the size of Kripalu's operations.

Does this help reduce uncertainty with regard to significance of revenue? Calamitybrook (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Significance is not the issue. It is certainly not why the organization is notable, and the revenue does not belong in the 1st sentence. I am dubious of having it in the lead, but I don't disagree, I just suggest it is not best. I oppose placing it in sentence 1. Sentence 1 should explain why the organization is wp:notable in the Wikipedia sense.- Sinneed 15:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources - Google search

A Google search is not a source. It may lead editors to sources which might be added to articles. In general, Google searches won't even meet wp:EL. Google changes its search criteria, and the web changes, and the results are unreliable. 2 consecutive clicks might yield different results.- Sinneed 15:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

POV

I have restored the POV flag, as repeatedly the simple and common identification of the organization as a non-profit organization is being removed, its revenue is being hammered into sentence 1, the disparity between executive pay and volunteer laborers is being hammered in.- Sinneed 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

COI

I am restoring the COI flag, per previous and archived discussions.- Sinneed 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

But there was a previous consensus (and no discussion by tagger) and the flags were appropriately removed by an editor other than myself.

The allegation of conflict of interest appears to be innuendo about myself.

I'd ask that editors be specific with regard to their theories here on talk page and not send me messages on my personal page.

Otherwise the tags have little practical purpose. Calamitybrook (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagging - COI topic 2

Clicking on the first tag, one finds an interesting essay:

"Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."

Regarding conflicts of interest, these are most generally understood to be financial. The classic example would be if an employee of Kripalu attempted to edit this article (as has happened in the past).

I am not an employee of Kripalu, contractor, nor investor, nor contributor, and have no family, friends nor acquaintences in those categories. I have no personal nor professional interest in the topic at hand.

The tag says, however that "it appears" otherwise.

But how so and to whom?

Please discuss.

It may be that the tagger simply misunderstands the concept of conflict of interest.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Restored the flags. Please see the discussion at wp:COIN, if interested.- Sinneed 04:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The COIN recommendation is here.- Sinneed 04:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

COI is Irresponsible Personal Attack - topic 3

Clearly by reasonable definition, to tag an article responsibly, is to engage on talk page.

Tagging editor declines, as of now however, to post his/her issues here.

Allegation of "conflict of interest" without reasonable evidence, is merely a personal attack regarding the ethics of an individual editor.

Quite inappropriately on "Conflict of interest notice board," (but not here) this editor does offer so-called (non-credible) evidence, consisting soley of this:

" Editor appears intimately familiar with nicknames of staff, other detailed workings."

"Nicknames of staff" in question are the (2) "yogic" titles of two married top managers (among 400 staff), prominently mentioned on Kripalu Web page. This is by absolutely no stretch "intimate familiarity" on my part. To offer this as COI evidence is deeply muddled or disingenious.

Also, "nicknames" is glaringly inaccurate charictarization of "yogic" titles.

Supposed "intimate familiarity" with "detailed workings" is product of online research, with extensive citations, rather than evidence of a conflict of interest.

To suggest otherwise is product of muddled thinking, or perhaps disingenuous.

Ironically, this same editor has repeatedly and strenuously threatened me with a ban, on my personal page, because I allegedly focused on his/her editing, rather than content.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

wp:conflict of interest is a guideline, not a personal attack.- Sinneed 04:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest - topic 4

That's personal interest and is therefore, necessarily, personal. It's improper, according to the guideline to edit with an undeclared conflict of interest.

So to be accused (falsely and without evidence) of personal impropriety, is not a personal attack?

Okay, it's a guideline.

Speaking of guidelines, tagging guidelines suggest that the tagger initiate discussion on talk page.

Why does somebody keep ignoring these guidelines despite repeated requests to follow them? - Calamitybrook (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have not found any success in communicating with you. If you, or any other editor, has any comment to make on the content of the article, I will happily read it, and if I have any input I feel will be useful, I will make it. In the meantime, please leave the article flags in, and consider especially wp:COI, wp:NPOV, wp:MOS, wp:CITE, wp:QUOTE, wp:LEAD, wp:SYNTH, wp:BLP, wp:SELFPUB. - Sinneed 03:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• The wp:conflict of interest noticeboard recommendation is here.- Sinneed 03:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• wp:Talk page guidelines - Please remove your focus from me, and from you, and place it on the content.
• What happens on your talk page has nothing to do with this article. Please stop now.
• Do you have any concerns you would like to express about the content, other than that you do not wp:LIKE it, are offended by the wp:conflict of interest tag?- Sinneed 03:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Previous notes here about the flags.- Sinneed 03:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's troubling that an editor is placing tags that concern my alleged personal interests, then failing that, making allegations that I have personal "connections" to topic, based simply on subjective fantasy.

My "personal connection" to topic consists of having living for three years about a mile from what was then still perhaps called "Shadowbrook" shortly after the Catholics moved out and about ten years before Kripalu acquired the property.

I'm sure you're not questioning my word, and am certain this constitutes not even remotely a "close personal connection" to Kripalu.

My "conflict of interest" is strictly in Sinneed's imagination.

Making multiple (9?) vague references to Wikipedia guidelines is apparently sometimes called Wikilawyering??? It may be unproductive.

Instead perhaps what's needed is a clear statement, here on this talk page, of why the tags were placed, so that sensible discussion can ensue.

If the editor who placed the tags is unable to explain them, they are best removed. Calamitybrook (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Do you have any concerns you would like to express about the content, other than that you do not wp:LIKE it, are offended by the wp:conflict of interest tag?
• The wp:conflict of interest noticeboard recommendation is here.
• Previous notes here about the flags.
• Helpful guidelines that you should follow, and have not been, are listed above as well.- Sinneed 06:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Unique views - COI topic 5

An editor recently said the article was too positive in its treatment of Kripalu because the Yogic or Hindu names of the CEO and President had been included (as used on company Web site).

Sineed recently said the article is too negative in its treatment of Kripalu.

Sineed's initial NPOV tag was removed by a third editor, who said article appears neutral. Myself, and a number of past editors, find article balanced & well-sourced.

Disagreeing, Sineed restored NPOV & added COI tag. His "evidence" of COI was article's former inclusion of two Yogic/Hindu names of CEO & president. This he characterized (not here but on notice board) as my "familiarity with staff nicknames." Also said I was "intimately familiar" with company workings - or something.

I removed COI tag and will also remove the similar tag Sineed replaced it with. He can either assume good faith, or assume that I'm lying about conflicts he perceives. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please remove the focus from yourself, and from me. Please see the guidance above, from multiple editors, the guidance at wp:COIN, and the guidance on your talk page.- Sinneed 16:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• I will address your incorrect statements individually:

• "Sineed recently said" - The article is slanted oddly. See the note above at the POV flag.
• "Disagreeing, Sineed restored NPOV & added COI tag." - false.
• Yes, you did find some support, but that editor has not stayed, and you have continued to damage the article, resulting in a thread at wp:COIN, with further guidance for you, which you should heed.- Sinneed 16:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-substitutes for discussion - yet another COI/NPOV section

Uniquely Sineed, (among about two-dozen contributors) focuses on me (personally), by repeatedly adding COI, NPOV tags, then suggests that I not focus on his person or on my person.

Okay. Will focus instead on perceived need for tags. Here, on relevant talk page.

Please assume good faith. I have no (personal) COI & therefore COI tag should be removed. Alternately, please explain why my statement is untrue and why I am acting in bad faith.

Sineed prefers instead of specific discussion, to offer utterly unexplained references to a dozen or more policies, discussions held elsewhere, and other items whose relevance might be guessed at. I've simply lost count of these many links.

The request is merely for a specific discussion here. Not for a recommended reading list.

At this point, it's simply unclear whether Sineed (unquely) thinks I'm shilling for Kripalu, or trying to trash them, or why he thinks I may tbe doing either (both??) of these things.

With regard to NPOV, if necessary, a kind of quantitative analysis of article in question, based on its sourcing and its number of sentences, may show whether or not article is well balanced. I'd be pleased to undertake this. Calamitybrook (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• To any interested editor:
• "I'd be pleased to undertake this." - Does anyone else think this needs to be pursued? I don't oppose, but I see no way to do it, nor any way to use the result.
• Other than that, I see nothing new here. Other than a general objection to the wp:COI and wp:NPOV tags, I see nothing related to the article at all. Did I miss something?- Sinneed 01:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Further, does any other established editor support removal of either the wp:NPOV or wp:COI tags, after reviewing the wp:COIN item here, and the admin leaving the article here, supporting the COI and NPOV tags, among other things. - Sinneed 01:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've again removed COI tag.

Glad to hear it doesn't involve me but some other "major contributor to this article." has a "close personal connection" to topic.

There has been no explaination here, despite many requests, of to what or to whom this may refer.

I certainly can say that no such person has a conflict of interest or "close personal connection." - Calamitybrook (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Moved this into its section. I have restored the COI tag. I make no statement about who may have a COI. I do again point you to guidance from admins and regular users at wp:COIN, here, and your talk page. Stop removing the flag.- Sinneed 18:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have opened a new wp:COIN item for the article and Calamitybrook's removal of the COI tag.- Sinneed 18:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

COI tag - again

I think the COI tag should be removed. If you want to leave it in, I think you have to tell us who you think has a COI, and present your evidence. The accusation I've seen was against Calamitybrook on the basis of that editor being familiar with the staff of the Center. Calamitybrook has denied COI and I haven't seen any other evidence. The discussion at COI/N was inconclusive. The article certainly has other issues. I suggest you look over Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup to see what other tags might better describe the situation. Rees11 (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC) As briefly as possible, once more, please let's review this "evidence," posted by Sineed, not on this talk page, but elsewhere. Sineed said only, regarding this so-called evidence, that I'm "familiar with staff nicknames." Appears to suggest I am now, or previously, staff member, or close associate....which could clearly amount to conflict of interest.... In fact, however, there are about 400 staff. Two top executives have Hindu "names" on Kripalu.org Web site. These two were only names at issue. The Roman Catholic Pope, Mother Teresa, et alia, for example, go by names other than birthnames. Dunno why, as am not Roman Catholic. These two Hindu/Yoga names obviously not "nicknames" may be remotely comparable. Dunno, honestly. Regardless, editor other than Sineed objected to inclusion of these two names. Notion was, that "it sounds like and advertisement" for Kripalu. They are removed. Sineed hasn't stated why he/she sees POV problem but hints is negative. One is reasonably confused about tags. Sineed makes dozens of slightly uncertain links to policy, rather than requested explicit discussion. Peculiar mode of "discussion," I think. I have no COI. Please either explain why this is false statement, or remove tag!! Also, I might ask yet again, please explain the utterly mysterious assertion that this article, with its more than 30 extremely varied citations, is unbalanced. Thanks Calamitybrook (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we please stick to the subject, avoid repetition, keep our comments brief (no more than five lines), and sign our posts in an unambiguous way? Thanks. Rees11 (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That'd be swell!

Thing is, however, the nature of Sineed's COI "evidence" is quite irrational and presented in an obviously misleading manner. By extension, this problem raises extensive doubts regarding Sineed's NPOV tag for a brief article with 30-plus diverse sources.

Sineed's lack of response to all of this is, obviously quite by definition, irresponsible.

Any new readers need to immediately understand this unfortunate context.

"Sineed "should stop" to use one of his/her frequently favored phrases.

Perhaps one might apply another favored Sineed technique, which is to threaten a ban, but really dunno about this, nor do I much respect nor care about this approach to discussion.

Sineed will perhaps simply and rather suddenly, go away, perhaps due to embarrassment.

Thanks. Calamitybrook (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Risking wp:talk - I will continue to refactor this stuff. Remove your focus from me, and place it on the content. Again, I see focus only on me, and the article tags that you don't seem to wp:LIKE. Is there any change, other than removing the tags, that you think should be made? And please, follow more normal WP formatting, your posts are difficult to read.

My "lack of response" means only that I have not responded as you wish for me to respond. Your questions contain internal conflicts. I have stated that an editor appears to have a wp:COI. I refuse to focus on an editor. The article was originally an advert, and editors improved that.

The article has been systematicly damaged, in very strange ways. It focuses oddly on the number of dollars the organization takes in and spends, rather than one what it is or does.Businesses take in money, and pay money out. This is not notable. Paid executives make more than unpaid volunteers. This is not notable. Executive pay in the US, and to a lesser extent globally, is an important issue in society today. But that is not what this article is about. Rural water supplies, and water supplies generally, globally are at risk. But that is not what this article is about. The silliness with the guru preaching chastity and admitting to banging his staff is indeed notable, and seems appropriate for inclusion.- Sinneed 15:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reception, nonencyclopedic addition

• " newspaper and magazine travel articles too numerous to cite" - then a sampling in the body, perhaps in a "reception" section, might be valuable.
• The award appears to be adequately covered by in the article. Please see the wp:COIN notes. Please see wp:CITE for information on providing citations.
• Instead of "Please see" - perhaps a footnote or parenthetical phrase.- Sinneed 16:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree about "please see" comment. Perhaps an editor skilled at footnoting could use the available information to improve the article.

I don't agree that a 10-year-old "Best Spa" award from Self Magazine is sufficiently notable and haven't seen any rationale offered as to why it may be. Don't care.

It is to be preferred that editors explain their views, rather than cite policies and leave the reader to puzzle out which part of which policy may be relevant to a particular point relevant to this article, that hasn't actually been stated.

At best it's a highly inefficient and imprecise means of communication. - Calamitybrook (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• The best spa is relevant, factual, and covered by the source. Its date is given. If events form 2000 are not germane, by all means, gather support, and we can kill them all off. But I think you will find little support for such a statement. You don't seem to support it, for example.
• The tag is indeed a way to get an interested editor to either remove the unsupported statement, or provide supporting footnotes. Leave it in. If you continue down this road of removing article tags, it is very likely that you will eventually be unable to edit. Please stop now.- Sinneed 18:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thing is about Self Magazine award, I've googled it and most references are just self-serving. In other words, I don't see any third parties making reference to this award. To me, this suggests, it's not particularly notable.

Taken as merely another media mention, there are too many to count. I don't see why this particular story, now a decade old, should be cited above dozens of others, many of which are in far more notable publications.

That said, I don't really care whether it's mentioned. I believe it creates only minor damage to article's credibility.

Article has 45 sentences and more than 30 citations. Speaking generally, I'd say adding tags at this point seems excessive. - Calamitybrook (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Citation needed is for a specific item. An article flag for sourcing has not been suggested by anyone.- Sinneed 19:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What is "an article flag for sourcing?" - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talk • contribs)

Each sentence needs citation? No news on tags - citation needed section 2

Seems existing article has many, many notes linked to a wide array of reliable online sources.

Would you prefer that each sentence include a citation? Could certainly be accomplished, but may be burdensome and somewhat unreasonable.

Alternately, do you believe each clause of each sentence needs citation? You've tagged a number of these clauses, ignoring relevant notes appearing at end of these various sentences.

An editor in death-grip of "fact tagging" mania, might first dilligently read each and every existing note, to get notion of various cited material, and thus a general sense of credibility.

Interestingly, Self Magazine citation link, is presently invalid and item not actually available. Perhaps you haven't checked this? You might want to throw a tag in there. But because it's not a terribly notable publication (actually in my POV, a rather lame magazine) and because item was published a decade earlier; this may be unsurprising. Citing this rather obscure item isn't a great detraction from credibilty, despite the many various, more significant, and much more recent, "happy talk" press items.

It's a bit like significance of a restaurant rating from half a generation earlier.

Quite sadly, the more significant thing is here, is that there have been no statements of the supposed disputes regarding NPOV nor COI on this talk page, despite innumerable requests.

How, therefore, can these tags be addressed and editing move forward?

Apparently this is known, in Wikipedia jargon, as "drive-by tagging," & is is correctly frowned upon? - Calamitybrook (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• wp:NOT a social network. Please focus on the content. There is a quote which presently fails wp:QUOTE. I tagged it so that an interested editor with the knowledge of wp:CITE, wp:QUOTE, and an interest might fix it. This is about the article... not the editors. - Sinneed 05:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Extensive edits aimed at distorting to talk page record by Sinneed=

Pretty fancy, extensive, irresponsible and very misleading revisions to this talk page recently by Sinneed. Apparent aim is purely to bend record in his favor.

This buries and greatly distorts context of recent discussion and moves focus to Sinneed's interminmable outside links and personal point of view.

His edits make this talk page nearly worthless.

Longer record is, article had consensus of various editors. Sinnee put NPOV tag. A third party editor removed it, in disagreement. Sinneed put COI tag with invalid evidence. I removed it, Sinneed restored it. Yet a different third-party editor suggested its removal, based on reasoned view.

Sinneed simply declines to respond to any points raised by others.

All recent discussion is now trashed and talk page is drastically re-arranged by Sineed, for reasons he doesn't declare (though they are fairly obvious.

Given this clear effort to create extreme distortion of recent talk-page record (trashing in process, the most elemental of fundamental policy), it may be best if Sineed just gave this article a very long rest and let others come along. Calamitybrook (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You are both at fault here. Calamitybrook refuses to use standard talk page indentation, which makes it impossible to figure out who said what. Sinneed comes along later and edits the discussion to the standard format. This does help to make the discussion more readable. But Sinneed also moves sections around, and the combination of the two makes it hard for anyone to come back to the discussion page later and try to follow the conversation. I was hoping to have the COI tag removed but if we can't discuss the removal I don't see how that's possible. Rees11 (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's true: my indendations are sometimes maladroit You just can't tell who is saying what...Dagnabit......... A simple clue in this regard is, however, that each editor's post is followed by a signature, which includes time stamp (ordinarily sequential).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talk • contribs)

I have noted the risk of wp:talk in the moving bit... but creating a new section, not attached to the existing discussion, for response after response is disruptive. It tends to mask the fact that any actual points have been raised and addressed repeatedly. - Sinneed 17:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the posts have sigs and dates, and sometimes they don't. Added Signed template, and indented to more standard format.

Here again, I see no discussion of the content, and nothing that needs a response or proposes or opposes a change. Is there some change that your propose, other than the removal of the tags?

In WP, the conflict of interest is between what is good for/important to WP and what is good for/important to an editor. This can be because an editor is an expert, and has a specific set of expert opinions ... see many articles on religion or science for examples. It seems clear that at least one editor editing the article has strong opinions about its subject, and an aggressive and abusive style that strongly discourages edits by others. I have not seen any arguments that they are not, recently. One editor did join the discussion briefly, but declined to become involved in editing. At least one other has simply left the article due to abuse. I think the need for the POV and COI flags is real.- Sinneed 17:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sinneed Disgraces Himself With Edits; Could Be Ideal Administrator

Ironic perhaps, that Sinneed endlessly refers to minutia of Wikipedia policy/guidelines and makes various related, obnoxiously self-righteous comments, and then utterly trashes this talk page, ignoring the most basic and simple principles of WP, in order, purely, to push his peculiar and personal point of view, which he refuses to explain or justify.

Given his propensity to threaten editing bans and tendency to cite Wikipedia guidelines rather than simply answering for his many stupid edits, his ambition may be to ascend to Wikipedia Administratorship. I'd offer him great encouragement and even sponsorship in this goal.

Following Sinneed's well-established pattern on this page, he certainly won't directly explain his (indefensible) recent edits here.

At most, one imagines that Sinneed may pop up here briefly again, to grace readers with his threats, and to prescribe our daily readings from Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or perhaps (who can knoweth His ways??) from the Old Testament or Koran.

Let Us Now Pray. Fair to say that Sinneed's edits to this article are now mud?? -Calamitybrook (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I see personal attacks, and no discussion of the content. Is there any change to the article you would like to see, other than the removal of the article tags?- Sinneed 17:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sinneed, As Predicted, Won't Justify Unprincipled Edits

Sadly, despite clear and repeated requests for justification of his recent and wildly irresponsible edits to this talk page, Sinneed merely complains of these requests, claiming he is a victim, and utterly failing to respond.

Ironically however, the true victim is reasonable discourse on this talk page due to Sinneed's unprincipled edits that he cannot discuss.

Sinneed, at most now, will provide links to endless abstract Wikipedia policies, which he will indirectly suggest, enables him to trash this talk page accordingl to his whim, merely to justify irrational notions. Perhaps he will merely go away.

(Any idea that Sinneed might explain his COI & NPOV tags on this talk page, in the face of obvious contrary and explicit evidence from the various editors who disagree, is clearly far, far too much to expect from such a fundamentally irresponsible person.Calamitybrook (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeating response from above (with some mods). Again, a new section with personal attacks, but no new issues. This is disruptive.

Remove your focus from me, and place it on the content. Again, I see focus only on me, and the article tags that you don't seem to wp:LIKE. Is there any change, other than removing the tags, that you think should be made?

My "lack of response" means only that I have not responded as you wish for me to respond. Your questions contain internal conflicts. Your statements are false-to-fact. I have stated that an editor appears to have a wp:COI. I refuse to focus on an editor. The article was originally an advert, and editors improved that.

The article has been systematically damaged, in very strange ways. It focuses oddly on the number of dollars the organization takes in and spends, rather than on what it is or does. Businesses take in money, and pay money out. This is not notable. Paid executives make more than unpaid volunteers. This is not notable. Executive pay in the US, and to a lesser extent globally, is an important issue in society today. But that is not what this article is about. Rural water supplies, and water supplies generally, globally, are at risk. But that is not what this article is about. The silliness with the guru preaching chastity and admitting to banging his staff is indeed notable, and seems appropriate for inclusion. - Sinneed 04:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to remove the Recent Operations section, which seems to be your main concern. The water issue seems directly relevant, so I don't see any justification for removing it. If you have other concerns about neutrality, please raise them, or I will remove the tags. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And they were promptly restored. If you care to read the (impenetrable) prose on the editor's talk page, the talk pages of other editors, you may find the other concerns. The restoring editor's note on the restoration is in the poorly-named new section, below.

The near-impossibility of making even simple edits, level of abuse of other editors (see departure remark of one editor, above, wp:COIN concerns, linked above, oddly slanted focus), seem, to me to show problems with wp:OWN, wp:COI, wp:POV.

As before, I will not restore the tags to the article if you remove them, until the problems (I expect promptly) return.- Sinneed 13:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sineed Declines Comment On Why He Trashed Talk Page

Sinneed artfully and drastically reorganized talk page so that multiple comments conform to his peculiar views. Sinneed was plainly asked to comment on this matter, and as predicted, he declines.

Separately, he continues to allege that I have a conflict of interest, while declining to respond to relevant comments from at least two editors in this regard.

Similarly, Sinneed apparently believes that I first produced what he calls an "advertisement" for Kripalu, and says I then trashed this advertisement with negative information, to which he objects, and therefore (??!!?wha??) Sinneed thinks the article is unbalanced. Clarity with regard to Sinneed's NPOV tag is unavailable.

P.S. To Looie: Objective financial data about an economically significant regional employer is legit. Money is multi-dimensional (think about it), valid, and quite widely accepted measure of size and significance. A dollar is a dollar (NPOV). Kripalu is in some significant sense, an expression of the U.S. economy. Perhaps this point in the article can only be inferred by the intelligent reader from economic content, rather than captured via citations and explicit commentary. This inferrence is nonetheless true and notable.

Also, consider that Kripalu has been called the nation's (world's?) largest yoga retreat, and "the business of yoga" has been topic of at least one or two articles in national (U.S.) newspapers (which I guess mentioned Kripalu). I don't want to bother re-digging up these perhaps-notable references, but it's unsuprising that they're out there. - Calamitybrook (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the already-addressed wp:personal attacks. Please focus on the content.

Those (largest yoga spa, mentions of Kripalu in business-of-yoga articles in major news organs) sound like excellent potential additions.- Sinneed 13:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Go for it Sineed!!!: These items are available in the databases and maybe even on Google! Dig 'em up if you'd like to improve the article rather than merely make lame snipes. Kripalu Wikipedia article has about 45 sentences and more than 30 references -- from highly varied sources, most of which, positive, neutral and negative, I've added. Surely, if you wanted to improve sourcing, you could double the number of these references. Most of the info is available for your project. It just takes some reading on your part!

Sinneed continues to focus on himself as a victim of attacks, and predictably, continues to decline comment on his unethical trashing of this talk page. He continues also, to decline any logical or coherent response to questions about his lame tags that various editors have reasonably raised.

Might it therefore be reasonable to simply at this point, remove these tags?

Please note that the large majority of recent edits to article (please don't confuse with talk page) have been made by various editors other than myself. Ignoring this, Sinneed suggests otherwise, backing this up with one of his dozens of irrelevant and condescending links. - Calamitybrook (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the only point here that needs addressing is "Might it therefore be reasonable to simply at this point, remove these tags?" - and the answer seems to be no. I oppose removal of the article tags.- Sinneed 00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Says Question "Doesn't Need Addressing"

So why did Sinneed switch around this talk page's comments, rather extensively, to artificially make this discussion appear to go in his favor?

Two editors have questioned this action, yet Sinneed doesn't believe this point "needs addressing" after a half-dozen requests.

And why should opinions of three other editors be inferior to Sinneed's view with regard to tags? Rather that discuss, he follows the "just say no" philosophy, rather than reason.

Probably, Sinneed will again cite his dozens of varied Wikipedia guidelines, as if they were written directly to support his purely personal, illogical, and wildly contradictory and varied negative opinions of this article.

Sinneed has recently made a large number of non-controversial edits to this article, and moving forward (since he refuses to discuss his extraordinary talk page edits, nor in any coherent and serious way, why he believes I have a conflict of interest or why article lacks balance), I'd again encourage him to dig up more sources, and add them where he feels there is a lack of reliable sources for existing article.

Also, I'd ask that he expand the article, in whatever way he may feel is appropriate to improve balance.

Deletion of extremely well-sourced existing material may be more problematic and perhaps result in erosion of quality.

In particular, material sourced to IRS and Mass. DEP should remain for the time being, along with notes relevant to Kripalu management and the organization's recent economic status.

It also seems the departure of its founder under a cloud and related settlement. is also notable and useful in understanding the history of this organization.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

An interested editor may read the wp:edit summaries. - Sinneed 02:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Self Magazine Spa Award Is Notable??

Perhaps it would be more constructive to add the easily available sources indicated by previous versions, as per Sinneed's suggestions above, rather than to remove material.

But it would also be constructive to hear why an obscure, decade-old "award" from really, a magazine of dubious repute, is notable in preference to perhaps a dozen or so, quite easily available, very general and uncritical (non-analytical, shall we say?) articles on Kripalu in truly major newspapers like the NYT.

Or even, why the Self Magazine Spa Award from ten years ago is notable, or for that matter, why it remains relevant?

Perhaps this belongs best in the "history section."

On the other hand, these points aren't especially important to me. I'd only add that to tout in lede a "happy talk" item that appeared a half-generation ago, in a supermarket magazine with editorial policies aimed at the semi-literate, can only harm the article's credibility from start.

It would be much more interesting to hear a coherent justification for the tags, and wild editing of this talk page especially in light of several other editors' comments. - Calamitybrook (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you have created so very many COI sections, you may have difficulty finding the repeated responses about the tags.

On the talk page thing, wp:STICK might be a good read. WP is wp:NOT a social network.- Sinneed 04:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

All you've said about COI is that I was "familiar with staff nicknames?"

I've offered, several times, a cogent explaination of why this statement is at best, wildly off the mark.

Another editor finds this sufficient.

Why do you believe I'm a liar, in addition to having undisclosed COI?

(You say COI is about content, but the "conflict" in any alleged COI is necessarily and logically between a person (ergo personal), and some outside aim.)

Similarly, at least two editors, besides myself, have now taken issue with your NPOV tag?

Why is your view of these matters uniquely correct? And why believe it's okay, or even possible, to hide behind Wikipedia essays, rather than simply and plainly answering for yourself?

But the more immediate & recent question is also unanswered:

Why is a decade-old "award" from editors of Self Magazine notable at all, particularly in lede, and in preference to the many other, much more recent travel articles (often similarly fluffy) in the (far more reputable) NYT and similar pubs? - Calamitybrook (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Indented above to standard, put sig with content.

Already addressed - nothing new offered that I can see: Your statements here are false-to-fact (not lies, very different). Your questions contain internal conflicts... like walking up to a woman and asking "When are you going to stop beating your wife and kicking your dog because you are an evil person?" It isn't a question, it is a series of (potentially) false statements.

Already addressed - nothing new offered that I can see: If the 10-year-old events are no longer relevant, then I suppose we could remove them. I don't see merit to the argument though, and you don't appear to either, as you have added much information older than that. If you believe the mention gives wp:UNDUE weight to the award, you might choose to try to gather support for that position, rather than wp:edit warring it out. It is factual, supported by what appears to be a wp:reliable source, it is relevant.

Already addressed - nothing new offered that I can see: NPOV flag. It was removed once, and you immediately chopped sourced, relevant content. The other editor who has removed the tag (1 [one] editor) attempted to address the NPOV issue... and you promptly reverted the editor's contribution. The editor has not returned to the article since. I think that WP is best-served by leaving the flags in.- Sinneed 15:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, Sinneed, rather than being responsive and responsible, is indulging himself in inexplicable and deeply personal fantasies about his recent actions and role, that are sharply removed from reality.

Necessarily, his valiant and good-faith efforts to make these many unfortunate internal notions accessible to others have been a pure failure.

The credibility of his commentary fades away toward zero.

And who can say what may become of him? - Calamitybrook (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Indented and placed sig with content. Nothing here that needs a response, nor anything that belongs in WP, anywhere.- Sinneed 02:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)