Talk:Swami Premananda (guru)

Untitled

What is this? A Wikipedia page or the online portal propagating the teachings of this Swamy? Magenpie (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Magenpie on Feb 21st, 2011

Defense section

I don't get the "but" in this sentence: "Pakkirisamy was sentenced to life in prison but died in 2011". Why "but"? Jhertel (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Wilson J. Wall

The only hits Google produces for this name are on sites dedicates to freeing Premananda (www.justice-for-premananda.org, etc). Wouldn't a "top expert in the world" would at least show up on some white papers? Toby Douglass (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

About the Dr.Wall he wrote several books on DNA and is a consultant Geneticist and researcher on forensic applications of DNA analysis, as well as a Lecturer of Forensic Science at the University of East London and University of Staffordshire. The J. is omitted most of the time from his name. He is genuine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.192.208 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not know this Wilson Wall, but I could find a search result at Amazon.co.uk that seems to show that he has written several books on DNA and justice. Note that not all the books on this list are written by him, but quite a few of them are. This does not necessarily make him an expert on the subject, though. And maybe it is not necessary to label him, but just state the facts. And that a person is an expert on a subject is not and can never be a fact – it will always be a subjective evaluation. Jhertel (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The book “The DNA Detectives” by Dr. W.J. Wall (which was published in August 2005) explains the fraudulent use of DNA evidence in the Swami Premananda case.

Title

I am dubious as to whether this Premananda is more notable than other Premanandas so I have moved Premananda to Prem Kumar (Premananda). If this move is accepted and the redirects have been sorted, I suggest that Premananda should become a disambiguation page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Birth date and other changes

I have added an infobox along with a few other changes. Of note, I have included Prem Kumar's birth date used by a handful of mediocre links, and already used by the persondata field. Grayfell (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

People who love Swami Premananda

I have seen Premananda High School and orphanage, and it provides very good service - food, education, lodging and above all positive environment for poor and some orphan kids. Some foreign devotees of Swami Premananda have dedicated a very good part of their lives into serving the poor, destitude, needy, homeless and old people in Sri Premananda Ashram, Trichy.

Now a days we should not believe everything that media tells us. We must visit these places, and see for ourselves the humanity and service projects happening. Many great people have been tortured in this world. Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Ram, Krishna, Jesus - many such great men suffer, but they never complain, and continue to do service to humanity.Rishi Mano (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please use verifiable and neutral sources

Many editors have tried to edit this article using unreliable and non-neutral sources. Sources like personal blogs and websites related to the subject are not reliable. Such edits will be reverted. -Kenfyre (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your enthusiastic and hurried comments. The articles quoted are many news from Srilanka. There was one blog that was quoted. Again I find a book quoted, and any privately published book is not better than a blog. So I had added. Please correct me if I am wrong. I understand that Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything but facts should be presented to people so that they get a 360 degree view.Rishi Mano (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for finally responding. The following cannot be treated as neutral sources, as they are directly related to the subject or his organisation, and show obvious bias:

• Swami Premananda: Avatar behind bars by Adam Parsons. This has been reproduced from a religious cult's magazine. Thus, it is not reliable and neutral on the topic.
• Anything from Justice For Permananda

If there are other sources that rely on news articles, then please use them directly. If you believe that the books cited in the article are unreliable, then you can start an WP:RFC and get them removed. You can also start an RFC to get your sources approved. Please do not revert without building a WP:Consensus. -Kenfyre (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources and neutrality

The article is completely one sided. It's odd that it was not deleted as a BLP1E violation when he was still alive. In any case, material intended to present WP:BALANCE is being deleted as certain editors don't like the sources. For example, this edit [1] says that the DNA Detectives book doesn't exist. Yet, here it is, with the ISBN [2]. Why is this source unacceptable and why is the article one-sided? Why is any information regarding conflicting evidence being scrubbed? GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@GigglesnortHotel: Thank you for finding the book. I had not been able to find it on Google Books or Amazon India. A different book by the same author has been mentioned in the article - "Forensic Science in Court". There has been a discussion on the author above on this talkpage. Previous editors had linked to this site claiming it to be based on the book. I didn't find it neutral so I removed it. Some editors keep adding such links repeatedly and I have filed a complaint on the incident noticeboard. When he was alive the article looked like this. But, there was once a deletion appeal.

I have looked for any mention of the case in third party sources and have added them as citation. The devotees' view was found in one article and has been added (see In 2005, the manager...). Recently, some editors added some more similar articles, they have been preserved under the Legacy section. I have never removed any WP:Verifiable and WP:Neutral sources. Your unconcern is unfounded. It would be possible to expand the article greatly, if someone posted the original court document from a neutral source. -Kenfyre (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused by your response. The book and a website that someone claims is based on it are not the same thing. The book is published by a respected, mainstream publisher. It clearly exists. Why is it not neutral? GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Gigglesnort, what page number in the book is this discussed on? Thx, Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@GigglesnortHotel: I, myself, am confused by your response. Well, you did see ill-made edit that I removed. Until you found the book, most people linked to that website or provided no link at all, while mentioning the book. This made me believe the book does not exist. Actually, I found the other book by Wilson that is currently mentioned in the article. He does not mention he had access to the DNA evidence in that one.

The other editors have argued that he had access to DNA evidence and analysed it. But, the court just rejected the analysis. The court document should mention it and why it rejected his analysis. (I have not seen any third party sources mention him.) The court document should be available by filing a request at the court office. Anyway, if you can provide the relevant pages of books, we could find why the court rejected it. It would stop some of disruptive edits. -Kenfyre (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, a book doesn't have to be available online, but a page number would be helpful for verification. I think whomever introduced that text and used the book as their cite should be able to provide that, maybe they will post it here. I was just commenting on what I saw as an unnecessarily harsh deletion of cited material, which does give the impression of POV editing and OWNership. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The complete unreliability of the DNA evidence in the case is mentioned in this book, pp 162 to 165, and Dr Wall also describes the court's reaction to his trenchant criticism of the Indian DNA test procedure: http://www.librarything.com/work/10733900/reviews/67713880 Doughnutgirl (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You might also find this website of interest.I don't know who is responsible for it; it appears to be Romanian. http://www.advaitastoian.com/a-similar-case-of-abuses-of-authorities-in-tamil-nadu-in-chennai-where-satya-yoga-have-its-headquarter-the-strange-case-of-swami-premananda/ Doughnutgirl (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@GigglesnortHotel: I never said that the book has to be available online. Let us allow the editor to provide the pages. The pages should be able to explain how he was able to access the evidence and why his analysis was rejected by the court. I have never removed well-cited edits from the page. On the contrary, Doughnutgirl (talk · contribs) has shown a strong WP:Ownership of the page, and has repeatedly vandalised and whitewashed the page since 2010. I am just ensuring that only reliable sources appear on the page and reverting disruptive editing. -Kenfyre (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kenfyre I think that's unfair comment.Vandalism is rather a strong term to describe my activities, and certainly one could argue that there has been blackwashing on your side. As GigglesnortHotel said, the page is unbalanced.I have been trying to redress the balance,that's all.I feel that the issues of miscarriage of justice, police brutality and torture, trial by media,all need to be brought forward as the other side of the argument.These are serious issues.Doughnutgirl (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can see your edit history on this page. (Actually, you don't edit any other page much.) For example, here you removed all mentions of the rape case. And here, you spammed the page with a bunch of quotes. I can't find any other word to describe such editing.

I have kept this page as neutral as possible. There are no serious issues with this article. Neutral and reliable sources are always welcome. -Kenfyre (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Folks, discuss content not contributors - both of you. Jytdog (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. @GigglesnortHotel: There is no ownership issue from my end. The article contains arguments of Ram Jethmalani, the ashram manager's opinion, Premananda's own quote, the celebration in Sri Lanka and Wilson Wall's opinion from another book. Some of them were actually added by me. There are no opinions from the victims' side except the verdicts. If anything the article, favours the subject very much. I will do more research and take measures to rectify this. Thank you for bringing this my attention. The only point of contention is the particular book citation that I removed mistakenly. Suggest measures to resolve this. I suggest that Doughnutgirl (talk · contribs) should post the relevant excerpts from the book here. You can added the information to article in an NPOV manner. -Kenfyre (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If anything the article, favours the subject very much. *eye roll* GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@GigglesnortHotel: Yup, the whole article reads as if the legal system conspired to persecute an innocent. The article needs more details regarding the legal proceedings and opinions of people on the victim's side. And please check your attitude. -Kenfyre (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kenfyre:, first off, stop pinging me, especially when it's only to offer a straw man. Second, don't ever tell me to check anything, unless you want your presumptuous arrogance to be mocked mercilessly. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

May be you should log off and cool down. It seems you are not interested in establishing genuine neutrality in the article. -Kenfyre (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

<REVERTBAN>

• Agree with Mygearboxbroke. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very for providing the quote. That is really interesting; please don't add it yet. What would be really ideal here would be an independent source that discussed Wall's role in the trial. Wall was a paid expert witness for the defense (which was how he made his living at the time, per the note at the bottom of this source); the book is his account of what happened, and is problematic due to his role in the events. this is an independent source about what happened. Brief, but independent. I can send that to anybody wants it if you cannot access it. this is another source that gives a perspective from within the Indian scientific community on the trial (see the last page). Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That he was a witness for the defense does not make his statement problematic so long as it's presented as his opinion and noted that he was witness. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - If the text must be deleted, how can we discuss it? This is getting really weird... GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

See your Talk page. yes this is wierd. Jytdog (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

OK,here is the relevant section taken from the book 'The DNA Detectives', pp 162-165:

  "One aspect to STR analysis that is rather unsettling is when an exclusion is ignored. Such a case took place at Pudukottai in the southern state of Tamil Nadu in India.Puddukottai is an hour's drive from the nearest large town, Tiruchirapalli, known locally as Trichy. This is a six-hour train journey from Chennai, previously known as Madras.
  The case,in brief outline, revolved around allegations of the rape of 13 young girls and the murder of a Sri Lankan by the leader of an Ashram, Swami Premananda. The consequence of one of the alleged rapes was a pregnancy, which was terminated.This resulted in arrst and charges filed against Premananda in 1994. Events unfolded in a large courthouse,open to two sides, with an ancient ceiling fan gently stirring the hot and humid air.That there was such a large court building in such a relatively small town is for purely historical reasons,dating from when Puddukottai was a city state.These sorts of court proceedings are carried out in English,as mentioned before. A legacy of British rule has resulted in the wearing of gowns by lawyers,but they do not wear wigs, which would be far too hot.
 Various legal arguments in the case were put forward until it came to the point when it became obvious that it was going to be necessary to carry out a paternity test to determine whether Premananda was actually the father of the aborted foetus. This initial analysis was carried out in a laboratory of the university of Hyderabad in 1996 using a number of untried probes to produce single locus and multilocus DNA profiles.These,sadly,gave a very inferior result that could not be accurately interpreted, although the scientist reporting the results insisted he could demonstrate a match. Beside this analysis there was also an STR analysis carried out in the same laboratory,unfortunately only using a single STR, which again it was insisted showed a match, indicating that Premananda was the father.At this point the senior barrister,Mr Ram Jethmalani,who was also an MP in the Indian parliament, decided to instruct an independent scientific expert to look into the DNA evidence. The conclusions were daming: the profiling had not been carried out in a forensic laboratory,but by a technician who was not a forensic scientist,using probes that had not been validated for forensic use and STR analysis which was completely unproven to have any probity of any sort.
  By pleading to the court it was agreed that the defence expert could take material back to the UK for independent testing. This included a blood sample from Premananda and samples from the frozen foetus.Extraordinarily the blood sample was taken in court,so that everyone could be sure the blood was taken from the right person.The samples were sealed and taken back to the UK where testing in an accredited laboratory could be carried out. Being highly trained scientists it was obvious when the foetal material was looked at it was quite likely that we would be able to produce two profiles from it. This would be one from the foetal material and one from the liquid blood, the second of these most likely coming from the mother. When the six-panel STR analysis was carried out in London on what was now three samples, it was quite plain that we had three clear profiles. By taking out the mother's contribution to the profile of the foetus it was obvious that Premananda could not be the father. A report to this effect was written and presented to the court. It was necessary to return to the court for cross-examination of the results. These were in direct contradiction of the conclusions of the Indian scientist.This was not a disagreement on a small point of interpretation but a massive gulf.The differences were a result of the difference in the way the analysis was carried out.We had used validated techniques in a Home Office approved forensic laboratory.
  The atmosphere became a little heated to say the least and when it became obvious that the UK results had been carried out in the most stringent manner, the prosecution counsel got a bit personal with an outburst.
  'I put it to you, Mr Wall, you are not even a proper scientist.'
  To the credit of the judge, she did reprimand the lawyer. At one point towards the end of the hearing the girl whose foetus had been tested came to court as a potential witness where she said that she would not give evidence.This was understandable as the court was full of spectators.These were of two broad groups, those that had heard about the case locally and those that had heard that Jethmalani was appearing. The second group were mostly gowned lawyers who knew of Jethmalani by his reputation and wanted to see him in action. Although not prepared to appear as a witness the judge asked her a single question: 'was Premananda the father?', to which she replied 'no'. The arguments ran on until the final summing up by the lawyers of both sides.The judge made the final decision as to guilt or innocence alone. The result was a disappointment: he was declared guilty as charged and sentenced to twenty years in prison. Even Jethmalani was incensed by the result.In the written judgement it was said that there seemed no reason for an Indian court to accept the findings of a foreign scientist over an Indian one. At the time of writing, Premananda is still in prison, pending an appeal in the High Court in Delhi.'Doughnutgirl (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that. The problem remains that this source is not independent of the stuff we are talking about; Wall was a paid expert witness for the defense. We should not put a lot of WEIGHT on it, if any. I provided two independent sources above. I looked for independent sources on this all over the place and those are the only two i found. has anybody else looked? Jytdog (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It's about time we wrapped this up. There was already content about this in the Aftermath section, strangely enough. In these edits I moved that up into the content about the trial, focused it on what Wall did and said, and added the two independent sources. That should lay this to rest. Jytdog (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your evaluation of Wall as a source, Jytdog. The fact that Wall was a paid witness for the defence is,I think, immaterial. The essence of his vocation is that he is required to make impartial, scientific judgements, is it not? His job is to be neutral until science proves something one way or the other. I don't see how you can suggest not putting much weight or any weight on it.Doughnutgirl (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have some issue with the content as it stands now? If so, please say clearly how you would like the content to be different. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Although far from perfect, the page is a lot more balanced now, so I guess I should be thankful for small mercies. Someone may like to amend the statement about the alleged murder charge. This I think is a reliable neutral source which may be of interest:http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=215991248000 Doughnutgirl (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Again what specfic content are you disagreeing with? He was convicted of murder and two appeals failed. Our article reports that without embellishment. Jytdog (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that Wall brings up controversy surrounding the conviction and related evidence. Again, I don't see a major problem with including Wall's statements regarding the DNS analysis provided he's noted as a witness for the defense. It's an interesting and informative part of the story surrounding this subject. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Weight isn't based on what is interesting to an editor; it's based on reliable sources. Independent sources don't discuss Wall much. I found two, and they are each brief mentions. You need to make a policy-based argument if you want to expand the Wall content. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

But Wall is an independent, reliable source, Jytdog. He has no connection with Sri Premananda ashram. He was a lecturer in the forensics departments of two English universities, (East London and Staffordshire) and his work forms part of the curriculum in university courses such as this one: https://www.keele.ac.uk/forensic/forcurrentstudents/nuffieldlibraryinformation/Library%20doc%20Forensic%202011-12.pdf First it was argued that Wall didn't exist,then it was suggested that he wasn't really an expert,then it was argued that his book didn't exist,and then it was said that he is not an independent or reliable source!Doughnutgirl (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The way we analyze sources Wall is not independent and that makes his book less worthy of giving WP:WEIGHT to. If someone were bringing a paid genetics expert for the prosecution, we would treat it the same way, and in that case you you would feel the correctness of it. The current description of the trial is simple and balanced. Wall's voice is there. Please stop trying to re-litigate this case in Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think 're-litigating' is probably a bit of a strong term to use; I'm merely seeking more balance. I hear what you're saying. However,in this source http://creative.sulekha.com/the-facts-about-the-criminal-case-against_253650_blog Wall is quoted as saying this: “We are not partisans, whether we are employed by the prosecution or by the defence. Our job is to clear and clarify for the Court, so the Court can come to a valid decision. ... The whole use of experts in Court is that it doesn’t matter who employs them, what we are trying to do is help the Court to come to the right conclusion. We are actually for the Court and the Court is there to find out the truth.” This source seems to me to be independent.Is there scope to include it in the article? Doughnutgirl (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

yes that is what every paid expert witness says. the content is balanced, and simple. There was a trial and two appeals, he died in jail. done. I am not responding further. Jytdog (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The argument for keeping it out is nonsense. You do not personally determine how Wikipedia analyzes sources. Your arrogance here is ridiculous. The fact you no longer wish to discuss means we can insert it. Go ahead, Donutgirl. Or not. Whatever. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Part of being a wikipedia editor means engaging with the policies and guidelines and basing your arguments on them - not just their letter but their spirit. As i said, you finding Wall's analysis "interesting" or Doughnut girl wanting to vindicate Premananda are not valid grounds to determine WEIGHT in Wikipedia. I am very open to discussing content based on policies and guidelines. We could take this issue to NPOVN but at this point that would be a waste of the community's time, as neither of you have brought arguments you could use there. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

What is your argument for keeping it out? As mentioned above, first the source itself was claimed to be fake. That was disproven. Then a specific quote and page number from the book was demanded. This was provided, first by a sock (which was deleted), then by someone else. What you refer to as "weight" here is purely subjective. I don't think the article says enough about differing viewpoints (at least one other person above seems to agree). You think it says too much already. Perhaps it's time to begin a Request for Comment. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

First I am not keeping it out. The book is cited and what he found is summarized in the article, right now. The content now is good, as I have said a couple of times. I never claimed the source was fake; I just asked for page numbers. You all seem to be arguing for dramatically expanding on the existing content (I am not sure; I have asked each of you to propose the content you would like to see, and neither of you have). I have explained why expanding based on this source would be UNDUE, and that is because it is not independent. Neither of you have provided any policy- or guideline-based reason to expand it. We can open a discussion at NNPOV but for that, or even for an RfC, you would need to have a concrete proposal for the content you would like to see. What is that? You can post it just below. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I think we need GiggleSnortHotel to clarify what 'it' is that she/he is referring to. But, beside the Wilson Wall issue, which I agree has been resolved to some extent, I personally would like to suggest (I know you won't like this, Jytdog) that there is a section inserted stating what Premananda's teachings were, or quoting some of his teachings.I know you think I'm partial, Jytdog, but look at pages on other spiritual teachers: take Laozi as a fairly random example.Look at the Confucius page, too. No matter whether we regard Premananda as a rapist/murderer and out and out villain or not, his teachings should, I feel, figure on his page. Even Aleister Crowley has quotes of his teachings and beliefs on his page in a section called 'Beliefs and Thought.'Doughnutgirl (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that is completely reasonable. Do you want to propose something and post it here, in a new section? It should be sourced to independent sources, if you can. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A teachings section would be great. Once that's done the templates can be removed. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding independent sources, as his teachings are conveyed mainly in his satsang books and in magazines published by the ashram. I found this, though - http://www.gurusfeet.com/guru/swami-premananda-trichy#tabset-2 Doughnutgirl (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm. That is some kind of blog. I studied theology but I never looked at studies of gurus from the subcontinent. Have you read WP:RS, btw? Has no scholar of religions ever gone around and surveyed the teachings of Premananda and other swamis? Something like that, by a scholar of religion, would be top-drawer. After that would be something from a high quality magazine or newspaper... maybe during coverage of the scandal, somebody profiled his teachings? (if he hadn't already become well-known before then.. sorry) Jytdog (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources should be fine for a brief, non-promotional section about his teachings. The text of the teaching itself is not in question. It just needs to avoid promoting the teachings. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

really, really hard to do with a primary source of religious teachings, unless Premananda directly produced a very brief summary. Don't know what your religious (cultural or actual) is but if you think about trying to briefly summarize it you are going to run into a boatload of trouble. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm non-religious. I actually don't know much about this guy at all to be honest. It seems like there must be some article someplace that discusses his teachings, perhaps in his own language. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no scholarly study extant assessing his teachings as far as I am aware. He was relatively unknown until the scandal blew up in the tabloid press. There is footage of him on youtube giving teachings, and there was a film made showing various religious figures including him, Bede Griffiths and others. http://www.sadhanafilm.com/home.htm Other than that, as far as I know, there are only his satsang books which are records of spiritual discourses he gave, and the Premananda Vahini magazines which were/are published by the ashram.I can put some quotes?extracts from the books here if you wish? Doughnutgirl (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The film can actually be used as a source. It's not great but it's secondary. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This book [3] is not a primary source, would that be acceptable to source a paragraph or two about his teachings? Nevermind, that's about someone else. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused now, about what is acceptable and what is not....'unless Premananda directly produced a very brief summary', says Jytdog. Why would a 'very brief summary' be acceptable? And how exactly does one 'directly produce' it? And are the words that come out of a teacher's mouth a 'primary source' and his words written down a 'secondary source'? Doughnutgirl (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Generally everything in Wikipedia should be sourced to secondary sources; every content policy (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV) and the source guidelines (WP:RS and WP:MEDRS) says this - there are many, many reasons for it. One of the biggest ones has to do with the very important question of how WP:WEIGHT is distributed in an article. We follow the best sources in distributing weight. If something has to be sourced to primary sources or there is some very good reason to use primary sources, then all the policies say that you have to stay very, very close to just closely summarizing what the primary source says - you cannot interpret it in any way. Cannot. (this is discussed most in WP:OR)

Seeing how there are apparently no (!) secondary sources that talk about Premananda's teachings, there is little justification for giving much WEIGHT to them in this article. It does make sense to give some; that's why I said "sure" but also said "brief". Because we are going to be brief, and because we have to rely on primary sources for this, the best thing would be something that Premananda wrote (or said, that was transcribed) that provides a brief summary of his own teachings. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you for explaining, Jytdog.Would any of the following quotes be brief enough? I think they encapsulate his teachings.

• "Divinity is the essence of every being in existence.When you realise that great divine energy within yourself by surrendering to it, for what shall you want and fear?"(Premananda Satsang Book 1, p 18 (1998) Sri Premananda Trust.)
• "Attach yourself to the highest, divine and pure energy. Sincerely try. Surely that energy will draw you very close to it. At the same time it will draw out your impurities."(Premananda Satsang Book 5, p 89 (1999) Sri Premananda Trust)
• "The time will come when you realize that nothing really belongs to you. Everything is the creation of the Divine. When this time comes, you can do true selfless service." (Premananda Satsang Book 3, p 55 (1998) Sri Premananda Trust)
• "Many great saints have said that even though you live in the world you can realize God. Live anywhere, but direct your mind towards the Divine. Hold on tightly to the Lord's lotus feet wherever you are and with determination. You will achieve your spiritual goal." (Premananda Satsang Book 3, pp 34-35 (1998) Sri Premananda Trust) Doughnutgirl (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Did Premananda identify these as key teachings somewhere, or are you selecting these? thx Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

They are themes which I selected as being representative. But generally, what Premananda taught is just basic Sanatana Dharma (qv) with all that it entails, eg God immanent and transcendent, with form and without form, and including the usual proscriptive and prescriptive commandments to be found at the core of all true religions. Doughnutgirl (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Yes that is where the WP:OR kicks in. If I were to try to summarize say Judaism and selected the Kosher requirements as the key thing since it drives so much behavior, someone else could come along and say no, its Shema Yisrael or Ten Commandments. If I were to summarize Christianity by what Jesus said "love god with all your heart" and "love your neighbor as yourself" someone might say no, it is "repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand". There is no way to resolve such disputes among editors asserting their own authority. This is why we rely on sources themselves to guide us, not what we pick. Jytdog (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Premananda Satsang Book 6

Premananda gave a list of key points of Sanatana Dharma in Premananda Satsang Book 6, pp 151-152.I think this might possibly fit the bill, but there are 23 points.Doughnutgirl (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Is that viewable online via Google Books so we can check it out? Thanks for looking into this. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Not to be found on Google Books, I'm afraid. I will have to type it out:

" I am teaching Sanatana Dharma slowly but surely to all of you...Sanatana Dharma is practical spirituality that guides us to discover the Truth within ourselves.How is it practical? It shows us how to live. I can explain very briefly its basic teachings and how you can follow them. In order to do this correctly you must have earnest interest, self-dedication and,above all, you must be sincere. Give respect to the Divine as the underlying reality and power behind all in the universe.

Respect all beings as your own Self.Do not hurt other creatures, and respect them.

Understand that divine will and intelligence directs all in existence and surrender all your actions to the Divine.

Realize that karma governs our futures and, knowing this, act with the good of all in mind at all times.

Follow some spiritual practices in order to discover the Truth within youself.

Be truthful always.Tell the truth in a good and kind way.

Control yourself sexually and do not indulge excessively.Try to be celibate before marriage and be true and faithful to your partner, respecting family life.

Do not take what belongs to others.

Keep your mind pure and speak with purity.

Be helpful to others and cheerful whether life brings good or bad. Stay contented and even-minded.

Practice self-enquiry in order to attain self-realization.

Be patient and bear up to all difficulties. Surrender to the Divine and strive to merge with the Divine.

Behave humbly and simply.Use only what is necessary for your life.

Give charity and do social service selflessly to those less fortunate than yourselves.

Perform prayers and rituals to purify yourself,increase devotion and give good vibrations to the world for the sake of the welfare and peace of all beings.

Respect and help parents and elders.

Respect your spiritual teachers and other masters.

Practice your master's teachings with interest.

Respect all good and true religions. Be vegetarian.

Don't take drugs and alcohol.

Be peaceful and behave peacefully."Doughnutgirl (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Three questions. Was Premananda Satsang Book 6 ever actually published? Does it have an ISBN? If I wanted to verify there, where could I get copy of Premananda Satsang Book 6? Please do answer all three. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The Premananda Satsang Book 6 was published by the Sri Premananda Trust, at his ashram near Trichy, Tamil Nadu. It has no ISBN. You can get a copy from the Belgian contact person Maheshwari: premananda.gent(at)skynet.be or if that proves complicated,I have a spare copy.2.26.230.78 (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. Will need to think about this a bit. I might bring it to RSN. If I do that I will post here. Jytdog (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

In my view this is not what we call a reliable source. I opened a thread at RSN to get other input. Here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Premananda_Satsang_Book_6 Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but unless the book has an ISBN, it is impossible to verify the contents of the book. Anyone could publish a version of it and claim it to be the authorised version. This shouldn't be used. In addition, for something as subjective as teachings of a guru, it is best to use secondary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Appeal verdict found

I found the verdict of the High Court appeal. It may help go further in resolving the Wilson Wall issue. @Jytdog: It seems Wall was introduced as a witness in the High Court appeal, he did not appear in the original trial. Please fix the article to reflect this. -Kenfyre (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

In'The DNA Detectives', Wall describes being in court in 1996.Doughnutgirl (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, looks like he was present in the court. -Kenfyre (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That is a great source that can be used to source several things in the article. Will add it. Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -Kenfyre (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Court documents are generally considered primary sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC))

Briefs are useless; verdicts/rulings are very useful. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Be careful using primary sources. This guy sounds pretty scary but that doesn't mean we can use sources that aren't reliable for the content. We must be neutral even with BLPs like this. I'm not going to get embroiled in this ... just sayin'.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC))

Good, you are not saying anything that is not obvious. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

When someone tells me a primary source is "useful" rather than gives a policy driven reason for using it then I tend to be concerned.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC))

CV Wigneshwaran, Chief Minister Sri Lankan Northern Province

Somebody might see fit to include these articles, perhaps: http://www.onlanka.com/news/wigneswaran-seeks-release-of-3-indians-in-premananda-case.html http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Lanka-province-CM-seeks-release-of-3-convicts-in-Premananda-case/articleshow/47033589.cms Doughnutgirl (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This was added but I removed it. This is not about Premananda and is just "news" and not encyclopedic content. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain,Jytdog,but I disagree. The article has a direct bearing on the Premananda case,in that these three men were supposed to be his accomplices when he allegedly performed the heinous deeds he was accused of. If they are innocent, then that sheds a different light on the whole case.Doughnutgirl (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If there is some major development, like they are actually found innocent then I reckon we can report that. This is not a newspaper and we don't do blow by blow of anything. Also, please stop using this talk page as a soapbox to protest his innocence (e.g "allegedly performed the heinous deeds he was accused of"); Wikipedia is not the place for that and it isn't helpful. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

As you wish.Doughnutgirl (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Daily News Sri Lanka article

This yields some details about Premananda's mahasamadhi (ie funeral) rites. http://archives.dailynews.lk/2012/02/21/fea03.asp Doughnutgirl (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC) and there are biographical details here: http://www.dattatreyahuus.ch/swami-premananda.html Doughnutgirl (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Both of those are written by devotees and are not useful for a scholarly article about him. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog:Ok, you say that these are written by devotees. Hmm, maybe the second article is,but the first was written by a journalist in a national newspaper.I'm not sure you are on solid ground here. In any case, Wikipedia in practice seems to be inconsistent on this sort of point.Why is it that,for example, the page on Mata Amritanandamayi is allowed to have books by devotees and her own monastics cited? Why is it that the page on Sri Ramakrishna is allowed to have The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna quoted, which is a book written by one of his close disciples? Doughnutgirl (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

They don't even pretend to be neutral. I am not using them and no respectable WP editor would use them. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

But what about my point regarding other pages? They seem much more relaxed in their enforcement of Wikipedia rules/guidelines. Someone just showed me the Benjamin Creme page, in which Share International magazine is used as a source in the main body of the article, as is his book 'Maitreya's Mission'and his website. How is it that the Benjamin Creme people can get away with it,but on the Premananda page we cannot use the satsang books or either of the Premananda Justice websites?Doughnutgirl (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That article is crappy and violates about three policies. There is lots of crap in Wikipedia. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that,Jytdog. :) Doughnutgirl (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Mick Brown

In 1998 the English journalist Mick Brown published a book called 'The Spiritual Tourist'. He describes how he and singer Van Morrison met with Premananda in North London in 1984.(pp 9-10) They were both granted personal interviews, and he describes how Van emerged from his long interview with Premananda visibly shaken and pale,refusing to speak about whatever it was that had just transpired, except to say 'What a fookin' joker'. In Brown's book Premananda is referred to just as 'the Sri Lankan Swami', but from the details Brown gives there can be no doubt that the Swami in question was Premananda.No other swamis from Sri Lanka with alleged miraculous powers toured North London in 1984.Doughnutgirl (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That is what we call WP:SYN. We cannot draw those kinds of connections ourselves. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)