Talk:Art of Living Foundation

Information about Art Of Living and its Contributions removed

I am seeing lots of contributions, welfare achievements of this organization being removed. We can just write a big book of human welfare contributions of The Art Of Living Foundation. Unfortunately, some of the wikipedian editors are posing threat about this article. I thought Wikipedia a great site and contributed more than $100. I should have not done this as Wikipedia is not writing a good article on this fantastic humantarian organization. I have done all courses of Art Of Living and it is simply fantastic and life boosting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimalleshk (talk • contribs) 09:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Information about Silver jubilee function which was largest event on planet, social welfare summary and activities need to be added. --Jai 16:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimalleshk (talk • contribs)

Courses

There seems to be a great deal of trivial press promoting their courses. Is it enough to expand upon what's already mentioned in the article? How do we present it neutrally, when the reporting are puff pieces? --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See to WP:SELFPUB, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "puff" pieces but the newspapers, e.g. The Washington Post, are not trivial press. Newspapers in general report in a neutral and even skeptical tone (the Washington Post article is not exactly promotional if you take a look). The university articles are not promotional either, they just report students' experiences and they are informative because they indicate that these courses are happening on campuses and that students have something to say about them. As for the TV News pieces, are they considered "puff" press? The Fox piece is about real-life problems in schools and how schools are using the AOLF courses to address problems like bullying. The MSNBC is more descriptive for sure, it highlights how NY'ers are using the course to address stress but it interviews a Columbia Medical school professor so that seems really legitimate. Please let me know your thoughts. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susandonald (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm going to list the sources for easier discussion. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

puff piece: "an article or story of exaggerating praise that often ignores or downplays opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary" --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1024594

  Puff piece. Lots of soundbytes from AoL members. Reports that the Stanford chapter exists and offers workshops. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• http://media.www.thebrownandwhite.com/media/storage/paper1233/news/2009/10/23/News/Yoga-Workshop.Helps.Students.DeStress.Refocus-3810075.shtml

  Puff piece. Reports on "The Art of Living Yoga Empowerment" workshop given at Lehigh University. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202284.html

  Puff piece. Reports on AoL's "Take a Breath DC" course. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/10/a-violence-free-america-through-meditation/#

  Article written by a volunteer and instructor with AoLF. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.mndaily.com/2009/08/04/university-group-wants-minneapolis-smile

  Puff piece. Reports on the "Smile MSP" event run by The Art of Living Club at the University of Minnesota. --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_VMDXK3Ajc

  Puff piece. Copyright problems as cautioned in WP:YOUTUBE. --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57N5I1bonZU

  Puff piece. WP:YOUTUBE copyright problems. Transcript at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6645786/ --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTThrqTA0LY

  Puff piece. WP:YOUTUBE copyright problems. --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK - so what are your thoughts on these pieces? I see them as providing information and they do ask people about their experiences - many of these experiences are positive which is actually a good sign seeing that the Washington Post is a huge national newspapers - does that make the article puff? I've looked for other Articles on AOLF in the press and these are the only ones I could find, that is why they are up there. Please share your thoughts. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susandonald (talk • contribs) 19:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather busy and don't have as much time as I'd like to address this quickly. If you want to try to get more immediate feedback, WP:THIRD usually will get a quick response. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So in order for something not to be a "Puff Piece" it has to be overtly critical, is that what you are saying? I am not using these pieces to talk about how great AOL is, I used them to VALIDATE that the courses are indeed happening in colleges and NYC etc... I did not cite or quote from them. To this end, it is fine to use them. In other parts of the article you quote from "Readers Digest" which is not a high-end journal, and it's a critical piece. Does that mean articles are only ok if they are critical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.24.80 (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"So in order..." I've said no such thing, nor made any implication or assumption along those lines.

AoLF is obviously doing a great deal to promote itself and it courses. As I pointed out at the beginning of this discussion, the sources we have about this are all trivial. To clarify, they are little more than press releases. Ideally, we need independent, reliable sources. Minimally we need to meet WP:SELFPUB. Given that one of the main purposes of AoLF is to provide courses and workshops, we need to be especially careful that we follow WP:NPOV rather than serving as a venue for AoLF's self promotion. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor referencing

The previously mentioned promotional tone/slant detected by some editors may partly be explained by the article's reliance on references to materials self-generated by the AoLF and its associates. These fall into the realm of self-published sources and cannot be used to reference statements about the organization without some sort of qualifier (e.g., "according to the Art of Living Foundation's website..."). I have flagged some of the instances of this poor referencing, and there are yet others which I have left which are questionable and could be challenged. There is no lack of better secondary and tertiary references out there, and a rewrite and/or re-referencing of the article using those would be very welcome. • Astynax ^talk 18:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Given how long these problems have been going on, I'm for removing all sections that don't have independent, reliable sources. If anyone thinks any of the self-published references meet WP:SELFPUB criteria for inclusion, please note them. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article considered to be advertisement/publicity?. In fact facts are not advertisements.

Hi Wikipedians, why some of the editors have flagged this article as advertisements/publicity? Facts are facts. I have given citations for all guiness records and this has to be communicated to people. How can it be advertisements? Truth is truth. I have seen many articles in wikipedia where guiness records, acheivements of organizations are clearly written. May be some miscreants are flagging this article with publicity/advertisement tags. Please remove it.

Art of Living is world's largest NGO helping mankind. Lets do some thing good and support instead of pulling them down. Also the citations that I gave are getting removed. I always thought wikipedia to be a great site and have contributed $100. Hope you wikipedians do not shake the respect that I have for wikipedia.--Jai 16:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please place new sections at the bottom of the page (or click the "New section" tab to add, which does this automatically). Truth is indeed truth, but on Wikipedia following Policy is required. The tag at the top of the article may have been inserted, in part, based upon the quality of the references used. Articles should summarize scholarly sources and reliable third-party sources. Non-independent sources such as press releases, news articles which are based upon press releases, publications from those associated with an organization, etc. may be used carefully when identified (e.g., "the Art of Living Foundation claims X"), though this does not obviate the requirement that the article mostly be based upon verifiable third-party sources. Statements which only reference the subject of an article create a problem of Undue weight and may only be used in a very limited fashion. The note at the top of the article invites other editors, who may have access to such sources and/or experience in editing in a WP:NPoV voice, to help improve the article. • Astynax ^talk 17:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)