Talk:Kripalu Center/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RFC: Kripalu Center

In article on one of larger U.S. yoga vacation spas, there is question whether New York Times, federal E.P.A., and state Dept. Envtl. Protection are reliable and usable sources for a few sentences of content in 40+ sentence article.

An editor, and 2-3 canvassed allies, strenuously oppose inclusion of this material, which concerns water quality and various minor transgressions of state and federal environmental law, extending over a ten-year period, ending a couple of years ago.

Article is currently based, primarily, on Kripalu spa's promotional Web site. I am "Calamitybrook" but not presently signed in. 71.235.237.175 (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this request seems to be a personal accusation against me, please allow me to summarize the situation.

One user, Calamitybrook, has dominated the edit history of this article and the talk page for a very long time. This user has made 589 edits to the article and 700 edits to the talk page, beginning in January 2009. While Calamitybrook is not a single-purpose account, this article seems to have been the main focus of the user's Wikipedia activity for most of that period. Meanwhile, Orlady, a Wikipedia administrator with no particular history of work on topics related to either Yoga or resorts, stumbled upon the article after seeing some user talk page and noticeboard references to it and got involved with addressing just a few of the issues with the article that had been raised on this talk page and elsewhere. After some days of back-and-forth on this page, Orlady asked a few other active Wikipedia contributors who had previously been engaged with the article (for example, when it was at peer review) to resume watching it. Calamitybrook chooses to interpret Orlady's involvement as being motivated by POV, and chooses to interpret those invitations to others as canvassing. Calamitybrook is entitled to his own judgments, but neither of those interpretations is valid.

Calamitybrook says "Article is currently based, primarily, on Kripalu spa's promotional Web site." This is not true. At various times in the past, various users have replaced the article text with contents cut-and-pasted from the Kripalu Center website, but that is not the current condition of the article. The article's References section includes 30 reference citations, including several to items that are cited more than once. Just 3 of those 30 citations are to the Kripalu Center website or documents downloaded from it.

The topic of the Kripalu Center's water supply wells has been discussed at length on this page in recent weeks. There is no useful purpose in repeating comments I have already made several times on this page. --Orlady (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Request for Comment" is NOT a "personal accusation" regarding a "Wikipedia Administrator," nor with regard to his or her several canvassed allies.

Question is merely whether reliable sourcing is available for a few sentences of content.

--Calamitybrook71.235.237.175 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Having been involved in this debate, I would say that the question is more at what level of detail should the information be given? Is it really necessary to report, for example, levels of water contaminants that are below the legal safe limits set by the federal EPA, but above health limits set by other states or groups, and not legally binding in Massachusetts and thus for the Kripalu Center. Also the New York Times is taking data collected by an NGO, tweaking the limits for all the data, and posting it on its website. No one disputes the Times is a RS, but at what point does the data presented become notable enough to include here? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC obviously, is a total bust. Perhaps is just as well.

So then, we've got one editor opposed to adding reliably sourced material, based on his/her exquisitely complex and exclusively personal and private analysis, backed by couple of canvassed allies.

Then we've got the very simple facts of nine separate violations, & etc., backed with three extremely reliable and verifiable sources.

Am guessing that the purely private, elaborate and idiosyncratic personal analysis must then prevail, over the three simple and reliable sources? That'd be the way!

--Calamity Brook 71.235.237.175 (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The material that Calamitybrook wants to include in the article is not "purely private" (since he wants to publish it), but it might be considered "elaborate and idiosyncratic", and it is most definitely a "personal analysis" of some raw data that is posted on the EPA and NY Times websites. That is original research, and original research does not belong in Wikipedia article space. As for my lengthy attempts to explain why Calamitybrook's interpretations don't belong in the article, Calamitybrook is entitled to consider them to be "purely private, elaborate and idiosyncratic personal analysis" (although I disagree with that characterization), but let it be noted that I am not proposing putting my analysis in article space. --Orlady (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

First, it seems that the editor who filed this RfC has once again engaged in misstatements, and once again urge him to read WP:TPG and WP:NPA, as well as WP:CANVASS, so he can avoid making false accusations in the future. Basically, Calamitybrook's interpretations of analysis is pretty much by definition a violation of WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR, and, as such, does not belong in the article. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC continues a bust.

Noted that John Carter is another editor canvassed by Orlady, & further, that their latest comments are mere assertions -- rather than useful arguments. "Violation," "false accusations" and "misstatements" are particularly unfortunate terms.

For an article on Mt. McKinley, to obtain its elevation from a reliable & inclusive list of Alaska Range peaks would not be "original research" other than by the standard suggested above.

--Cal.brook71.235.237.175 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant comparison. The elevation of a continent's highest mountain is encyclopedic information about that mountain. Moreover, it is information that is documented and discussed by numerous reliable sources. There is no comparison with the trivia (never discussed in a published form by anyone other than Calamitybook, AFAICT) that you want to include in this article, including: (1) the fact that cryptic entries in a government database indicate that a private business did not submit a required environmental monitoring report in 1998, and (2) the fact that other information found in public databases indicate that the business' former drinking water source contained detectable amounts of naturally occurring uranium and radium. --Orlady (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your judgment of "trivia" is but a personal and ultimately arbitrary view.

Others may regard sex habits of founder 20 years ago in similar light, along with any & perhaps all other details.

As you know, it was according to New York Times, uranium and radium measured at quantities above public health guidelines. I believe NGO reported five contaminants at these levels. There a much, much longer list of detected contaminants.

Also, there are nine, separate violations listed by EPA. Your interpretion of this rather simple fact is unconvincing, and if anything, is "orginal research."

"Public forum," here an odd term, not particularly germain.

NYT and EPA public information Web site, etc., are reliable & rather standard sources.

--CB 71.235.237.175 (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OFF-TOPIC: Have you lost your password, Calamitybrook? --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Remarkable sources excluded via opinion

Objections raised by one editor plus a few that he/she canvassed.

Nine separate EPA violations via EPA public information Web site:

[[1]]

NYTimes report on Kripalu water quality:

[[2]]

Quantitatively different report on Kripalu water quality from an NGO:

[[http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/whatsinyourwater2/MA/kripalu-center/1283014/]]

Mass.gov consent order via state's public information Web site :

Search term "Kripalu" [[3]]

Related mass.gov consent order via same state Web site:

Search term "Kripalu" [[4]]

Good sources are central to building Wikipedia. "Editors'" opinions about well-sourced material is generally not relevant.

Those few who have commented endlessly on why these sources should be excluded have made their point, such as it is.

One might ask that these few not repeat their views again, but remain silent, so that the sources are readily accessible, should another editor stumble upon the issue.

--CB 71.235.237.175 (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If anyone should be asked to stop, it is the one individual who repeatedly insists on violation WP:TPG with spurious allegations against others and has a regular habit of starting new threads to try to distract from the objections he has received. That editor has repeatedly demonstrated such less than good behavior. Why he sees fit to lecture others on behavior while his own is so problematic is itself remarkable. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

<comments refactored>Our viewpoints are adequately expressed. Let's make sure that reasonable sources at least remain available.

--CB 71.235.237.175 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC) 71.235.237.175 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed comments in violation of WP:TPG, and am adding a template to the top of the page that all such comments shall be removed. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Spurious allegations," "violation," "less than good behavior" etc. & apparently without end, are terms that some might construe, incorrectly in this case I'm sure, as "personal attack."

One can try, nonetheless to confine discussion here to specific content.

--CB 71.235.237.175 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In most cases there is much more material on a subject in reliable sources than can be presented in an encylcopedia article. I note that there is a lengthy article from The New York Times already cited in the article. The Times article has about 1,238 words, and it is boiled down here to two sentences Total annual visitation is reported to be about 30,000 people. Many workshops are conducted by outside presenters.[28]ref I think there is a decent amount of other material including more stats (700 seminars and workshops offered each year, that they reject at least 90% of the "hundreds and hundreds" of applications for courses they receive, that despite this about 20% of their offerings fail / do not get enough participants) as well as some nice details on their philosophy in programming and how they as a non-profit can compete with corporations and other places that can afford to pay more for big name presenters. Even if the EPA violations are notable, are they worth including? Kripalu is not in the business of selling water (although its clients pay to attend and get water as part of their stay). If so little of the Times article published in the paper itself is included, why is it so desperately important to include so much of the details the Times website scraped from an NGO's survey of water authority data, or the Massachusetts EPA reports? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Issue remains, at least, on talk page

A couple of editor/administrators (who were canvassed) insist on removing several brief and reliably sourced items from article. Fine. A consensus has emerged.

I'd just plead that the issue remain for the moment as a dangling participle here on talk page.

Seems potentially unclear that we are talking about two entirely separate and very different items from the New York Times.

Am suggesting, essentially, that main subhed in NYTimes Kripalu water page (merely a few words), is worthy material. We don't need to offer more detail.

It's asserted that all of this material is "trivia" and therefore according to Wikipedia guidelines, disallowed.

The "Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health" as its name implies, places a great deal of its emphasis on "health."

Given this particular standard, it may therefore be of some value to readers, to briefly note that Kripalu's water supply exceeded various accepted health guidelines for an extended period in very recent years, and that it ran afoul of state and federal safe drinking water laws with nine separate violations also over a period of recent years.

(Edited) --CB71.235.237.175 (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC) (That's me) Calamitybrook (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC) NOTE by Orlady (Orlady (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)): The comment date-stamped on 26 August 2010 was extensively revised by Calamitybrook on 1 September 2010.

Here again for convenience, are the deleted sources:

Nine EPA violations via EPA public information Web site:

[[5]]

NYTimes 2008 item on Kripalu water quality (subhed "3 contaminants below legal limits, but above health guidelines"):

[[6]]

Quantitatively different report on Kripalu water quality from an NGO:

[[http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/whatsinyourwater2/MA/kripalu-center/1283014/]]

Mass.gov consent order via state's public information Web site :

(Use search term "Kripalu") [[7]]

Related mass.gov consent order via same state Web site:

Search term "Kripalu" [[8]] Calamitybrook (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the last two items on your list are still cited in the article. That is because they are bona fide sources (text, written by one or more actual humans and specifically about Kripalu Center) and they help explain why the Kripalu Center changed its water supply source. Notwithstanding the fact that the change in water supply seems pretty inconsequential, it's still mentioned in the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

IF these sources are indeed worthy of inclusion, it seems inexplicably coy to neglect INFORMING the reader of their specific & simple content.

Assertions about how the NYTimes and EPA compile information on their respective Web sites, appear based some rather imaginative "research," some of which is outlined in painstaking detail above. In itself, this doesn't constitute sound reason to exclude perfectly reliable sources.

One is on stronger ground with the "undue" argument, which of course, I myself at least, also don't accept, given the minor bit of space previously devoted to these sources relative to entire article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest tax documents

Are a bit late in availability but should come soon.

Please note that several excellent sources are available concerning how an institution that emphasizes "holistic health" and the environment ignored federal and state warnings concerning its water supply for a period of five or more years. These sources include NYTimes, & federal & state government and a respected NGO, are ruled off-limits for this article by one or two editors' "consensus" which I fully respect.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Putting this into perspective, I checked the first ten water authorities for Berkshire County, Massachusetts listed at the NYT page, and 8 of the 10 had some sort of EPA violation listed on their EPA pages. The NY Times series of actual stories listed here do not include Kripalu; it is only listed in the database, along with every other water supplier in Massachusetts and almost all of them in the USA. Is there any sort of news story that reports this? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There is only a single Times story related to its database. The essence of that story is "All told, more than 62 million Americans have been exposed since 2004 to drinking water that did not meet at least one commonly used government health guideline intended to help protect people from cancer or serious disease, according to an analysis by The Times of more than 19 million drinking-water test results from the District of Columbia and the 45 states that made data available."

Kripalu calls itself, among other things, a "Health Center" and yet essentially ignored several state and federal enforcement actions over a period of recent years concerning its water supply.

Consensus is that this information isn't relevant to the article. I'm fine with that.

Will try to keep an eye out for the latest tax form.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:CALC

Offers hints on how routine math can be used to interpret data & provide information for the reader. Calamitybrook (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

IRS Form 990 is a primary source, the use of which is discouraged. If the article wants to describe the organization's business status, it would be far better to be citing a secondary source that was written based on the 990. Having said that, I don't have any objection to reporting major items that are on the 990. However, reporting average employee compensation based on taking the total compensation off the 990 and dividing it by the total number of employees goes far beyond the kind of simple arithmetic described as a "routine calculation" at WP:CALC. You appear to be doing this calculation to support the unstated conclusion that Kripalu's employees are underpaid. However, you and I have no idea what those numbers represent. How many of those employees worked for only six weeks out of the year, or only on weekends? WP:CALC says simple calculations are OK "provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." I don't agree. --Orlady (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The source in this case is the IRS.

IRS information is derived from independently audited company accounts.

The primary source, in this case, as any forensic accountant can explain, would be the company ledgers or modern equivalent.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the tax form filled out by Kripalu or its accountant (not by the IRS) is a primary source. It is raw information that lacks perspective, context, or evaluation. Please read WP:Primary. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the "primary source" from which the document is drawn are the relevant financial ledgers held by Kripalu.

The IRS form is an instrument of the IRS.

Regardless of misunderstanding, primary sources are, according to the policy you cite, acceptable for citation.

As for WP:CALC, rational agreement appears impossible, so will drop.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

New Source

Online book regarding Shadowbrook fire of 1956, possibly for separate article? I haven't read the thing as of this moment beyond introduction, but seems highly credible.

[[9]] Calamitybrook (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently this is the source of the content about one or more unidentified Jesuits who said, in 1956, that the building was "a monumental mendacity" (nice alliteration, but what is it supposed to mean?) and its overall effect was "artistically dismal."
The fact that 55 years ago an anonymous Jesuit thought the building was a "monumental lie" for a Jesuit-commissioned building has little if any relevance to an article about a yoga center. This is not in the same class as a known architecture critic discussing the design of the new facility that was commissioned by the Kripalu Center. The fact that the factoid appeared in an online-only book does not make it encyclopedic for this article -- which is pretty long as it is. I don't think it belongs here. --Orlady (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps read the book before commenting on it?

A copy is presently available on eBay for $16, and yes, is also available online.

I've briefly summarized part of its contents in Shadow Brook Farm Historic District.

Glad you like the material I added about the "known architecture critic" though sad you removed his negative comment.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

[EC with Calamitybrook's comment below] I have no actual interest in reading the book. Anyway, my comments are not about the book, but about the content from the book that you added to this article. I stand by my view that what an unnamed Jesuit thought of the building design 55 years ago does not appear to be germane to this particular article.

As for the negative comments from the architecture critic that I removed many months ago now, they were not comments about architectural design of the Kripalu Center, but rather were best described as philosophical reflections on modern society, as reflected by the values of people who visit the Kripalu Center. --Orlady (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As to what it means, a bit of imagination suggests that architecture can be "untruthful," but only a Latin scholar (or a Jesuit) might realize that (cut& paste):

Latin word mendax (lying, false; deceitful) derived from the Latin word mendum (bodily defect, blemish; fault)

the Latin word mendosus (full of faults, faulty; erroneous) derived from the Latin word mendum (bodily defect, blemish; fault)

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That analysis of the meaning of "monumental mendacity" actually is consistent with my view that the quotation adds no meaningful value to this article. If it is necessary to be a Latin scholar or a Jesuit to appreciate it, it's not an informative part of an encyclopedia article about a yoga center. --Orlady (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In approaching language, perhaps you're too literal minded. Regardless, am neither a scholar nor a Jesuit, and yet find the quote incisive. Also, book is remarkably well written.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Also can be said that architecture criticism and "philosophical reflections on modern society" are the same thing. But is a bit off topic.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Slant?

The Berkshire Eagle, a reasonably respected and long-established regional newspaper, saw fit to publish some information regarding Kripalu that is clearly and briefly paraphrased here, without point of view.

Orlady sees this as somehow needlessly negative, and seeks to delete the material without discussion. But why would Orlady's view of the material be superior to that of Berkshire Eagle's judgment?

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, a book published by no less that the Society of Jesus, an arm of the Catholic Church, describes Kripalu's main building as, architecturally, a "monumental mendacity." The same book goes to great lengths establishing the area landscape's cultural and historical significance. A half-century later, the same opinion is widely expressed at a meeting of area residents. Why should this context be obscured?

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Calamitybrook, your violation of WP:Coatrack to continually attempt to impugn the Kripalu Center is tiresome. And how do we even know that the sources you are using say what they say? They aren't exactly publicly accessible. Impressed by your diligence in trying to systematically defame Kripalu; suspicions of a WP:Conflict of interest seem reasonable. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

May the Saints preserve us! Wasn't it here that I was accused of conflict of interest for both pumping up AND tearing down Kripalu? Or am I dreaming? Is a coatrack anything like a hatrick?

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a local newspaper, and there are vast amounts of content published in local newspapers that absolutely have no place in an encyclopedia. This includes, but is by no means limited to, the proceedings of public board meetings, comments made at town meetings and public hearings, announcements of library book sales, titles of church sermons, reports of speeches at the Rotary Club, results of school athletic events, details of the lives of local business leaders, and rumors and speculation about what goes on behind the scenes in various private businesses and institutions in the community. Most of the content in dispute here (e.g., grumbling by local residents at a public hearing in 2006 about the aesthetics of a planned building, a newspaper report of a "top level management shakeup" at Kripalu) falls into one of those categories. Other items, notably including the reported 2011 salary of a newly hired employee at a private institution, need to be considered in context. In general, a person's salary in a particular year is a detail that is not of encyclopedic interest -- the exceptions are situations that have drawn significant outside attention, such as the salaries of certain highly paid athletes. A single local newspaper report to the effect that the CEO of a multi-million-dollar business said that he is being paid $200,000/yr (possibly too high, but not exceptional) doesn't fall in that category of exceptions. Additionally, some of those details (i.e., the salary and the "management shakeup") may cast living persons in a negative light, meaning that Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy comes into the picture. Finally, when the user adding (and re-adding) the trivial and negative content is someone with a long track record of selectively reporting trivia that casts Kripalu in a negative light (while systematically ignoring or removing other content that is favorable to Kripalu), and no other contributors can check the sources, it is exceedingly difficult to accept the content in good faith. Although I could not verify the source, I did accept on faith the content about the new head of Kripalu, but I edited it to remove details that I deemed to be potentially defamatory (both to Kripalu and named living persons) and trivial. I'm removing that again without further ado due to concerns about the BLP issue. I am not also removing the statement about people criticizing the building plans at a meeting in 2006 because it does not introduce BLP issues, but I think it should be removed as irrelevant (at best) and nothing more than another instance of trying to defame Kripalu. --Orlady (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a long and rather dense post above. Maybe break it into paragraphs?

I don't know exactly what you mean by "private" institution, but tax laws in effect provide a significant subsidy to Kripalu. Their IRS returns are publicly available because the public has a stake in the place.

Regarding above accusation that I'm somehow biased against Kripalu, I've located about three quarters of the current citations, which are good mix of positive, negative and neutral stuff.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization?

Principles followed are 1) remove needless words and 2) group like ideas together.

This looks good to me:Calamitybrook (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

blanked my comment & revised article.

Revision addresses concern regarding length by cutting "facility" segment line count by 28%, mainly by removing needless words.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I merged "Yoga" and "Programs" because of dearth of material, and flipped them to the top. This indirectly addresses concerns that article is bias, by giving Kripalu its due at outset of article. There is little to say about these topics other than what Kripalu says directly. The segment could be almost infinitely expanded with examples, but I think this would be ill-advised.

I agree the article was too long. It is now significantly shorter.

I removed a few bits of info that I'd previously introduced, for a variety of reasons. Mostly I compressed a lot of previously wordy sentences.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Views on building

Is really okay to include three lines on views published by Society of Jesus.

An editor here mistakenly believes this material is by anonymous author of "online book." The Jesuits have stature as an intellectual organization. The author of the material, F.S.Shea, was a former president of Antioch College and a vice president of Boston College. He was a resident of Shadowbrook for some period, as was the colleague that he quotes. He wrote a book about the site in question. This clearly qualifies him as an authority worthy of being quoted here.

The fact that a group of more than 50 informed Stockbridge residents agreed that the building is an "eyesore" is clearly relevant to the material cited from Shea. The fact is according to the Berkshire Eagle, a well-respected newspaper that has employed a fair number of well-known journalists, including, off the top of my head, Daniel Pearl.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Somebody is trying to tell me to give up trying to edit this article, as Calamitybrook reverts my work faster than I can say "Kripalu." The "views on building" paragraph that Calamitybrook refers to in the latest comment covers two essentially unrelated and trivial topics: (1) a Jesuit making an obscure criticism ("monumental mendacity") of the building design that the Jesuits planned/built in 1956, and (2) citizens grumbling 50 years later (in 2006) at a town meeting about the completely different new building then being planned. Neither of these items is more than trivial and there is no actual relation between them. They have nothing to do with either the Society of Jesus or Norman Rockwell. Their only apparent purpose in this article is to denigrate Kripalu. They've already been discussed at absurd length on this page within the last few days, and no one except Calamitybrook sees a reason to include them. Calamitybrook does not WP:OWN this article, and one person's view is not WP:Consensus. --Orlady (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, nor do you own this article.

Suggest that reliable sources ought to be guide.

Author FS Shea was president of Antioch College & VP of Boston College and held Ph.D. in English plus the rigorous intellectual training of Jesuits. He lived on site in question for a significant period. Two lines cited from his book concerning this site are reasonable to include in this article.

Similarly, the view of more than 50 concerned residents in Stockbridge, reported by a respected newspaper, concerning the same subject, is admissible material.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the reliability of sources, and this is an article about the Kripalu Center, not about the aesthetic opinions of a Jesuit who became a college president.

You are the only one who has read the article about the town meeting, but I distinctly recall that it said there were 50 people at the meeting and at least some of them complained about the esthetics of the proposed building. That is not 50 concerned residents sharing a view. Furthermore, it's not a view on the same subject because the building proposed in 2006 was a completely different building from the one the Jesuit discussed in 1956. --Orlady (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert-revert-revert

Calamitybrook, I cannot help but assume that edits like this one have the dual purpose of (1) defaming Kripalu's past and current leadership (for example, by the spurious juxtaposition in "Residents took vows of celibacy and obedience to Desai, who admitted to having sex with followers and resigned in 1994") and (2) driving anyone crazy who dares to edit this article. You have treated this article as your own playground for too long. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for venting your hostilities. --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Amusing psychoanalysis, but begs question.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I know you've said you're not interested in actually reading the source. Yet I'd like to convey some enthusiasm. I find it the most remarkable of the hundreds I've found concerning this region (with the definite exception of "The Mohicans of Stockbridge" by Patrick Frazier).

Its literary sensitivity is remarkable. Obviously, it has nothing to do with Kripalu apart from its architecture' and perhaps a third of it concerns the daily life of Jesuit novitiates at Shadowbrook. The remainder concerns pre-1922 history of the site in its regional context, plus the 1956 fire and its aftermath. I used it to expand a Wikipedia article Shadow Brook Farm Historic District.

Shea was a remarkable authority on the Shadowbrook site and must be included, briefly, in an article on Kripalu.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I found Shea's book online and used it as one of several sources to write an article about Shea. The book is about Shadowbrook, not about Kripalu or the Kripalu Center. Moreover, Shea's book is about the building that burned down, not the building that replaced it -- and Shea died 6 years before the Kripalu group bought the property. Shea doesn't belong in this article. Furthermore, his book does not even include one of the two quotations that you attribute to it. Specifically, you misquoted Father Carroll. He called the plans that existed in 1955-1956 a "monumental mediocrity," not a "monumental mendacity." --Orlady (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Forest Legacy Conservation Easements

I removed the statement which said that conservation easements were "granted" to the Stockbridge Yokun Ridge Reserve. This is inaccurate and not reflected in the source cited. The Reserve--essentially a designated planning area, not a non-profit organization, government, or government agency--cannot have a conservation easement "granted" to it. If Kripalu owns the land in under easement, then the easement was granted by Kripalu to whatever holds the legal enforcing interest in the easement--the Town of Lenox or Stockbridge, the state, or some conservation non-profit.24.147.66.106 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No 'Value-Added' Material Here

This article can now be supported in its entirety with exclusive reference to Kripalu's Web site, which is of greater utility to the reader.

Sole current exception concerns trade association's in-house award to a member, the notability of which could be questioned without reference to a third-party source. Almost certainly such reference is unavailable.

"Trivia" is in eyes of the beholder. Or at very least, no argument beyond this is presented here.

Shea's work, trivial or otherwise, has extensive historical material about Shadowbrook site & its wider context, & includes various comments on its current architecture at several different points within text. Also, to deem the opinion of 50+ residents "trivial" is itself a trivial opinion.

A couple of dozen or so outside sources I've located, a number of which are essential for in-depth research, now deemed irrelevant here by a single editor.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

For the time being, may limit further work here to trimming any redundancies from ref list.

I have trouble interpreting haiku, but I'll attempt to reply to the thoughts that might lie behind these comments.

The article has relatively few citations to the Kripalu Center website. The fact that reliable sources often have the same information as the website helps to validate the website's information.

I continue to contend that the 1950s (and earlier) history of the property has little relevance to the article about the yoga center that moved there in 1983. That history can (and is) properly covered in other articles linked from this one.

The fact that I am currently the only other registered editor discussing this article here may have something to do with the extremely exasperating nature of the discussions here. Please note that my involvement is related only to a general interest in Wikipedia's quality. --Orlady (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It is in fact nonsensical to say that the Kripalu website should be used exclusively, as articles should be primarily based on independent reliable sources, and Kripalu Center clearly is not independent of itself. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Award-winning architecture image.

If the awards specify which parts earned the award, perhaps it might (I don't think so) be worth adding them, with reference.Unfriend13 (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

But the overall architecture of the building shown is in no way unusual... not award-winning.Unfriend13 (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the caption could indicate that the image represents the most dominate bit of several pieces of architecture at Kripalu, one of which, a 6-story building placed in a historically significant rural setting, received an award --as indicated in extensive detail by Wikipedia article.

I once tried to balance this information with brief citations showing that the entire campus has in fact been considered an (obvious) eyesore for more than fifty years -- citing relatively recent newspaper report of comments at a Stockbridge town meetings, as well as published comments by 1950s Jesuit residents. But this is disallowed by several Administrative Personnel.

Perhaps my skepticism of Kripalu's self-generated hype which this article largely reflects, amounts to an unacceptable "bias."

--Banned editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"Banned editor": That a building may be disregarded by persons in its community does not automatically make it "an eyesore". For example, there is the Orange County Government Center in the Village of Goshen, Orange County, NY that was designed by architect Paul Rudolf in his Brutalist style. The former county executive (who hated the building) mounted a campaign to have it demolished, but that executive is now gone and the building remains. Many in the architectural community consider it to be a masterpiece of Rudolf's work. The county legislature has voted to renovate it. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)