This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kripalu Center article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Kripalu Center. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Kripalu Center at the Reference desk.

Kripalu Center received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Yoga Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Archive 1 (Jan 2009–Jan 2010) Archive 2 (Feb 2010– ) Archive 3 ( – )

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

If you can find ANY sources that praise the main building's architecture, then by all means include them.

The obvious awfulness of the building has been commented on since even before it was constructed more than half a century ago. It's particularly significant (as an eyesore) because (as Shea nicely establishes) the setting of the building is significant in many respects.

There were previously included here at least two sources stating the obvious: The head Jesuit guy, on reviewing the plans, called it (according to Shea) a "monumental mediocrity" and some townspeople in an open meeting, as quoted in an established newspaper, said something similar much more recently.

I'm not sure why this material was removed. Not even sure if any of Shea survived the Kripalu apologists. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:E942:1811:CA18:E94A (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any published, reliable sources that show this was a notable fact, it might merit inclusion. This article is filled with a mish-mash of trivia about a barely-noteworthy business and site. However, I have attempted to apply the editorial hatchet in the past and met harsh response. No one outside the organization needs to know, or cares, about how much people make or why they quit, or how ugly/pretty the building is...it is a local business... it is wp:trivia and has nothing to do with wp:pillars.Shajure (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shajure: i have reverted your edit here [1] that adds promotional content suggesting that Kripalu is a style of yoga. If it is indeed it, you will need some WP:RS for this. A blog post from the Kripalu is not sufficient as the content is subject to WP:PROMO. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again... it can indeed be a wp:RS (please actually read it) when talking about itself.Shajure (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1999, Kripalu became a secular non-profit organization, its mission to teach the art and science of yoga.[26] Revenue for fiscal 2017 was about $33.3 million and had shown little change over the previous five years. Executive compensation of about $978,000 equaled about 3 percent of the company's total expenses and included $308,925 for its chief executive.[27] In lieu of property taxes, Kripalu donated nearly $40,000 to the town of Stockbridge in 2018.[28]"

The paragraph immediately above was recently removed by an editor with the comment that "No one cares - *cough* I mean "Not needed in an encyclopedia article." The comment presumably intended to be flippant and non-serious -- perhaps a kind of joke?

A listing of numerous CEOs going back 16 years was retained, and the subhead was changed to "leadership" from "management."

.......I suggest that the Kripalu article could be improved with the addition of various economic data. A year and a half ago, a Williams College professor was paid (in part by Kripalu) to produce a study on the center's economic impact on Berkshire County, where per capita income is about 30 percent below the statewide average. This "impact" is a function of Kripalu's annual revenue.

See https://web.williams.edu/Economics/ArtsEcon/library/pdfs/KripaluEconomicImpacts2018.pdf

Here's material directly from its "summary."

• The Kripalu Center for Yoga & Health attracts over 30,000 guests per year to its facilities and programming and based on budget is the fifth largest not-for-profit organization group in Berkshire County. • The Kripalu Center and its guests directly or indirectly generate about $64 million in total economic output in Massachusetts, about $56 million of it concentrated in Berkshire County. • The Center directly or indirectly generates about $27 million in labor income, $22 million of which is concentrated in Berkshire County. • The labor income generated supports as many as 670 part-time and full-time jobs in hundreds of economic sectors, with the largest number in educational services, lodging, retailing, real estate and restaurants. • The average annual earnings by those employed is estimated to be between $33 and $42 thousand per year, with actual amounts depending on the sector and location of employment. • Each year, the Kripalu Center directly and indirectly generates about $7.5 million in increased tax revenues for state and local governments. This includes more than $2.2 million in residential property taxes paid by Kripalu guests who have purchased and maintain homes to be near to the Center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.218.250 (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you. Firstly, the editor's comment was surely somewhat flippant, but all the same it was correct. The year-to-year details of the finances of a charitable foundation will only be of encyclopedic interest if something is going very wrong—if, say, there is corruption and a guru who uses the charitable moneys for a fleet of golden Rolls-Royces, luxury holidays and a private jet. Otherwise, the focus of the article must be on what the charitable foundation does, if indeed that is a noteworthy topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But Kripalu is not a "charitable foundation." (Its actual status as a 501(c) non-profit corporation was removed from the article). Thus your comment is potentially based on misinformation and its basis is, in any event, unclear.

The context in which any organization operates is generally a key to a meaningful understanding of "what it does." To take one example, a computer "computes." That is "what it does," as you say. One could explain this function accurately and endlessly -- and gain no insight into the significance of computers. Further examples are endless and obvious: an 18th Century cotton plantation grows (grew) cotton. That is "what it does." One can elaborate extensively on how cotton grows, without insight into the significance of cotton plantations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.218.248 (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as there has been a steady push for years to make the pay and behaviour of the leadership a key subject of the article, my 10th or 20th action to try to keep the article somewhat encyclopedic was flippant. I am very concerned that the article still states (as does the website) that the company is a nonprofit organization... while it is now a publicly traded entity. Since most of my efforts to trim the article *sharply* have been edit-warred back in, I am very dubious about trimming the article down yet again. That said... I am going to apply the editorial axe yet again. I'll be interested to see how much is pumped right back in.Shajure (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Nope, I don't see any reasonable sources, and I am going to leave this aloneShajure (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead:
  • Chop out the advert in the lead about largest center, add link to the historic district location from the body.
    
  • As the organization no longer lists itself as a 501(c)(3) organization, I wonder if the "non-profit organization" should remain. Propose (very cautiously) to remove.
• History section - Chop out the advert in the "history" section about first/only to survive, and the size of its program count.
• Eliminate "Kripalu Yoga" section - if there is such a thing and it is notable, it might have its own article, and a link would be appropriate in the lead.
• Facility - remove section entirely, keep the main hall image.
• Programs - remove section entirely, advert, they have a web site for that.
• Leaders - remove the list entirely. If the organization thinks their history-of-leaders is worth bragging about, they can do it on their website.

Shajure (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, change yoga link to hatha yoga.Shajure (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Hatha yoga" is a medieval discipline; yoga is a still older spiritual discipline; yoga today is mostly "modern postural yoga", yoga as exercise, but Kripalu actually teaches Patanjali's yoga also. It is certainly relevant to this article to describe what the center does. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me what you are proposing. Leave the yoga link as is? Or?Shajure (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually opposed to the very general thrust of what you're saying, but you seem misinformed about at least a couple of points. The nonprofit status is a goldmine that Kripalu would be very unlikely to abandon (because they'd otherwise need to pay some very substantial taxes).

Kripalu yoga, or whatever it is, is trademarked by the Center. They make a lot of money "training " instructors who are then authorized to go home and use the trademark, opening their own businesses teaching the "method " or whatever it's called. It's pretty valuable when it's all added up.

That's why contex -- beyond their dining room menu or whatever-- is useful to get insight into the place. Preceding unsigned comment added 00:46, 21 February 2020‎ 99.203.129.141 - Signbot missed it, Shajure (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to sign your comments.

Please focus on the content: What are you proposing?

Please rest assured that I understand the use and abuse of "non profit" status. Without actual "non profit" status 501(3)(c) status, the words are just words, and are misleading. I can claim to be "non profit", but unless the government agrees, I must pay.

• Leave off the silly dining room picture? I support that. This is an encyclopedia, not a brochure.
• Mention that the company no longer claims to be a "real" non-profit? I can't support that unless we have a reliable source. Without a source, we can simply not mention it in the encyclopedia article.

Shajure (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on here? It would really help if editors could sign their comments using ~~~~ (or the signature button by the edit window). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a great help. Usually the signbot cleans up after this particular IP-poster, but it can't always.Shajure (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the photo of the main hall, if that is what is meant, I think it entirely appropriate and encyclopedic. Happy to discuss other items but this is too chaotic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That also sounds good. I don't agree (edit to add) or disagree but happy to honor your position.Shajure (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point about "no longer lists its self" as nonprofit. They file their Form 990 with the IRS. It's easy to look up. Better to read and understand this sort of stuff before making assertions to the contrary. Personally I'm not proposing anything nor do I plan on directly contributing here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.129.178 (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts with ~~~~, the signbots don't always do it, and even when they do, it is ugly.Shajure (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the NFP status, indeed, an interested editor might decide to link a current reliable source. Or we can leave it out of the article.Shajure (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no comments, I expect to make these edits tomorrow:

• Lead - Chop out the advert in the lead about largest center, add link to the historic district location from the body.
  
• Lead - As the organization no longer lists itself as a 501(c)(3) organization, I wonder if the "non-profit organization" should remain. Propose (very cautiously) to remove.
• History section - Chop out the advert in the "history" section about first/only to survive, and the size of its program count.
• Eliminate "Kripalu Yoga" section - if there is such a thing and it is notable, it might have its own article, and a link would be appropriate in the lead.
• Facility - remove section entirely, keep the main hall image.
• Programs - remove section entirely, advert, they have a web site for that.
• Leaders - remove the list entirely. If the organization thinks their history-of-leaders is worth bragging about, they can do it on their website.

And please, if you reply, please do so below, indent and sign with ~~~~
Shajure (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must oppose removal of the bit about the closure and reopening. A months-long closure is most certainly a key part of the history of a business.Shajure (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]