Talk:Kriyananda/Archive 1

Unlike what the previous contributor seems to say - Swami Kriyananda was directly accused by Bertolucci. Check this link Bertolucci testifying in court

I personally discovered later on, however, that "Swami" repeatedly abused his position of
power within the church to convince young women in the church to satisfy his sexual desires while simultaneously convincing them it was to their spiritual benefit. I was not aware of his sexual interaction with young female church members until it  happened to me.

The previous contributor is trying to confuse readers when he/she says that the charges were against some other Ananda minister. Also their tactics of posting all those links is to drown out the relevant links to Anandainfo site which contains actual court documents.Jai Guru.

---

How about if I create a separate page for the court case(s)? Disagreement, particularly on the Bertolucci case, has been played out on the web for a long time -- we can't reasonably expect to find consensus on it here, and might as well present both sides in a separate article. This would also help people by being able to give a full treatment of the case in a more appropriate space. --jocosley June 30, 2005 17:50 (UTC)

---

Just a couple of revisions: since no charges of abuse were filed against Swami Kriyananda, I took out "abuse" from "Kriyananda faced accusations of sexual misconduct and abuse" since no charges of abuse were filed. Also, I think whomever wrote "although no formal charges of sexual misconduct against Kriyananda, himself, were actually filed [1]" just misunderstood the cited article. No formal charges were filed by eight women, but Bertolucci did in fact file charges (see [2], "On November 28, 1994, Bertolucci filed a lawsuit against Danny Levin, Ananda, and Swami Kriyananda."). --jocosley June 30, 2005 20:58 (UTC)

---

Jocosley , I am sorry if this sounds offensive but your editing of Kriyananda article appears biased.It looks like a recruitment brochure for Ananda making Kriyananda appear in a very positive light which Ananda people seek to do.. JDW is actually a very grey personality like any other ordinary person.He has a mix of good and bad qualities.Your article is misleading for newcomers who might stumble on this website so my suggestion is let us not go for a separate webpage for Bertolucci lawsuit and put it on this page itself - Rahul

---

Hi Rahul, thanks for your comments. I'm not offended. Part of the reason for my earlier additions / subtractions is that it seems strange to me to have such a large portion of the article devoted to "the controversy" instead of "the person". (The "Sex and the Singular Swami" article also does feel biased to me, but instead of removing it maybe there is a more balanced substitute.)

I'd like to add more about Kriyananda's writings, music, life history, and perhaps "world brotherhood colonies", but I truly do not want to be biased. Truthfully, however, I do see Kriyananda as a bright rather than grey personality. Please let me know your thoughts, and I'll start writing some more stuff. --jocosley 18:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

---

"the controversy" instead of "the person". 

Well, since Kriyananda is attempting to recruit disciples, I think his accusations of personal indescressions are extremly relevant. There is testimony from a number of women - regardless of charges - that seem to indicate his involvement in some less than holy acts.

2005-07-05 Expanded version rewrite

• Made changes for clarity
• Some rewriting to put the most essential information first
• Improved accuracy regarding the task Paramahansa Yogananda entrusted to him
• Explained what Self-Realization Fellowship was
• Decreased info about the court case since that will be covered separately
• http://www.rickross.com/reference/ananda/ananda1.html wasn't the most appropriate link just for that evidence; also, this article absolutely has POV [3]

--jocosley 5 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

---

Here's a word from "the previous contributor" who was "trying to confuse readers." Of course I had no such intention. When I orginally came upon this wiki entry, I saw that it was one-sidely painting Swami Kriyananda as a convicted sexual predator. That is so far from the truth that I had to correct it. Then I found that my attempts to add information that truly represent who Swami Kriyananda is were removed and called "irrelevant." To the person who removed them, the slander against Swami Kriyanada is the only thing that is relevant: all I can say is that that is a minority point of view. Those who know Swami Kriyananda know that there is so much more that is positive to be said!

Thank you jocosley for clearing up my factual mistake about the lawsuit. I have no interest in diving into all the legalese and the exact sequence of things -- hence my minor inaccuracy. I only know that the sexual charges were originally leveled at the minister that had a mutually consenting affair with the plaintiff. The sexual aspect of the charges against Swami Kriyananda personally was added after some phase of the legal action had already started: they were added later in the game to deal a deadly blow against Swami Kriyananda and Ananda. (Sadly, Ananda chose not to appeal a verdict that was screaming for appeal with all the irregularities involved in the case. The prosecuting parties showed every determination to continue attacking, even filing charges against Ananda's lawyers! What else could Ananda do but settle to stop the attacks?)

But why hash all that out here? That is not what Swami Kriyananda is, nor should, be known for. He is widely known as a very good and wise person, internet and legal attacks notwithstanding. It is even during the very lawsuits that his goodness drew many many new people and sincere supporters.

Of special note: A month or so ago, the granddaughter of Mohatma Gandhi awarded Swami Kriyananda in Italy a recognition for his goodness and for his true representation of nonviolent principles. Past recipients of her award include the Dalai Lama. In Italian: http://www.umbriajournal.it/datasistem/eventi.htm (third article from top). In English from Ananda: http://www.ananda.org/news/kriyanandamilano2005.html.

Swami Kriyananda is an exceptionally kind and selfless person. And I am saddened that there are people who are spending so much energy and time to tarnish his name. I and many others owe him an enormous debt of gratitude for all he has so selflessly done for us, and for bringing to us so clearly the teachings of Self Realization. He never takes the credit for himself, always giving the credit to his and our guru, Paramhansa Yogananda. I am so touched and grateful to him! - cg

2005-09-06 Additions and edits

You can see the changes and additions at this page. I've tried to be less "brochure-like" in writing the new sections: "Early life," "World Brotherhood Colonies," and "Books and music." The changes made to the controversies section were fairly minor: I corrected a quote, changed the order of a paragraph, and changed a few word choices.

Lets work toward a point where we can remove the "Neutral Point of View" template at top. We may not agree about the points at hand, but I bet we can express the points of view in a way that we can all feel comfortable with.

--jocosley 17:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

---

There should be mention of Bertolucci lawsuit among the Kriyananda controversies. In course of your "minor editing" you have removed that particular lawsuit completely

Club of Budapest

Bert, the Club of Budapest invites only prestigious figures to become Creative Members of their organization. From their website: "Creative Members of the Club of Budapest are highly creative innovators for a social and ecological sustainable world and a culture of peace." Also by special invitation are Honorary Members, which include the people listed on the article page. Yes, anyone can join as a Change the World Member for only $120 per year, but it's pretty clear that's not what we're talking about here. But go see for yourself: http://www.clubofbudapest.org - ॐ Priyanath 23:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Priya, you are probably aware that the previous entry merely said "member", not "Creative Member" -- it's hard to read your "it's pretty clear" comment as anything but disingenuous. But even as a "Creative Member", this "honor" seems "un-encyclopedic". It sounds like transparent and weak PR. How many other bios in Wikipedia boast of membership in this "prestigious" organization? None. If it really meant anything worth mentioning in a short biographical article like this, it would suffice to say, "Swami Kriyananda became a Creative Member of the Club of Budapest in 2006." Most of the Swami Kriyananda article, in fact, reads like official promotional literature, not like an encyclopedia article - this is just the most obviously off-tone part.

Bertport 00:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right, the previous entry said 'member'. But a brief search of the Club of Budapest website (which you apparently did) would make it very clear that Kriyananda isn't just a dues-paying member. He's listed on that website. Regarding the notability of the Club of Budapest, a brief internet search shows Desmond Tutu's own website mentioning his membership in such a noteworthy organization. Would you call that 'transparent and weak PR'? I couldn't disagree with you more about the overall tone of the article. This article fits with everything at Biographies of Living Persons. Please read those Wikipedia guidelines more closely. The 'Controversies' section has ballooned to about one-third of the article - which in my opinion makes it more of a negative article than a transparent PR piece. From WP:Biographies of Living Persons:

• Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.::I believe the criticism in the article represents a minority view - if not tiny, than small, and should be reduced, if anything, to bring this article into WP:Biographies of Living Persons guidelines. ॐ Priyanath 01:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bert, here are a few bios in Wikipedia that 'boast' of membership in the prestigious Club of Budapest - not Creative Members, mind you, just mere 'members': Allan Combs; Mark Rylance; Michel Saloff Coste; Bnei Baruch; User:Benking; and founder Ervin László. Will your campaign include deleting such transparent PR from all of those bios, too, especially since they only say 'member'? - ॐ Priyanath 02:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This purported list of bios boasting "mere" membership in CoB includes:

Bnei Baruch - not a bio, this is not even a person

Coste - not a "mere" member, but co-founder

User:Benking - a User page, not a standard article

More to the point, none of these articles (other than that of the founder, Laszlo) give CoB even a full line of text. The breathless rhetoric devoted to it in this Kriyananda article will not have the effect you seem to intend, except possibly on the most naive readers. It lacks the "conservative ... neutral, encyclopedic tone" you bold-faced in your quotes from the BLP standard.

There is very little space given to critics of Kriyananda in the Controversies section. Most of it seems to be about SRF. I wonder why you haven't just copy-pasted most of it over into the SRF article. The account of the Bertolucci lawsuit is conservative, understated, and about as bare-bones as you can get. It's not a matter of opinion that the lawsuit took place and the jury came to these decisions. Bertport 14:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything in the one sentence (how can one sentence be excessive, unless if you have a strong negative POV?) Club of Budapest mention is factual. And the Club of Budapest is obviously notable. Compare the 'breathless' prose to other biographies on WP and you'll see that it's not excessive, either.

Compared to other biographies on WP, there is more than the typical space given to the Bertolucci article. The facts of the lawsuit are in this article, but excessively so in my opinion. But compromise is the essence of editing on WP, so I would let it stand. If other editors want to pare it down, I wouldn't object. The links to the websites about the lawsuit more than satisfy the need for those wanting the juicy details, even though Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Therefore, there are grounds to eliminate those links altogether.

Bert, look at other biographies on WP and compare for yourself. I did: Swami Satchidananda and Daya Mata just for example (and no, I wasn't cherry-picking, those were the first two I looked at). The tone is similar to this article, but the criticism is far less/non-existant. I think you protest way too much. ॐ Priyanath 15:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because you've found a couple of other puff pieces, it doesn't mean every article should be puffery. --Simon D M (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

I added this based on similar lists in other Biographies on Wikipedia. Let's discuss if there are any objections. I think there are other books that I missed, and I hope to add publishing dates for each book. ॐ Priyanath 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

cite format + refs

I would suggest to use the {{cite web}} template to all web links directly linked from the article text. The format of this template is as follows:

{{cite web
| url = 
| title = 
| accessdate = 
| accessmonthday =
| accessyear =
| author =
| last = 
| first = 
| authorlink = 
| coauthors = 
| date = 
| year = 
| month = 
| format = 
| work = 
| publisher = 
| pages = 
| language = 
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
}}

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources...

... should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. The section about the Redwood City tria, needs to be sourced exclusively on existent secondary sources, namely the article on the SF Weekly, available in their archives here [4], or other secondary published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Points from Biographies of Living Persons that are relevant to some of the edit disputes here:

• Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies:
  • Verifiability
  • Neutral point of view
  • No original research
• We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.
• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
• The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
• Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion and without regard to the three-revert rule.
• Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject. ॐ Priyanath 18:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any material in the article that should not be there? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this comment - I originally put that WP:BLP excerpt there because the article was in much worse shape at that time (2006), and vandals were making frequent additions that violated WP:BLP. ~ priyanath talk 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I read through some of the sources provided in the Controversies section, and would argue that the material there needs to be re-written to provide a more factual and neutral representation of these sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources to back up Ananda's self-published claims about the relationships between Bertolucci's lawyers and the SRF? If so, we should be using them as the current sources are questionable. --Simon D M (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ananda's website would be a reliable source for this, since the claims in this article are prefaced by "According to a letter from Ananda's leaders,....". ~ priyanath talk 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that self-published sources cannot be used yo make claims about third-parties... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, so the explanation of the bankruptcy filing is ok, but the explanation of involvement by Self-Realization fellowship isn't? If so, then the latter should be removed and the former left in place. ~ priyanath talk 23:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Another question, Jossi, since you seem to have an understanding of sources and policy: The SF Weekly is a tabloid (in format and spirit) weekly that arguably doesn't meet WP:BLP: "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page" and "Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

<<< As I said above, the "Controversy" section is poorly written, with much editorializing and with sources from both sides of the dispute to be doubtful as it relates to WP:V, and WP:BLP. For example, court cases being primary sources, should not be used unless described in reputable secondary sources. The story seems significant enough to surely have such sources available. OTOH, if there are no such sources, then the issue of notability comes to play. Wikipedia is not a place to publish information that has not been published before. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It would help, and be appreciated, if you could be more specific - or better yet edit the controversy section yourself (if you have time and inclination) - since you are a neutral party, admin, and knowledgeable about sources. I removed the part about the letter from Ananda leaders, per your feedback. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 03:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I will need to decline.... I would be better assisting by searching for some good sources, and post my findings here. You can then attempt to work these in the text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked all the databases I have access to, and found nothing besides this article "Famed yogi visits Malibu". Retrieved 2008-01-22., which covers some of these aspects in a neutral manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider the SFWeekly to be a neutral article and/or reliable source per WP:BLP? Should it be replaced with this source? I'm just trying to get an understanding of sourcing for BLP articles. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see goes beyond assessing the SF Weekly as a source. The concern is that it seems to be an isolated source. If the subject is notable, it surely would have attracted more coverage than an oped in that weekly magazine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than Malibu Times and SF Weekly, Google News shows that the story was dealt with in several other local newspapers. --Simon D M (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A Reminder about WP:BLP

From WP:BLP: External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links. Note that this also applies to talk pages. Priyanath ^talk 00:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

From the BLP statement above: This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. This also applies to the talk page. Anything violating WP:BLP will be removed, and is not a violation of the 3RR rule. Priyanath ^talk 05:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography could be made new page

With all due respect, I think this article could be improved by shortening the Bibliography or making it a separate page. It seems excessive (and perhaps creates the impression of positive bias) to list all works of the prolific Swami here (one can perhaps get that info from the Swami K. or Ananda websites). Now this is a living biography, but still, try comparing this with the Wiki bios for two other prolifics, Mozart and Goethe--neither has in incorporated Bibliography of this length. Just an idea to help this article become higher in quality.Jack B108 (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is still my opinion that this article does not look like a proper encyclopedia article with a very lengthy bibliography and discography. I am planning to remove these two sections very soon, as this material can easily be found elsewhere. Also, there seem to be too many headings in this article; I think some of these could be removed or combined and it could have a cleaner look overall (look at Wiki bios of Mozart and Goethe, for example). Jack B108 (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the long listing of his creative works detracts from the article. Bertport (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias or unbalance in article?

I think that the warning that this page may have bias in it has been up long enough. This article is more neutral and balanced than it was even 6 months ago, and I propose that this statement (up since Jan. 2007) be removed soon. Jack B108 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I second this... ShowerOfRoses (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any association with either this group or the SRF, but I must say this piece does not have the neutral tone expected in Wikipedia. It frequently runs off the main point to add irrelevant accolades. These need to be trimmed before this is close to a neutral article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.144.12 (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Absolutely non-neutral in tone. This reads like a biographical statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.149.208 (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Acclaimed" is a peacock word to be avoided in wikipedia. Its presence signals a PR machine, not an encyclopedia. Bertport (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Millions of dollars spent suing

The article says that SRF spent millions of dollars suing Kriyananda. The only source seems to be a book published by Kriyananda's Crystal Clarity publication, which is not a credible or npov source. I am removing the mention about the dollar value. Please add "millions of dollars" only if there is a credible and neutral source is found. I have also reworded the sentence to give it more of a neutral view. 173.206.2.17 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned up Citations more needed

I cleaned up citations, deleting words that were not actually citations, added authors, corrected citation to match the words in the paragraph and added citations needed notations. There are a number of dead links that need to be deleted or corrected. There are mostly POV citations and not enough third party references. Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Added a third party citation to the Legal Cases section and removed a POV citation. Updated the section a bit. Still needs more work and another third party citation to replace the one POV one still there.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit discussion

Bring your ideas hear to discuss desired changes on this page. Making POV changes does not help the article to neutral and objective.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edit 14:29, 24 April 2013‎ by Jack B108 - This editor completely changed the whole section. Asking that this editor bring and discuss changes to this talk page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

BLP & other issues

The BLP policy tag from 2012 should not apply to a deceased person. High-quality sources should always be important components of a WP article, but this BLP tag looks silly now and I am probably going to remove it. Another issue is the name of 'Swami Kriyananda' truncated here to 'Kriyananda'. The subject of this entry is rarely referred to as 'Kriyananda' only, and this page used 'Swami Kriyananda' for several years right up until 2013, when all of a sudden 'Swami' was removed. After a person enters the Swami Order of Shankacharya, as J. Donald Walters did many years ago, 'Swami' becomes part of that person's name. It's not really an honorific such as 'Sri' or perhaps even 'Paramahansa' (which remains, as a glaring inconsistency in the case of Paramahansa Yogananda). Is Wikipedia deciding that 'Mother Teresa' is just 'Teresa' now? Or that 'Brother Lawrence' is just 'Lawrence'? This is really a significant issue, and because it is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently here, this issue via Red Rose 13's edits should probably go on an RfC page. Jack B108 (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Check with User: Yworo about the honorifics, he is the one who instructed me and the one who corrected the title of the page according to Wikipedia guidelines. I believe if you read the whole post on my user page you would also see another editor backing him up about this. I refer you to this post. Here it is copied from my talk page for your use:

Yworo:

I spent some time a while back removing instances of "Sri" from the Autobiography article. This is an encyclopedia article, not an article by believers for believers. We do not use the honorific "Sri" to prefix names on Wikipedia. If the Wikipedia article on Yukteshwar is Yukteswar Giri, that's what we use. We also generally do not prefix names with Mr., Ms., or Dr. Please leave these out. Yworo (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Cathyrose:

Thanks - I left this note on the Autobiography talk page - Thank you Yworo for showing me how to better link to a wiki page. In regards to Sri Yukteswar, I remembered that Wikipedia doesn't use Sri but the reason I left it in was because that was how Yogananda referred to him in his autobiography. I thought it was appropriate to duplicate what the author did. I guess not....thanksRed Rose 13 (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Orange Mike:

Nope. We don't use "Sir", "Dr.", "Rev.", "Sri", "Guru", "Sister", "Pope" or any other honorifics (religious or secular, European or Asian in origin). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Good clean up regarding the BLP tag and I noticed this time you left the tag for the need for secondary or tertiary sources.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am cleaning up citations - POV citations/links and adding Third party citation needed - follow this link for information regarding Wikipedia reliable citations. [5] and this one for using NPOV citations [6] Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I had one comment regarding the article title. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be titled "Swami Kriyananda". For ex, see Swami Vivekananda (see related discussion Talk:Swami_Vivekananda/Archive_2#Requested_move ) and other examples would be Saint Peter, Saint Patrick (simply naming the article Peter/Patrick wouldn't convey the appropriate meaning.) If there is no clear consensus, we can call for an vote. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, as per WP:HONORIFIC, "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for "Father Coughlin" (currently at Charles Coughlin) and Mother Teresa." I suggest naming the article to "Swami Kriyananda". RS like Times of India, refer to him as "Swami Kriyananda" in this article — Swami Kriyananda passes away in Italy. Even American Journal of Sociology refers to him as "Swami Kriyananda" [7] " It was founded in 1967 by Swami Kriyananda, an American who had been baptized ..." So I strongly believe that article name must be "Swami Kriyananda" --TheMandarin (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable input, The Mandarin. I think you have the right approach to these types of names for an encyclopedia. I reiterate that the so-called WP policy against using 'honorifics' is being inconsistently and arbitrarily applied to this page with the removal of 'Swami' from Swami Kriyananda's name. Jack B108 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In my research and updating this page I have come across a lot of information.

• I noticed that Kriyananda actually renounced his Swami vow in 1985 when he married for the second time.
• He was liable for "constructive fraud", with a finding of "malice and fraudulent conduct" in the sexual abuse case in 1998 where a group of women testified that he used them for sex.
• In his book about Ananda, he states that he had a sexual affair while in Yogananda's ashram.[8]
• My understanding is that swami means master over the self and a swami takes vows of poverty and celibacy.[9]
• I also noticed on his page that he created a new "swami" order that allows the swami to be married. He calls it Nayaswami order.
• Also here is a news article from News Tract India that did not use the title swami just Kriyananda - Kriyananda: An American yoga guru who loved India (Tribute)

I think adding the word swami back in front of Kriyananda's name, would put the integrity of Wikipedia to test. He really was not a swami. Another option would be to put J. Donald Walters his name which is on many of his books - [10] In regards to Swami Vivekananda it is my understanding that he stayed chaste the entire time he was a swami and fully earned the title Swami.Oops forgot to sign Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I am quite likely to do a RfC with this article. The quality of this article has gone down, in the last few weeks, in my opinion. There seems to be a lack of understanding that Wikipedia biographies such as this one are not the appropriate place to make moral judgments on people. It should be apparent to an objective person that Red Rose 13 is using language here as a tool to judge the subject of this biography. In regards to an encyclopedia entry, the person described here is commonly and best-known known as 'Swami Kriyananda'. Jack B108 (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This article has been vastly improved from POV edits, dead links, POV links, to adding 3rd party references and still needs a lot more work to bring it up to the neutral standards of Wikipedia NPOV. Listing facts in this discussion is not about judgement but about listing truthful events most of which is already documented on the page itself and cannot be denied. In regards to Wikipedia and an encyclopedic entry the person is known as J.Donald Walters or Kriyananda and both are used on his books, utube videos, etc.. [11] [12] We could name the page James Donald Walters (aka Kriyananda) or another option is we could name the page Nayaswami Kriyananda. In my research I have discovered the term Nayaswami is more accurate than Swami, (1) because this was the title he was using since 2009 [13] and (2) this new swami order he started allows for people to be married or in relationship. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, while researching the link to the Nayaswami order, I saw that Kriyananda only wore a blue robe of his new nayaswami order instead of orange robes of the ancient Swami Order of Shankara of which he renounced himself in 1985. We should update the picture on this page to one where he is wearing the blue robe of his new order.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

POV and OR issue in disapproval of Kriyananda re-assuming the Swami vows.

The article in the 'recent years' section has a POV, non-encyclopedic piece, beginning with 'According to Yogananda' below:

He was later divorced. In 1995, on his own, he officially resumed his monastic vows and title. According to Yogananda in his first edition of his Autobiography in reference to the ancient swami order, “because it is a formal order… no one can give himself the title of swami.”[30]

I removed it, with the subject title, 'Removed disapproval of Kriyananda's re-assuming the Swami vows on OR and POV grounds'. It has been reverted by Red Rose 13. Red Rose 13's defense of her removal is 'the statement is a fact back up by a reliable source'. This is an inadequate defense.

Red Rose 13, not all things that can be backed up by a reliable source are to be put on wikipedia. POV and OR concerns also prevail. The meaning of the offending piece is, 'According to what Paramahansa Yogananda said, this would be invalid'. This may be an arguable point and even a correct one, but that is POV of SRF (an organisation founded by Yogananda with which Kriyananda has had an interminable dispute), and it's also, in its context, OR, Original Research: Yogananda wrote that, he wasn't talking about Kriyananda. This application of something that Yogananda has written, to something Kriyananda later did, in the context is OR. It doesn't matter if you believe it follows logically from what Yogananda said.

The offending piece should be removed on NPOV and OR grounds. Joesonyx (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Joesonyx (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I see it as a fact no matter who the author was talking about, the fact remains the same for all. It also brings in a neutral point of view to the article and shows a different dimension. Again one might not agree with the statement but it is true just the same. You mention an organization called SRF, Yogananda, Kriyananda and some dispute? Are you representing an organization in this discussion? Otherwise, why would you bring it up.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Red Rose 13, You have merely repeated your appeal to 'fact' without addressing the NPOV and OR issues at all. If it helps, I have no affiliation with or strong loyalty towards SRF (Yogananda's group) or Kriyananda, and am not a CofI editor here. You have practically asked me for my affiliation -- can you give similar assurances about non-affiliation and non-loyalty to SRF? Please check out WP:ORIGINALSYN. It discusses putting two supposedly true things together in an unacceptable original synthesis. WP:NOR explains how tightly NPOV and NOR are bound. Joesonyx (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Joesonyx, my loyalty is to be a neutral editor that brings balance to the articles I work on - to bring NPOV and third party references whenever possible - which includes non-affiliation with any organization. I am an independent editor that edits spiritual sites and then adds them to my watchlist. Some sites are more active than others and I am determined to support NPOV on the pages I work on and will bring a balance whenever I can. WP:ORIGINALSYN has nothing to do with this reference. I easily found the reference online which refers to all people who try to give themselves the swami title just like parables taught by Jesus...they are meant for everyone. A little bit of OR is bound to happen on any page. Speaking of that there are 9 references to the subjects book "the Path". On top of that there are 10 others references that are OR and either take you off Wikipedia to a website or an OR reference to the subject himself - We need to actually look at those and replace with third party references. There should be only one external link which is to the subjects personal website. External links should not be in the body of the article as a reference. WP:EXTSee Links normally to be avoided. Hope this helps as we bring this page up to Wikipedia standardsRed Rose 13 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Red Rose 13, the connection to WP:ORIGINALSYN is clear, and the NPOV aspect should be clear also. We aren't moral cops here. You can't add someone's (apparent, or alleged) disapproval for something just because you agree with that disapproval. That's a POV activity. You think you're adding 'neutrality' but you're adding POV. There are other issues too. Even from what Yogananda said, and if we agreed with it and allowed it, it is not 100% clear that it applies to someone who renounced vows and then took them up again. Arguably, the renunciatino of the vows was the thing which is not to be disapproved of, while the resumption was not. I'm not arguing for that position myself. I'm just illustrating that the application of Yogananda's statements to Kriyananda's case is not as clear-cut as you think. This is part of the reason for disallowing WP:ORIGINALSYN -- it's application is unreliable and might indeed not be supported by the sources who are being represented as supporting it. But that's not the only reason for disallowing WP:ORIGINALSYN.

This is a clear-cut WP:ORIGINALSYN. Someone writes words to the effect that 'Kriyananda resumed his vows on his own'. Someone adds words to the effect that 'Yogananda would disapprove of someone resuming his vows on his own'.

Note that I'm criticizing this offending piece on a joint failing, WP:ORIGINALSYN, and POV. The POV is in the motivation for adding the synthesis. That's a 'moral cop' activity.

You've said, 'WP:ORIGINALSYN has nothing to do with this reference. I easily found the reference online which refers to all people who try to give themselves the swami title just like parables taught by Jesus...they are meant for everyone.' This argument has no connection at all to the definition of WP:ORIGINALSYN. It doesn't matter how easily you find online such statements and parables. In the WP:ORIGINALSYN page they show unacceptable synthesis where the two parts are well-known and well-accepted in themselves. WP:ORIGINALSYN does NOT depend on dubiousness, or even any doubt of any kind, in the separate parts of the synthesis.

The fact that authors somewhere have disapproved of something does not give us license to add their apparent disapproval wherever we see that thing discussed. The whole purpose of WP:ORIGINALSYN is to prevent activity such as this. Why do you think WP:ORIGINALSYN is disallowed? Joesonyx (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Joesonyx, let us clarify. Kriyananda received his sannyasi vows into the monastic order under Yogananda's monastic order which is under the Shankara order. So it is important to point out here that Kriyananda was giving himself the initiation into the swami order many years after he renounced his connection with the swami order. Yogananda words used here is not disapproving but clarifying. It is a statement of fact: Here is the whole paragraph - "Every swami belongs to the ancient monastic order which was organized in its present form by Shankara. Because it is a formal order, with an unbroken line of saintly representatives serving as active leaders, no man can give himself the title of swami. He rightfully receives it only from another swami; all monks thus trace their spiritual lineage to one common guru, Lord Shankara. By vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to the spiritual teacher, many Catholic Christian monastic orders resemble the Order of Swamis." I would be willing to add more of an explanation if that would be helpful - like. - According to Yogananda under his monastic line, "Every swami belongs to the ancient monastic order which was organized in its present form by Shankara. Because it is a formal order, with an unbroken line of saintly representatives serving as active leaders, no man can give himself the title of swami. It is more clarity than disapproving. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is another draft: Kriyananda married in 1981, and publicly renounced his monastic vows with Yogananda's monastic order of the ancient Shankar line, on the occasion of his second marriage in 1985. He then returned to using his birth name, J. Donald Walters and later divorced. In 1995, on his own, he officially resumed his monastic vows and title which was not in Yogananda's monastic order because no one can give oneself the title of swami in the Shankar line. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's still WP:ORIGINALSYN Red Rose 13, and still has the same POV objections to it. You've just put the statements into one sentence, and removed the reference from Yogananda's work. It's still OR, but now has the additional problems of not being sourced. Edits like the one you are doing seem to be an attempt to dodge WP:ORIGINALSYN while still really violating it, 'gaming the system'. Joesonyx (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC) On the section on Paramhansa Yogananda's supposed miraculous bodily incorruptability, can I put in general, well-published skeptical objections to bodily incorruptability, which does not refer particularly to Yogananda's case? No. That would be WP:ORIGINALSYN, as you would point out. You have to be consistent. ( I could only put in reliable work that does itself refer to Yogananda's case.) Joesonyx (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Just one other thing--your dodge that the offending piece is more 'clarity' than disapproving is just that--a dodge. Your added synthesis, that Kriyananda's resumption of the Swami vows is invalid according to Yogananda or otherwise, is POV and OR. Joesonyx (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok to bring peace here and still bring NPOV truth to the article. I added the complete statement by Yogananda in the section After Yogananda passing and removed it from recent years. The truthful information is in the article and the reader can decide for themselves.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Still seems a bit objectionable on POV grounds and other might say relevance, but I'll let it go for now at least. On another subject, I've spotted this piece: 'He was not appointed by Yogananda to be on the original SRF Board of Directors but was elected a member and Vice President of the Board in 1960 upon the passing of Dr. M.W. Lewis.' Why do we have, 'He was not appointed by Yogananda to be on the original SRF Board of Directors'? Is someone maintaining that he was? Seems this piece should be clipped out too. Joesonyx (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC) I'll remove the 'he was not appointed' bit and add a 'citation needed'. Joesonyx (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It is taken care of including the citation. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Time to clean up Links

There are 10 references that are Primary Sources which include linking to various websites by the subject and his businesses. There should be only one external link which is to the subjects personal website. External links should not be in the body of the article as a reference. WP:EXT "See Links normally to be avoided." Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

removed one external primary source link to Ananda Yoga and left the internal Wikipedia Link to Ananda Yoga.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

removed another external primary source link - A Place called Ananda - and gave it a standard book reference.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

external primary source links have been removed.

I moved an external primary source link to external links but I cannot get it to work properly - please help!Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

figured it outRed Rose 13 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

corrected link to Eric Hoffer award - it was not direct to the awardRed Rose 13 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

checked all the links in the reference area and they are working accept one #27 and I don't know how to fix it. Does anybody else? Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Green Giant!Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. For dead links, search for the original URL at an internet archive. Read WP:LINKROT#Web archive services for further information. Green Giant (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Kriyananda → Swami Kriyananda – See the discussion on the talkpage. I'm opening up this request because it is the proper avenue, and not RFC. It seems to be the more common name. See the case for Mother Theresa (which also uses not her birthname as the article title). This is one of many cases where Yworo (talk · contribs) changed common name titles of Hindu or Buddhist persons to less common ones. We should also move Mother Theresa to Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu if the same is done to Buddhists and Hindus. Trphierth (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The title Swami should not be a part of this discussion according to the Wikipedia guidelines and honorifics. The questions should be - do we use his birth name J. Donald Walters or Kriyananda. See the discussion and extensive research on the talk page for further information. On the one hand - the name Kriyananda is not used by anyone else on Wikipedia and will not be confused by the reader. On the other hand - there are more books published under the name of J. Donald Walters than Kriyananda, even through 2013. Kriyananda renounced his vows & took his birth name in 1981 and then in 1995 he returned to his vows. In 2009 he began a new swami order called Nayaswami and gave himself this title or honorific. If the consensus is that we use a title then it should be NayaswamiRed Rose 13 (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with Swami Kriyananda. However, titles and honorifics can be used on wikipedia if they are the most common name. See Mother Theresa and many other examples. And Paramahansa Yogananda should also be moved to Yogananda or Mukunda Lal Ghosh then? --Trphierth (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion actually has nothing to do with any other personality. Apparently you haven't fully read the researched details on the talk page. Just a suggestion - it would give you a broader view of this discussion.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We use "Mother" Theresa because Theresa needs disambiguation. Kriyananda does not, this is our only so-named article. wp:NCIN pertains, though I think his real name would be more appropriate. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - we use "Mother Theresa" because she was very widely known by that name. However, Kriyananda, although notable, was nowhere nearly as widely known, certainly compared to someone like Swami Vivekananda. Indeed the two online secondary sources given in the article appear to refer to him in various ways: for example the Times of India uses "Swami Kriyananda" once and then drops the "Swami"; the Palo Alto Weekly refers to him using his original name mostly; the rest of the sources are either websites owned by his organisation or books that cannot be checked quickly. Green Giant (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:HONORIFIC and refs like Susan Love Brown Intentional community: an anthropological perspective 2002 Page 172 "Kriyananda no longer gives out spiritual names, and community members wear Indian clothing only on special occasions. Even Kriyananda himself has gone back to using his given name, James Donald Walters, on the books he writes." In ictu oculi (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Did Kriyananda seal his fate to be considered Donald Walters on Wikipedia just because he published so many books under that name? I don't think so. Most of those books I've seen under the name Donald Walters also have the name Swami Kriyananda. The standard is really the way he is most commonly referred to in publications, isn't it? Not sure the author name he puts on his own book should carry as much weight as references by other people. Be aware that people often use pseudonyms on books even. Also, in contradiction with what is quoted just above, which states that Kriyananda has gone back to using his given name, James Donald Walters, in the books he writes, (2002) Kriyananda did publish many books under the name Swami Kriyananda way beyond the time that statement was published, in 2002.

Joesonyx (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(edited above for clarification)Joesonyx (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

To be clear here, we are essentially discussing whether the lede reads "A, also known as B..." or the reverse. It really is not terribly important in any objective sense. There would be a redirect from B to A or from A to B as applicable. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support, and strongly emphasize that there was no discussion or vote of this sort when the name "Swami Kriyananda' in the stable article was recently changed. [I don't want this 'vote' to have more legitimacy than it deserves.] The professional 'standard' name for the subject of an encyclopedia entry is that which reflects how a person is best known, period, and that is 'Swami Kriyananda'. There clearly is a primary motive by Red Rose 13 to remove 'Swami' based more on personal dislike than on some imaginary editorial policy on religious titles. The history on the use of 'Kriyananda' sans 'Swami' goes back to a tight-knit group of women leaders at SRF in the very early 1960s, especially Tara Mata, that developed a strong personal bias against the monk and fellow board member 'Swami Kriyananda'. Is Wikipedia going to take sides in this long-standing dispute? [it already has] Jack B108 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure why Jack B108 is making this personal or about a group of women from the 1960s?. It is about the Wikipedia honorific guidelines. I repeat, it was a long-time experienced editor who by following wikipedia guidelines removed the honorific approximately 6 months. Others on this post have clearly pointed out the reasons why as well. It seems if the guidelines go against what some people want, they have to make it personal or a conspiracy or POV. Stay on subject. WP:HONORIFICRed Rose 13 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support with new information which should hopefully move others to reconsider their position:

I followed the guidelines on WP:COMMONNAME and did a search in Google books for books with Kriyananda in them, in an effort to find out the prevalence of the title. The results are:

Kriyananda (without swami title): 4990 hits

Kriyananda (with Swami title): 11,210 hits

The prevalence of 'Swami Kriyananda' over 'Kriyananda' is about 2:1, and this is about the same as it is for Paramahansa Yogananda.

(For those willing to duplicate the search, go to books.google.com and do these three searches and compile the results:

"Kriyananda" -inauthor:"Books, LLC" --> hits: 16,200 **

"Swami Kriyananda" -inauthor:"Books, LLC" --> hits 9,650

"Kriyananda, Swami" -inauthor:"Books, LLC" --> hits: 1,560

(**Note that the search with "kriyananda" alone will also pick up hits for swami kriyananda, so subtraction has to be done to find the hits for kriyananda without the swami title).)

I believe Jack is right about the dispute with some SRF people and its aftermath. I believe there is a presence here of WP:CPUSH, which, as noted in the section on it, is a prevalent problem where NRMs (New Religious Movements) are discussed in Wikipedia, and we are dealing with NRMs here. Note my immense difficulty in removing outright POV against Kriyananda discussed below.

Please do not allow Wikipedia articles to be hijacked by NRM partisan politics.

Joesonyx (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Green Giant, would you reconsider your position on this, because you seem to have imposed a standard that is not part of the Wikipedia guidelines; none of the criteria for inclusion of the honorific actually include fame or eminence as a consideration. It is about under what name they are known, not how well they are known. Mother Theresa is indeed probably 30 times better known than Paramhansa Yogananda, and Swami Vivekananda. Joesonyx (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

UTC)

And what standard do I seem to have imposed? In answer to your question I am a very open-minded person, so if it can be demonstrated that outside his own literature/publications and that of his organisation, he was widely referred to as "Swami Kriyananda", then yes I would change my !vote. I am busy on another article at the moment so I will look at the links you have given above as soon as I can. Green Giant (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It seemed to me that you were imposing 'fame' as a criterion for keeping the honorific, my apologies if I misread you. :) Joesonyx (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you have confused my use of the word "notable", which refers to the core Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTABILITY, although "fame" does indeed play a part in determining someone's notability. My reasoning above was that Kriyananda was a notable person and may well have been known as "Kriyananda", "Swami Kriyananda", "Nayaswami Kriyananda" or indeed as "J. Donald Walters". However people like Mother Teresa were known almost exclusively as "Mother Teresa" by the general public. The problem for "Swami Kriyananda" is that he is not as well known so it is necessary to use some guidelines to determine what the article should be called. Having looked through some of the comments in this section I have noted that we are all indeed very remiss in giving good reasons for supporting or opposing. Let me make it clear that the arguments about WHETHER OR NOT he was still a "swami" because of his marriage are not relevant to this discussion, because Wikipedia does not determine whether someone follows the rules of their organisation or not. It is also not particularly relevant what this person or his closest associates call him, even if he has used his original name at points or appointed himself "Supreme Grand High Lord and Master of All Things". Look at Barack Obama to which President Barack Obama redirects, even though it is quite common to refer to him with and without "President" and indeed he has the right (within the U.S.) to be referred to as "Mr. President". So it is not the end of the world if the word "Swami" is not included in the title, because "Swami Kriyananda" will still be a redirect, bringing readers to the article and there is nothing stopping us highlighting the issue of him being a swami or not as long as we have reliable sources to back us up.

What we have to do is determine what title to use, based on guidelines like WP:Article titles, which states that article titles need to be recognisable to uninformed readers, natural to search for and link from other articles, precise and concise enough to identify and distinguish the subject from other subjects, and consistent with titles of similar articles. Going by these guidelines, "Swami Kriyananda" is recognisable, natural and partially consistent but it is not precise and concise, whereas "Kriyananda" is recognisable, natural, precise and concise as well as being partially consistent. Looking through Category:Hindu gurus and Category:Hindu religious figures it is clear that article guidelines have not always been followed in naming these similar articles and thus it is impossible to state in our discussion whether "Swami Kriyananda" and "Kryananda" are fully consistent.

Therefore it is necessary to look at how often these two names were searched for, and one crude method is to look at pageview statistics which are linked from the history of every article. "Swami Kriyananda" was viewed 1901 times in the last 90 days whereas "Kriyananda" was viewed 13216 times in the last 90 days. The most interesting thing about the two charts is the spike on 21 April, i.e. the day this individual died, when it appears "Kriyananda" was viewed 1542 times to "Swami Kriyananda" being viewed just 139 times. This suggests that on hearing news of his death, the majority of Wikipedia readers went straight to "Kriyananda".

My final opinion is that the article should be left where it is i.e. at "Kriyananda". Green Giant (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Again this is about the Wikipedia honorific guidelines and is not personal nor POV nor political nor NRMs nor WP:CPUSH. Please stay on subject which is to discuss the Wikipedia honorific guidelines on this subject. WP:HONORIFIC Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:HONORIFIC, and per previous consensus from RfC about this issue. FurrySings (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:HONORIFIC, which is sufficient. However, I will further say that while for many Indian Saints, Swami becomes an inseparable part of their name after their deaths, it is rare that this occurs with living teachers. That is, like Sainthood, Swami-hood generally requires a post-mortem evaluation of the individual's entire life, and thus is not acknowledged outside the circle of their lineage and students until after death. For the living, "Swami" is a title, and this title is further only applicable within the subject's circle of students, their lineage co-holders, etc. In particular, a living person with the title of Swami is not by any stretch of the imagination filling the role of "swami" to the general readership of Wikipedia, which is why WP:HONORIFIC exists. If, after death, Kriyananda is generally accorded the title of Swami in such a way that it actually does become inseparable from his name, then we will have plenty of time to revisit and reevaluate this. However, it's not currently appropriate for Wikipedia to promote this individual as being a "Swami", and I expect that this is true for most if not all living people who currently hold this title within their circles. Yworo (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That is interesting, but can you provide a reliable source that says that Swami-hood generally requires a post-mortem evaluation of the individual's entire life? --Trphierth (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(Spelling out some things implied but left unsaid) Not enough time has passed since Kriyananda's death to make any judgement about how he will be referred to in the future. Our BLP policy suggests that subjects be respected as if still living for (typically) a year after their deaths. Determining how the world will come to refer to him will I think take more like ten years. To a great extent, it will depend on how the organization he left behind chooses to publish him posthumously. Now is simply not the time to make this determination, so the article should be left as it is with respect to naming and non-use of titles. There is no hurry here - better to err on the side of policies and guidelines. If the choice ultimately turns out to be wrong, it can be easily fixed when that becomes obvious rather than when arguments have to be stretched thin to promote it. Yworo (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any case based on WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES for taking the 'Swami' from 'Swami Kriyananda' that does not also apply to taking the 'Paramhansa' from 'Paramhansa Yogananda' -- the 'Swami' seems to be as well-attached to 'Kriyananda' in the literature in terms of prevalence as the 'Paramhansa' is attached to 'Paramhansa Yogananda'. In fact, in my preliminary search I think 'Swami' may well attach to 'Kriyananda' with greater prevalence than 'Paramhansa to Yogananda'. If we don't give 'Kriyananda' the Swami title, I'll be moving to take 'Paramhansa' from 'Paramhansa Yoganands', using all material here as support, filtering out all which is not based on Wikipedia guidelines. This could cascade to other 'Swamis' and the like in time, but we have to work on a case-by-case basis. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I'll may be making the case for removing 'Paramhansa' from 'Paramhansa Yogananda' shortly if this case for 'returning' the 'swami' to 'Kriyananda' does not succeed.

Joesonyx (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to spell things out a little more, you have arguments, YWORO, about application of the honorific 'Swami' which favors long-dead teachers (such as Yogananda) at the expense of living or not-long-dead ones. These arguments don't seem to be from Wikipedia guidelines, are they? Maybe they are but, I haven't seen them so help me out here if I'm mistaken. I did notice that you were happy to trim everything down to Wikipedia guidelines alone in the case of Kriyananda, regarding his common name, that we should look to the published material alone in determining it. You said 'We can't possibly try to judge how others refer to him in real life. WP:COMMONNAME does not demand this. The common name is the one most used in publications. That's it.'. Seems to me that, regarding prevalence of the honorific, wikipedia guidelines restrict us looking at to the prevalence of the honorific in publications too. None of your additional theories seem to apply -- such as waiting until a teacher is long-dead, or even dead at all, for consideration of the application of the honorific.

When the book gets thrown against Kriyanda's title, it also has to be thrown in its favor.

Joesonyx (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP guidelines on honorifics. Joesonyx, I would also support removing almost all other honorifics from other people where the guidelines mandate it. Imc (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fair Imc. Red Rose 13, as the person who removed the 'Swami' title from Kriyanada here on Wikipedia, you have said 'Again this is about the Wikipedia honorific guidelines and is not personal nor POV nor political nor NRMs nor WP:CPUSH.' If this is correct and you support the removal of 'Swami' from 'Kriyananda' on the basis of Wikipedia guidelines alone, can I take it that you will demonstrate that 'this is about the Wikipedia honorific guidelines and is not personal nor POV nor political nor NRMs nor WP:CPUSH', in that I have your full support for removing 'Paramhansa' from 'Paramhansa Yogananda' on the basis of those same guidelines? Your only objection so far seems trivial, that it creates some ambiguity with some other Yogananda of some 'Yogananda School...' which makes no sense at all; regardless of whether the honorific is used for the Paramhansa Yogananda page or not, such confusion is just as possible and likely, since Yogananda is often known without the title as a literature search will show. Besides, guidelines on WP:HONORIFICS, which we are to adhere to, do not make exceptions based on such trivial matters anyway, and we are to stick to guidelines, aren't we, not making up our rules why Kriyananda should lose his title and Yoganananda should not?

Joesonyx (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Joesonyx, keep the focus on this post and page about Kriyananda. AGAIN, I did not remove the swami title from this page. The decision to do that was Yworos, a highly experienced Wikipedia editor, based on the Wikipedia guidelines. Every oppose on this page is saying the exact same thing. In regards to other pages about other subjects go to that talk page to have your discussion.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Red Rose 13, I will say no more provided I see Kriyananda treated consistently with Yogananda. What binds the two together are the feud between Yogananda's group and Kriyananda's group, and evidence of partisan behavior in the form of editors vigilantly editing BOTH ARTICLES and consistently pushing POV in favor of Yogananda and at the expense of Kriyananda. Again, if I see consistency, I will shut up about it. The real way to shut me up about this is to be consistent.

Joesonyx (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Joesonyz My goal on wikipedia is to be a part of cleaning up whatever page I am working on at the time and bring it up to Wikipedia standards. Some pages have more work to do than others. This page is looking so much better now except that there are still too many primary sources on this page and POV statements. Perhaps you can help clean that up rather than accuse other editors of taking sides on some imaginery feud.Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I know the way you perceive and present yourself on these issues, Red Rose 13. The feud is not imaginary; the related lawsuits are discussed in the article. I do note in your favor that you did not personally, without consensus, remove the 'Swami', from 'Swami Kriyananda', that YWORO did.

Joesonyx (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have no affiliation with either side of this dispute. I am personally not very impressed with Paramahansa Yogananda, his teachings, or the SRF. However, he does meet WP:COMMONNAME while Kriyananda does not. Continuing to accuse editors of bias due to affiliation falls under our no personal attacks policy, and continued beating of this dead horse may lead to a block. Yworo (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have done that---I'm a newbie. I'm slowly learning and note that my own supposed 'affiliations' have been questioned on this page too by another much more-experienced editor. So I'm learning partly by example from you vastly more experienced editors.

But from a newbie to an experienced old hand --- from what little reading I've done, I think that what you just said should not be here either! You've already given your very official-looking 'formal warning' on my talk page. That should have been enough. Such things belong on user talk pages if anywhere. Guidelines are clear about this too. Accusations of personal attacks can be personal attacks. Could you strike out the above personal attack? Thanks.

Joesonyx (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

One other thing YWORO -- I think you misunderstand the subtleties of how WP:COMMONNAME and interplays with WP:HONORIFICS. WP:COMMONNAME determines what the common name is for wikipedia purposes, and does not include an honorific. Notice that NONE of the examples at WP:COMMONNAME include honorifics. Paramahansa Yogananda's WP:COMMONNAME is Yogananda -- the issue is whether he satisfies the exceptions granted under WP:HONORIFICS allowing the honorific to be used in his case. I believe there is no case at all that 'Paramahansa Yogananda' is Yogananda's WP:COMMONNAME. Authors frequently refer to him as Paramahansa Yogananda, and then in the next breath refer to him as simply Yogananda. This is very common and is often done even by devotees. (Note that in a similar vein, even though Obama is probably called President Obama 95% of the time in reliable English sources, 'President Obama' is not his WP:COMMONNAME. Many writers will call him President Obama on his first mention in an article, then just use 'Obama'. ) The issue for both Kriyananda and Yogananda is whether the exception granted at WP:HONORIFICS apply to them. When exceptions are granted to WP:HONORIFICS, they are granted for certain reasons but those reasons are not the same as saying the that WP:COMMONNAME includes the honorific.

The standards of prevalence required for WP:COMMONNAME, and for the EXCEPTIONS to WP:HONORIFICS are very different. WP:COMMONNAME is for the name most commonly used (without the honorific). The exceptions for WP:HONORIFICS are granted on the basis of the name rarely occurring without the honorific. This is a much stricter test.

Note that we can't just ask 'is the honorific more often than not used with the name' and if yes, then that is that person's WP:COMMONNAME. If this were so, a huge number honorifics would be part of the WP:COMMONNAME, making the stricter standards for the exceptions to WP:HONORIFIC make no sense. Fpr example, 'President' would be part of Obama's WP:COMMONNAME. Many, many people with honorifics excluded on Wikipedia are in fact most often referred to with the honorific. The standard for an honorific is that they are rarely seen without it.

Joesonyx (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Comment: WP:HONORIFIC is a guideline, not a policy, and the Indic section is just an essay, not even a guideline. There are also many of examples in other religions like Christianity or Islam where a honorific like Syed are used, which means that the guideline or essay is not to applied strictly. --Trphierth (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.