Talk:Kriyananda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have the permission from Times of India to use this article Joygupzzz (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you place the link to this article here so I can understand the problem and how it can be fixed.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section[edit]

Hi! I'm planning to edit the Lead Section of this article. According to MOS:LEADLENGTH, I think there is opportunity to make the Lead section of this article more concise.

Here is what I am thinking:

According to MOS:LEAD, the lead section should "avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions." The lead section in this article contains ~7 paragraphs and 400+ words.

> Perhaps the involvement with SRF (Paragraphs 2 and 3) can be moved to the section: Biography. One sentence summarizing his involvement can be retained in the lead section. Also, useful abbreviations should be introduced in the lead section (SRF can be expanded the first time it is used here).

> The first paragraph already captures that Kriyananda founded his own spiritual movement "Ananda." Perhaps the details in Paragraph 4 in the lead section can be removed ("Kriyananda founded Ananda, a worldwide...) since this is expanded upon in the body of the article?

> Paragraph 5 can be summarized into 1 or 2 sentences & moved to the 1st paragraph? In depth details on these accomplishments are provided under section: "Outward Accomplishments." The sentence referring to all the languages he spoke can be moved to the "Outward Accomplishments" section.

> Paragraphs 6 & 7 can be summarized into 1 or 2 sentences and the details can be moved to section: Legal Cases. Whitestar12 (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Rose 13 & @Jack B108
I know you both have greatly contributed to this article in the past so would love your input before I go ahead and make these edits. Whitestar12 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest and more precise way is for you to begin with paragraph one suggesting changes or not and then we respond. Continue this until finished. The lead section discusses all the key points in the article in a brief manner so that the reader gets the idea what is in the article if they want more information.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response! I see your point, but based on MOS:LEAD the lead section is long and detailed. I do like the approach of starting with Paragraph 1 and making changes one at a time. Would you prefer I propose each change here? Alternatively I can make the change and then users can comment/edit as they see fit.
Please post the links to MOS:LEAD where it says it is long & detailed. I have read the opposite for the lead.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LEADLENGTH - This article has 16,016 characters. According to the guidelines, for any article with 15,000-30,000 characters, the lead length should be two to three paragraphs. The general guideline is "no longer than four paragraphs." Whitestar12 (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will likely start with bullet #3 in my proposed list of changes (Paragraph 5 can be summarized into 1 or 2 sentences & moved to the 1st paragraph? In depth details on these accomplishments are provided under section: "Outward Accomplishments." The sentence referring to all the languages he spoke can be moved to the "Outward Accomplishments" section.)
Whitestar12 (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is too disruptive for the reader on Wikipedia for you to edit and then we edit and back and forth. It is better to do that here on the talk page, then when we are finished you can place the agreed upon edit. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for the link to the MOS:LEAD. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With researching I found this, is this what you mean [[1]] or MOS:LEAD. The two brackets around the words, creates a link.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Please also refer to MOS:LEADLENGTH[[2]] Whitestar12 (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the invitation for input, but I no longer really edit Wikipedia. The fact that such a biased article has been on Wikipedia for so long, despite numerous well-reasoned complaints, was profoundly disappointing to me, and I have gone elsewhere. The accounts of the various lawsuits were particularly inaccurate and misleading. To me, something like this is a fairer shake at the subject than what has appeared here for years. https://encycloreader.org/r/citizendium.php?q=Swami_Kriyananda .Good luck, Jack.B.2007 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I followed your link hoping for a neutral, factual encyclopedia but I noticed they don't use references which was confusing to me. How does one trust what they are saying? The Wikipedia policy of only using secondary sources gives it credibility and a sort of birds eye view of the subject at hand... imho Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're stuck in Wikipedia mode. Encyclopedia Britannica--that's the standard. If it appears in the encyclopedia, then it's solid information. The obsession with referencing everything in Wikipedia is part of the problem and used to justify a lot of biased, poorly written articles. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica Written and fact-checked by the editors of encyclopedia britannica. EB is a business and seem to hire their editors who are experts in the field they are writing or editing. Encycloreader is a completely other "animal". Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Primary Sources[edit]

Hi Everyone! So it looks like this article has had a tag since 2012 stating the article relies heavily on primary sources. I tried to look for non-primary sources to update the content but was unable to find any. Wanted to see what could be the best next step and approach in helping improve this article with secondary and tertiary sources when we can't find any. Whitestar12 (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happens is the words using only a primary source and without a secondary source are usually deleted from the page. Not everything about a person needs to be on Wikipedia.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also on Wikipedia a primary source can be carefully used with care - please read this section on Primary sources and their use [3] Also the whole page is worth reading. Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting the lawsuits fairly[edit]

Hi @Red Rose 13, I've extensively researched the two lawsuits by SRF against Swami Kriyananda and Ananda. The copyright lawsuit was judged mostly in Ananda's favor. That isn't presented in the article. 

   I too have studied the lawsuits and have not found very many secondary, reliable sources that have analyzed or discussed these cases.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
   Also, I would suggest you read the secondary sources because SRF sued Kriyananda. Anne-Marie Bertolucci, not SRF, sued Kriyananda for sexual harassment.[reply]
Noted. But Ananda claimed that SRF was secretly supporting Bertolucci just to smear their image. This is no where mentioned. If the "reliable secondary" sources don't mention both sides in a fair manner, it's not neutral or reliable anymore. Media articles are easily influenced by author's ideologies. Even reputed news companies like 'The New York Times' and 'BBC' are accused of bias. It is necessary, then, to put things in perspective and it's also allowed by wikipedia, to present excerpts from primary sources if they are used to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just the words, "Ananda claimed that SRF was secretly supporting Bert... just to smear their image." shows us that is why we need secondary sources which are separate from the fray. How can anyone know if it was supposed to be secretly done?? Primary sources can be used for facts like birthdates, addresses which can be verified, not for an interpretation of a lawsuit. Secondary sources are sources that have a bird eyes view and wikipedia prefers scholarly secondary sources. Perhaps you can find one. Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sexual-harrasment lawsuit talks only about the accusations against Swami and Ananda, the verdict. But doesn't talk about Swami/Ananda's defense statements except in a way that it almost seems that Swami/Ananda is complaining because they got caught. The very same articles have better statements which present the situation at that time in a fair manner. 

    If you have found a secondary reliable source, please present it here.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Search for truth at Ananda" was one of the many, you removed it without consideration. I see you added it back, but not at the beginning. I have done that for you now. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you removed my citation "The Search for Truth at Ananda", which was a much more neutral article, only to be replaced by the previous ones which were dramatic and seemed only to make blanket judgements against Ananda and Swami Kriyananda. I didn't put the "Judge rules in Ananda's favor" (also on paloaltoonline.com) since it doesn't do justice to the statement being cited. 

   See below.... Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the same edit by me, why mellow down the statement "Swami/Ananda fought" to "Swami/Ananda were involved in"? All the lawsuits were filed against Swami and Ananda, and none of them were initiated by them. They had to fight to defend themselves. 

   Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore neutral.  The words "involved in" presents neutrality whereas "fought" adds your interpretation and is no longer neutral.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Changed the language to "were sued". You don't need to expound everything in the first paragraph of the article. If you do so, you should present claims from both parties, or none. Otherwise, the neutrality of the article is disputed. One can simply mention the lawsuits in the first paragraph, and subsequent dedicated section of the article can explain in detail about what actually happened. Again voicing both sides. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of this clearly states that the article needs working specially the overly negative statements. Actually, many of sentences matches the signatory style of SRF's way of writing about Kriyananda in their letters. Their language was always against him.

This problem is prevelant in other related article "List of Direct Disciples of Yogananda"

I am taking up the task to correct this bias, because it will be in good intention for people who are trying to know more about Swami Kriyananda but are invariably pulled towards people who resented, worse, hated him.

I request your (*) fairness in this initiative. Any tips will be greatly appreciated.

*Also of others who are affiliated with SRF or simply against Ananda/Swami Kriyananda.

Thank you.

Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @‎Bluesky whiteclouds, I think the main issue here are the sources we use to back up a statement. We need to use secondary, reliable sources to back up what we are proposing. We cannot or very rarely use primary sources. Your source by Erik Estep is not a secondary resource. Mr. Estep was personally involved in Ananda... a primary source. I suggest studying what sources are allowed especially on controversial pages. Reliable Sources [4], Secondary sources: [5] I am open to your suggestions using the Wikipedia guidelines to guide us.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake it seems the paloaltoonline is a neutral reliable source so I added it back in. I thought Erik Espe was Erik Estep. We don't need to take out other secondary sources in order to do that.Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took out two of the three old ones because they were merely dramatic titles acting as a bad first impression for Kriyananda. We don't want good impression either, but a fair representation for sure.
Let us find more reliable sources which can be used in the later sections and present Kriyananda/Ananda's side of arguments in the lawsuits, to make the page unbiaesd. It's amazing how the article is still biased because someone or the other keeping adding fuel to the fire of bias against Kriyananda. It's apparent that someone is personally motivated to do this. I really hope you are not one of them, otherwise it doesn't help anyone.
If one actually reads the primary sources, aka Ananda's side of arguments, one can easily see that they were grossly misrepresented so much so that it inverted the truth. Our most important job is to then present (without interpretation) their side too, if possible with secondary sources, else with primary sources in the manner acceptable by Wikipedia.
Let there be peace and harmony, not hate and vendetta. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page is tagged because there are too many primary sources used. Wikipedia expects us to be neutral and fact oriented. We might have an agenda but the truth must be presented. I have looked for secondary scholarly sources that address the SRF vs Ananda lawsuits and have no luck. We cannot use primary sources just because we cannot find the secondary source. If we cannot find the secondary source, then we cannot add the information. Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Rose 13, I've resumed editing the lawsuit paragraphs. I expect your fairness and cooperation in this. If you like we can talk this out. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesky whitecloudsI had to revert your edits because there were too many errors. (1) The lead paragraph is supposed to be short and cover all that is in the article. If a person wants to read more they can then go to the section. (2) For some reason even though the sources were already shortened and coordinated, you added the longer version which is not necessary. (3) Your sources regarding the SRF vs Ananda lawsuit are primary sources as in legal documents. On Wikipedia we need to find a secondary source that analyzes the legal documents of the lawsuit. I am going to remove the details of the all the lawsuits from the lead because they are discussed in detail in the article itself. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Red Rose 13, 1) Yes, they are better presented in the "Legal Cases" section. But, you didn't include the perspective and defense statements of Ananda and Swami Kriyananda side. (refer "This page in a nutshell" of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)
2) I had to edit them because they weren't fair. Also, new paras were actually much shorter and better representations of the lawsuits.
3) It's incorrect that we should only cite secondary sources. I am repeating myself, nevertheless, please refer Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD & Wikipedia:SECONDARYNOTGOOD. Not surprinsingly, the cited newspaper articles (UNION/PaloAltoOnline) were published in real-time during the events, and therefore should be considered a primary source (refer Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS). Hence, the legal documents provide the best source for the wiki article.
Can you please add back my edits, now into the "Legal Cases" section? I spent lots of time to condense them, but you reverted them without due diligence. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the Union article and it is a secondary source. It is not a press release. It is not just reporting the current event but discusses the history. We can discuss exactly what we bring from the article if you like.
On Wikipedia you can upload the legal documents on Wikisource and place a link in the External links section on the page. Or put it in Wikimedia Commons under Kriyananda. The reader can then choose to read the legal document but know you will need to also upload the final jury verdict of 2002 as well. The document you upload needs to be just that - not a website. Then in the article itself you need to use a secondary or third party source that analyzes or explains the legal/court document.
Also when taking quotes we need to change the wording so it isn't plagiarism. Wikipedia will not allow it! Also be sure that the correct reference follows each sentence.
It is taking me a long time to look at everything you did and then correct you.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had edited the copyright lawsuits with a much better representation of the things that happened then. The wikisource article has the actual scans of the jury verdict already.
Sharing the page 1 of the jury verdict: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AUS_District_Court_Jury_Verdict_SRF_v_Ananda_2002.pdf/1
PLEASE don't revert my edit, it's bullying and vandalism of my efforts. The quality of article is much better than before with this edit. I won't hesitate to escalate this behavior, if it continues. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the guidelines on Wikipedia is not to make it personal. We are guided to deal with the editing issues not accuse or go after an editor personally. I will not be responding to your email personally attacking and accusing my neutrality. I also think it is helpful to ask for a third opinion of regarding our disagreements vs Wiki guidelines. Not only can we ask editors why not to usually use primary sources as a reference and why we cannot interpret anything from the source. That is why secondary sources are encouraged. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence in the lawsuit section doesn't have a source after it and it appears that this is your conclusion which we as editors cannot do. "This allowed Ananda to retain their new name." I suggest you read the guidelines in more detail. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may read the source "Who Owns Yogananda" and see for yourself. Anyways, I have rephrased the sentence to meet your unnatural strict guidelines that you specifically apply for this page. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Swami is considered an honorific and cannot be added to this page. I suggest reading the long discussion about this already.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is, may I ask, the title "Paramahansa" mentioned in the Yogananda page? Isn't that an honorific? You are an active watcher and editor of that page, so you should have observed that. Now, if you apply the same logic, as you do for Paramahansa Yogananda's page, one can easily derive that Swami Kriyananda is more appropriate and natural than Kriyananda. In the [[6]] move request for this page, I had already given search results from catalog.loc.gov and Google scholar to base my arguments that "Swami Kriyananda" is a more common name than J Donald Walters, or Kriyananda. That is a clear derivation sourced from non-biased sources. But you are not considering that, neither do you have a better argument to consider mine less valid. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can publish my email for anyone to see if it was actually ill-intended. Writing a personal email rather than messaging you on talk page was more intended for your protection. Yes, I blamed you of bias,because it's evident when one observes your editing pattern on this page and compares with other pages you edit. I have now added the secondary resource to the sentence you accused me of interpreting (I didn't add earlier because it was already cited in the litigation). You too could have added the source, but you didn't. This calls for bias and delaying of good edits by first reverting them, then not acting upon it when presented with the facts that your reverts were biased. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Believe I have been at the receiving end of the strictness of editors on Wikipedia. I have been editing for around 12 years and have learned from many editors. I wasn't accusing you of interpreting, I was just pointing it out. It is exhausting working with a new editor. It is not your fault, there is just a lot to learn. Honestly, I didn't know which source you were using and it is not my job to run around behind you fixing your errors.Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to honorifics, there has already been an exhausting discussion regarding Swami Kriyananda and Paramahansa Yogananda. It was determined that Kriyananda because he changed his name a number of times (Donald Walters to Kriyananda to Donald Walters to Kriyananda to Nayaswami Kriyananda) and actually ending in Nayaswami Kriyananda when he died that Kriyananda was the best choice. Whereas Paramahansa Yogananda used this exact name basically his whole life. It is not considered an honorific because it is his actual name. You can look up the old discussion in the archives.DRed Rose 13 (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outward Accomplishments section[edit]

This is a weird name for an article section. The content is also full of tags. Should it get wp:tnt? The Sausage Grinder (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree and really the whole page needs to be cleaned up because these tags have been here for a long time. Let's ask User:Bluesky whiteclouds how soon he plans on finding secondary sources here and we can also change the heading or break things apart. This page is not my primary editing focus and I am more of a part time editor now.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bluesky whiteclouds has been blocked. I will take a look at the article if I have time. In addition to this oddly-named section I believe the Volunteer work section is inadequately sourced. Perception312 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I revised claims about the number of books Kriyananda wrote. The LA Times numbers his books in the dozens. Library of Congress and Worldcat were cited, but they didn't explicitly support the claim that he wrote 150 books. A google search did reveal a source repeating the 150 number, but it was deemed unreliable at the reliable sources noticeboard [7]. Perception312 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are making progress on cleaning up the page. Great! Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just cleaned up this section and changed its name to Ananda established. I am open to other ideas. Also the claims in this section were removed if there was no source. Of course an editor can reclaim the words if a secondary source is found. Also we need to remove all puffery from all pages.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup[edit]

Over the last couple of days I have done a clean up that has been needed for a very long time - years in fact. I removed all words without a source or no secondary source. I removed duplication and an excess, considering due weight. If any editor wants to add what was deleted, you can access it all in the History. Please don't add any words without a secondary, reliable source. I didn't remove the tag yet but will when I am sure the corrections stay.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was ok to use The Path written by Kriyananda for basic facts about his life. It is not ok to use primary sources for controversial items or to interpret anything.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the Primary source tag because the page is cleaned up now. Remember if you want to add new information to only use secondary, reliable sources.[8] "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kriyananda&oldid=1203393407"