Talk:Kriyananda/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Editing Dismissal section

Bring all concerns here regarding this page and this section.

Adding this up top to make sure it doesn't get lost in the shuffle of things below it. On the question of "said" or "claim" or "disclose" or "reveal", it's important to understand that there are two questions at issue. They should not be confused with each other. The first question is whether or not SRF made a claim. The second is about whether or not the claim they made is actually true. The reason it's important to look at the questions separately is that they are totally different.

For instance, if I claim that I am a Pegasus and can provide a source that proves I have claimed to be a Pegasus, would that be proof that I am an actual Pegasus? Of course not. It would only prove that I did make such a claim. Whether it's true is a totally different question not supported by me merely claiming it to be so. The questions are separate.

In this case, we have evidence to support question one (did SRF make a claim) but no evidence to support question two (that their claim actually true). We have proof that SRF made a claim about why they fired him. We have no evidence at all to support that the claim they made is actually true (or false, for that matter, but that's not what we're talking about here).

So my position is simple. The sentence should be worded in a way that matches the actual facts we have. It should make clear that the answer to question one is 'yes, they did in fact make a claim' without pretending that this is the same as evidence for question two being correct (that the reasons they gave are the real reasons). Let's make the sentence match the facts.

I've offered several word suggestions that assume question one without assuming question two ("claim" and "said") and am open to any wording that does not pretend that evidence for question one is the same as evidence for question two.

Here is a factual version of the sentence in this example:

Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. He never agreed with the reasons for his dismissal. In 1995, SRF said the reasons for his dismissal were "specific actions of his – his basic pattern of behavior."

If there are no objections, I'll edit the page to reflect the NPOV as shown above. Dhworld (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, it can be looked at like this: you are the only other editor who is disputing this and you said in no uncertain terms that "the word wrote is just as neutral as the word say." I, however, depending on usage and context, sometimes consider one to be more neutral than the other. So why wouldn't we just go with the one everyone agrees is neutral? Isn't that was consensus is about? Why is this still an argument? What are you trying to accomplish? Dhworld (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

1) a. to begin a sentence with a number is not grammatically correct. b. no need to state how many years, everyone can subtract years to determine

Actually neither of the above is true. Sentences can begin with numbers, but if that is your issue, I'll rewrite it to use the number later in the sentence. But the key difference between the two (using a tally of years vs. two year numbers) is that the extent to which the length of time between his dismissal and the time of the statement is relevant factually is the extent to which it is a DIFFERENCE in time, which means the years of difference is more relevant than just listing a year. If you want me to rewrite it so the numbers are later in the sentence, I can do that. Just let me know. Since your only dispute on this bit is with sentence structure, can I assume you will not be editing it back out as long as the order of the words in the sentence are changed? Dhworld (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I did change the placement of the number (though again, there's nothing actually wrong with starting a sentence with a number), but if I'm being honest, I feel like this new phrasing does not really improve the sentence over the last one and I'm concerned that it feels awkward. I'd prefer to go back to the one previous to this which leads with a number. I think it's a superior sentence and I think it more accurately reflects the relevant information. Dhworld (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the significance of adding 33 years at all. It doesn't make sense to me. The actual year is really is all that is needed. I have never seen an encyclopedic article that using the number of years (33 years) vs the actual year (1995). Are you trying to make some point? It seems like it to me which would make it personal. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You have certainly behaved the entire way as if I am up to something no good. And yet, I've given you no real reason to think so. I've had clear and reasonable explanations (even if you don't agree with them) for every edit I've made. You're way out of line to accuse me of being biased when I'm the only one arguing for neutral language. Dhworld (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

2) The word claim implies that company/church is just claiming why rather than the reality of why they dismissed him. The word disclosed implies that the company/church is letting one know of their actual reasons for dismissal.

As you have pointed out, "disclose" implies and assumes that the reason they gave 33 years later is the actual reason, which may or may not be true, so why should an encyclopedia take a biased position when other words describe more factually what happened without assuming one side to be correct? We have no reason to think that is the case other than their say so and they have strong incentive to lie. Since we can't say for sure that the reasons they gave are the real reasons, then we should go with actual facts. What we know for sure is that they "claim" that is the reason, so it is preferable to just assuming facts for which there is no unbiased support.

A clear example of why "claim" is superior to "disclose" in this case is that someone can "claim" something to be true and it might very well be true. But the reverse is not true with "disclose". Something "disclosed" cannot be untrue because the word itself assumes it to be a fact. Since one word covers both possibilities and one word excludes any possibilities but one and we have no solid basis for assuming it to be true, it's preferable to use the word that is more encompassing while also being more accurate given the actual facts we have available.Dhworld (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Claim leaves a lingering doubt whereas disclose means simply to reveal - to make something known publicly, or to show something that was hidden
To use the word claim is out of context in this sentence. The church is the one who did the firing and knows the reason he was let go. It had been hidden and * is now revealed. So disclose is the better word here.

My point is that there IS lingering and reasonable doubt about their explanations. You're dealing with two groups of people that each present a very different explanation of what happened. Both have good reasons to lie. In situations like that it is more reasonable to be neutral and not just arbitrarily pick the winner ourselves, especially when our only evidence is the claims of one side. Why are you so set on trying to sell the SRF version of the story? What could possibly be wrong with making it neutral POV? Dhworld (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing is it is your personal opinion of doubt. To me the word disclose is clean and impersonal. We could use another word like reveal. This company in the article fired someone and then decided to reveal the reasons. Reveal is fine with me. Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is your opinion that there is no doubt. I'm saying let's not make assumptions without basis and then just declare who we want to be right as being actually right about what happened. I don't think that "disclose" is personal, but that's not the same things as saying it isn't biased. I'm saying it assumes that what follows it is true, as opposed to 'what one side said', which is what it actually is. 'Reveal' makes the exact same baseless assumption. But this is taking up too much time relative to it's actual importance. How about "said"? "They said the reasons were..." I'm fine with 'said'. It's factual and still neutral. Can we agree on 'said'?

3) He never agreed with the reasons for his expulsion and in fact he "constantly argued that his dismissal was unjust." The second statement is an exact quote from a third party reference and is the one that should stand. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason this quote doesn't add to the page is that it doesn't add new information to why he was dismissed at all. It already states that he didn't agree with the reasons, so what is added with the quote? Let's keep the dismissal section about his dismissal.

As it is, adding the quote only creates a context problem. One cannot understand why he was arguing with them if one does not understand that they hired an army of lawyers to hound him for decades. But then, saying that would be just as biased as saying what you're trying to force into the article. More importantly, pointing that out would not be relevant to his dismissal (which is the section we're talking about). One cannot rationally separate "constant arguing" from the "constant lawsuits", and neither are really relevant to why he was dismissed so why on earth would it be included in the "dismissal" section?

Just because it's a quote doesn't mean it makes the page more accurate. It also doesn't mean it makes the page deal effectively with any bias (ex. including a quote but declaring the substance of the quote to be a "fact" in the actual page rather than the opinion of one lone person).

You are writing a number of assumptions regarding arguing and lawsuits??? But I am fine with leaving that sentence out.

Also, I'm new around here, so I'm not clear on how this talk page is supposed to be formatted, so I apologize if I've formatted my response to your queries incorrectly. Dhworld (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Use the * to create one a dot and use : to indent - each time you comment add enough spaces so you are indented in more than the last person to comment.

Here is the sentence I think would be neutral.

Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. He never agreed with the reasons for his dismissal. In 1995, SRF publically disclosed the reasons for his dismissal and they were "specific actions of his – his basic pattern of behavior."

The only thing I think is still not neutral is use of the word "disclose" which is clearly biased in favor of SRF, and again, there really isn't any basis for assuming their version to be the true one. Especially since, in all likelihood, they're both not telling the whole truth. Change "disclosed" to "claimed" and I'm good with it. Dhworld (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

How in the world is the word disclose biased?? A company revealed, disclosed, let be known... their reasons for letting someone go. Kriyananda's view is clearly stated. I don't see the problem. Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what is unclear. I'm not doubting the church knows why it fired him. I am quite reasonably doubting that they gave the real reasons. In fact, there is just no good reason to think they did. They might have. I'm not saying they didn't. I'm just saying we shouldn't take it as a given that their version is always perfect. Using "disclose" takes it is a given that their version is always perfect. It assumes that anything they say is always going to be true because all you want for proof is them to say so. At least, that's all the evidence you want for this claim. Its weird, because there's no shortage of sources (just as biased) that claims the reasons were very different. Why do you get to decide who's reasons are true for wikipedia?

Wikipedia likes the articles to be free from personal opinions like "finally", having waited 33 years etc... - we need to keep to facts not our own frustrations and point of view on the subject. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who didn't want that sentence. You were the one that insisted on following your imaginary grammar rules. What's more: you know that. So why are you acting like every change in favor of neutral is an assault on your religion? Dhworld (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I am a neutral Wikipedia editor and do my best to help create and maintain neutral articles. Please stick to the subject without making it personal. If we cannot agree, we will need to bring in a group of editors to vote what is best for wikipedia. Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A "neutral editor" does not accuse people of vandalizing pages with absolutely no basis for the accusation or threaten them with "last warnings" for daring to question your word choices. You are not acting like a neutral editor. After this conversation is over, am I to expect you to continue following me around Wikipedia and threatening me anytime I make even grammatical adjustments?

Clearly you are new to wikipedia, so pardon me for using the world vandalism. There are many rules on Wikipedia one of them being, you can only revert another editor twice in a short period of time, also, it is always best to go to the talk page to work out differences, and lastly, the warning I was giving you meant if we didn't discuss this on the talk page, I was going to report you. This is not personal but your editing was becoming disruptive.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The rules of wikipedia do not state that all edits done by new users cannot be enacted unless you personally say so. Nor do the rules state that new users are not allowed to edit any pages, though that is clearly how you have acted towards me. You are the experienced editor so it was your job to tell me there was a "talk" page but you didn't. How was I supposed to know there is such a page or where to find it? So instead of telling me about the page, you just reverted every single change I made on any page anywhere on Wikipedia and then you threatened me. And how is it not disrupting that your position is to edit anything done by any new users and automatically revert them and follow them around Wikipedia making accusations? As far as I can tell, just sticking to the edits I had done would have been the least disruptive and you have not offered any reason why those edits were problematic nor did you attempt any sort of real dialog with me before reverting them, which means you were assuming "bad faith" from the very beginning. Grammatical edits on Wikipedia do not have to pass your approval before they can be posted. Neither, for that matter, do all the other edits people make. Me being new around here does not give you the right to act like a stalker, nor is it grounds for punishment or revoking a person's new edits every single time and always without cause.

So the only trouble came from you assuming bad faith and stalking and threatening a new user. Which is doubly odd since I was offering explanations at every point of the way but as far as I can tell, you ignored them entirely and just revert anything I did without any reason at all. If this is not personal, you are certainly doing a good job of acting like it is. At no point did you have any just cause to threaten me or call me a vandal. You've also never offered any reason why any new edit I make on wikipedia should be automatically reverted regardless of whether it improves the page or not and always without any discussion of any kind. But you've certainly been doing that, haven't you?

Doesn't it strike you as odd that you were threatening me over a page I didn't even know about, but that the page you were threatening me about says very specifically that you are not supposed to do what you're doing? But go ahead, give me another condescending "you must be new around here" explanation that takes absolutely no responsibility for you violating the clear rules of Wikipedia by harassing new users and not allowing them to make any new edits anywhere on wikipedia without your personal approval. Dhworld (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Because you are new, you might try assuming good faith from other editors before assuming the worst - if you review the edit comments you will see that I asked you to join me on the talk page a couple of times. Also I am not stalking your LOL... Do you know about what is called a watchlist? I am watching about 30 pages and am alerted when an edit is done. If there is a page in place and has references to back up the statements, one really shouldn't be changing it before going to the talk page. I don't have a lot of time to educate you in editing on Wikipedia - as I have already suggested if you follow the links provided by Wikipedia on your talk page, you can learn the guidelines and rules here. It is not my duty to educate you. I asked you to join me on the talk page but you just kept reverting edits, my next step was to report you. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

* Why am I the only one who is supposed to assume good faith?

Are you saying the rule on wikipedia is that no one is allowed to edit any pages without going to the talk page first? And whose approval must be obtained in order to make even minor changes in a page? I truly would like to know if this is the rule or not. Is there a source you can link to which shows that I am no allowed to make edits to pages? Who is allowed to make edits? Dhworld (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I added the indent symbol : so that your comments will be indented - impossible to read otherwise. Notice I added to indent symbols.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok another version of the sentence, I used the word stated instead of said.- Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. In 1995 in a public letter, SRF stated the reasons for his dismissal - "specific actions of his, his basic pattern of behavior." He never agreed with the reasons for his dismissal. Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I missed this before since you didn't put it anywhere near the discussion of the word. Apologies for not responding to it. 'Stated' still makes the same assumption. What's wrong with a neutral word? 'Said' clearly states the facts without assuming that the substance of the statements are either true or untrue. It offers no assumption or bias in either direction. What's your objection to it? What factual advantage is gained by using a word like "stated" instead of "said"?

Here's an example of how it might look:

Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. He never agreed with the reasons for his dismissal. In 1995, SRF said the reasons for his dismissal were "specific actions of his – his basic pattern of behavior."Dhworld (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Said is not correct. Said means that a person verbally spoke. This statement was in writing in a public letter - said doesn't work. Btw, I don't understand your statement... "Stated still makes the same assumption" ? What assumption? Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Third party sources disagree with you. Here is a source showing that the definition of "said" only requires that words be used not that they must be said out loud as you claim: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/say. So, since "said" is accurate and correct, why not use it? What is your objection to it?

Since you yourself have noted the assumption made, I'll just use your quote to explain it. You said: "Claim leaves a lingering doubt whereas disclose means simply to reveal - to make something known publicly, or to show something that was hidden" which means that the word "disclose," even in your opinion, assumes that the reason they are giving is the real reason. The only source to support that this as the real reason is SRF themselves. Why would an unbiased article make that assumption with no independent evidence for it at all?Dhworld (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok final edit - Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. In 1995 SRF wrote in a public letter the reasons for his dismissal - "specific actions of his, his basic pattern of behavior." He never agreed with the reasons for his dismissal. The word wrote should be satisfactory.... I am going to edit the page now.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do you get to declare when editing is final by fiat? Is there some rule on wikipedia that says the opinions of new people are automatically discarded whenever some other editor just randomly declares it to be "final"?Dhworld (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought you would be fine with the word "wrote" because it is very much like the word "said". I have never spent this much time on two sentences in wikipedia. These two sentences are communicating facts which leaves it to the reader to determine their own views on the subject. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue with 'wrote' is that, in the usage above, the object of the writing is 'the reason'. They wrote the reason. Which leaves entirely out the possibility that they may have written a false reason. I'm not saying they did, I'm just saying that we have no evidence to support assuming that they didn't. That difference wouldn't really matter in most situations but in situations in which two groups of people have been feuding for five decades and both sides have strong incentive to lie, a neutral encyclopedia should take a bit of extra caution to not unduly bias it's writing. But, 'Wrote' in this context is continuing to assume that the reasons themselves are true (question two) without supporting it. I agree this is taking way longer than it should. I still think it should be 'claim' because I feel that is most accurate given the actual evidence. That said, I'd prefer to move on, so I'm happy to compromise with "said". Or, if you have other word ideas, I'm happy to keep going around about this. I'm still not clear on what your objection to 'said' is.

If you're still confused about what the assumption is and why this is logically and factually problematic, I wrote a longer explanation near the top of this section which details the assumption issue more thoroughly. I apologize if you feel that I have not been adequately explaining the issue so far. Dhworld (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Dhworld... A person either "speaks" (said) or "writes (wrote) - there is no difference between the two except that to use the word "said" = speaking and the world "wrote" = writing. In this case SRF wrote the letter and it was not spoken. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether your opinion outweighs objective sources like dictionaries just because you want it to. Check any dictionary you like and you will probably find the exact same thing. The dictionary I linked to above lists seven definitions of "say" and yet only one of those seven requires vocalization. Six out of seven definitions from an unbiased third party source support my position and absolutely refute yours (it really only takes one definition not requiring vocalization to prove that 'said' can refer to words on a page, but obviously the vast majority support the position). If you want to argue with dictionary makers that your idea of what words mean matters more than theirs, this is not really the place for that and I am not a dictionary maker so I am not the person to argue with.

As I explained above, the difference between them in this case is in the object. I have no problem with them "writing a letter". I do have a problem with them "writing the reason". If you want to say "In 1995, SRF wrote a letter in which they claimed XYZ," I'm fine with that. But obviously that is entirely different from the version which assumes facts for which there is no evidence. Here is an example of wording that uses "wrote" as you prefer and yet still doesn't make the poor assumptions. If you're good with this, then I'm good with it and we can both move on with our lives.

Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. He never agreed with the reasons for his dismissal. In 1995, SRF wrote a letter in which they claimed the reasons for his dismissal were "specific actions of his – his basic pattern of behavior."Dhworld (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Again! Say means - utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction. "“Thank you,” he said" synonyms: speak, utter, voice, pronounce, give voice to, vocalize - the word wrote is just as neutral as the word say. A company knows why they fired someone so claim is not the appropriate word. Said and wrote are equally neutral... I have requested that LeadSongDog come to this discussion. I went to him to seek help and saw you wrote a note saying I am stalking you. Can you please explain here why you think that. It is considered a personal attack which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Click here [[1]]. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

They might know why they hired someone but there is no evidence to suggest that they are going to be honest about it. You're still looking at proof of question one and calling it proof of question two. I'm still not going to debate with you whether the dictionary is right or you are about the definition of the word. You are objectively incorrect about this. I'm going to ignore parts from now on where you continue restating the same incorrect definition of "say" because it's not productive. If you want to attack dictionaries, do so, but please do it elsewhere.

The word "wrote' is just as neutral as the word 'said', but neither are neutral if their object is on something for which there is no basis. You seem to have ignored the version I suggested which uses "wrote" as you prefer. What's wrong with that one?

If you really think there's no difference between the words, then why do you insist on only using words that assume proof of question two without actually having any proof? Why not just agree with any of a half dozen neutral phrases or suggest a neutral phrase of your own?

Is it really your claim that I cannot describe what seems to be happening because it violates a rule? You're immune to being questioned even when you break the rules? What am I supposed to do about it if I can't tell anyone? I don't bow to bullying, so what is the appropriate route other than to ask someone else's advice?

And let me see if I understand this: You "just happened" to see a note I wrote to someone else entirely on an totally different part of wikipedia then you came here to reprimand me for it and now you're wondering why I might think you're stalking and harassing me? Dhworld (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Dhworld - to answer a couple of your questions... (1) the version with the word wrote also has the word claimed which implies that the company doesn't know why they fired him. (2) Please assume good faith, I did choose to ask LeadSongDog to help resolve this issue and when I went to his talk page to request help, I noticed your comment at the top of his page. I continued on with adding my request for his help. So you see I was not following you (3) I have also requested an administrator to join us to bring resolution. You can go here to read my comments

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(1) No, claim does not imply that the don't know why they fired him. Claim does imply that we don't have evidence for question two (proof that they may be giving the real reason), Which is true. Whether they "know why" they fired him or not is totally irrelevant. What matters is if we have evidence that the reason they are saying and the actual reason they fired him are the same. So, again, what is wrong with writing it in a way that does not assume we have evidence for things we do not have evidence for? (2) That is only the most recent in a long string of things you've done that any reasonable person on earth would consider highly likely to be stalking. Literally every place I've gone on wikipedia since becoming a member you've shown up and usually it ends with you in some way attacking or reprimanding me.. Reading notes I left for other people is only the latest. If I've typed words on wikipedia as a member, you've shown up there. You've also reverted 100% of new edits I've made since I've been a member and never offered cause at the time as the rules require. This is in violation of wikipedia guidelines which clearly state that wikipedia has a bias in favor of change and that to revert my edits you have to establish that my edits made the page worse, which you have not done. Then you are suppose to provide that reason. You have not. Not doing so constitutes an "inappropriate reversion". Rule breaking in the interest of continuing contact is classic stalker behavior. How about the fact that there is a word we both agree is neutral but you still won't use it? You keep drumming up more arguments for one of the words we don't agree on. Lately, that includes repeatedly insisting that your definition of words is right int eh face of objective third party evidence in the form of actual dictionary definitions. You continuing insistence that in this context, the word claim refers to someone that is inside someone's head rather than their actions is another good example. Do you not see how this looks pretty weird?It's clearly important to you to avoid consensus and keep this argument going. There are a number of reasons why you might behave as you have, but stalking is certainly one of the obvious ones. Either that or it's essential to you to make it clear to new editors that they "should not edit pages" as you said earlier (which is also directly contrary to "encourage new people to be bold.") You've been dragging this argument on for days when you already agree that one of the words I prefer is neutral. You also display classic signs of stalking temperament. You go from being nice (patronizing but not overtly mean) to name-calling to threatening and back again. And then, to top all that off, you reprimand me for the content of notes I wrote to someone else, which were quite obviously not meant for you and never even mentioned your name. I am not required to assume good faith in absence of strong evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying it's impossible for some very very long string of coincidences to all come together to make it seem like stalking when it's not, but I am saying that it's absolutely perfectly reasonable for me to consider that it might be stalking given what's actually taken place. Dhworld (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Dhworld did you notice the new section below? Robert McClenon has kindly come here to offer his opinion to help us resolve this disagreement. Please read his post and respond below. I am not even going to read your recent looong post which seems to include many personal attacks. My whole goal is to resolve this disagreement and collaborate together to finish these three sentences. Stick to the subject at hand which is for us to come to an agreement about these three sentences. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You specifically and directly in no uncertain terms asked me to tell you why I think you might be stalking me (Direct Quote: "Can you please explain here why you think that") and then when I list the reasons, you tell me I'm making personal attacks? You even specifically asked me to do it here. This is also classic stalker behavior (ask the person for information and then make accusations when they provide it). Dhworld (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I moved this dispute to request a third party opinion here [[2]] Someone could respond immediately or it might take a few days. Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Dismissal section updated and I removed the 1st party references. Editors need to find 2nd or 3rd party references instead. Go here for more information [[3]] - The citations templates are dated so there is some time to correct. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Be sure to sign each of your posts or gets impossible to read. Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. I can see that there are conduct allegations, which are not appropriate for third opinion. If there is an article content issue, please ask a question civilly and concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Here are the three sentences in question under the Dismissal section.

Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. In 1995 SRF wrote in a public letter the reasons for his dismissal - "specific actions of his, his basic pattern of behavior."[13] He never agreed with the reasons for his dismissal.[14]

I think that these three sentences are neutral and are communicating concise information. We worked on coming up with a neutral word like wrote. Dhworld will need to tell you what he objects to. Thank you for taking the time to help us out.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The other editor considers 'wrote' neutral regardless of context and use. I think use matters. Fortunately, the other editor has already agreed that it is the same amount neutral as other words which I feel are more neutral. (Exact Quote: "the word wrote is just as neutral as the word say") In the interest of consensus, why wouldn't we go with the version everyone thinks is neutral? Thanks for looking at this. I've suggested this repeatedly:

Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. He never agreed with the reasons for his dismissal. In 1995, SRF said the reasons for his dismissal were "specific actions of his – his basic pattern of behavior." Dhworld (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

'Claim" is the most accurate word since we have evidence that a claim was made but not that the claim is true, but the other editor feels that "claim" refers to what is inside someone's mind (what they 'know') rather than what they communicate (Quote: "the version with the word wrote also has the word claimed which implies that the company doesn't know why they fired him."). Dictionaries do not agree (source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claim?s=t). I am willing to compromise with "said" as above which, while a bit less accurate, is fine since the other editor has already agreed to it's neutrality. Although, to be fair, the same disagreement between the dictionary and the other editor is at issue with the word 'say' as well. Even so, I'm more than willing to compromise with the above version in the interest of consensus. Dhworld (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I still think that the word "said" refers to something verbal and that the word "wrote" is appropriate here since it was written in a public letter in 1995 vs spoken. See the version I posted above which includes information about the letter. It is important for the reader to know that it was written in a public letter. If you Robert think that we can write "In 1995 SRF said in a public letter" and it is grammatically correct, I can go with "said". See below Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. He never agreed with the reasons for his dismissal. In 1995 SRF wrote or said in a public letter the reasons for his dismissal, "specific actions of his - his basic pattern of behavior." Originally I was fine with disclose & reveal but Dhworld didn't think the words were neutral enough. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The actual definition of 'say' conclusively proves you are incorrect about your opinion on the word 'say'. (source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/say?s=t) Opinion should lose to objective fact here. In your suggestion above, you're again trying to change the object of the word so that it assumes question two without any evidence at all. To say that they "wrote a letter" is to describe the situation without prejudice. To say that "they wrote the reason" assumes that the actual reasons and the reasons they claimed are identical becasue the structure of the phrase assumes that the "reason" already existed and they merely "wrote it down" exactly as it was, but we have no evidence to support that and we do have evidence to support that at least some people/groups claim that the reasons they gave are not the real reasons, so being unbiased matters here.

We do have evidence that they made a claim about the reasons. We have no evidence that the claim they made is true (in this case, 'true' refers to the real reason they fired him). I don't understand why it's so important to pretend we have evidence for something we don't. Anyone who thinks it's impossible for a company to fire someone for one reason but claim another should have a good look at sexual harassment lawsuits. Dhworld (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

How about this, which fits your above criteria (uses 'wrote', is grammatically correct):

Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. He never agreed with the reasons for his dismissal. In 1995 SRF wrote a letter which claimed the reasons for his dismissal were "specific actions of his - his basic pattern of behavior."

The key ingredient in this is, in my opinion, avoiding pretending that "SRF making a claim" is identical to that claim being true. I'm open to language that does not do that. Your version above clearly pretends that the above statements are identical, so it doesn't work. I have no objection to it saying "public letter" but don't agree that it adds anything important. Why would it matter if they gave a press conference for which we have video evidence or if they typed a letter for which we have evidence? Dhworld (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I still think that disclose or reveal is a perfect word because usually business/companies don't reveal the reasons why someone has been fired. It is a matter of privacy for the person being fired. It is also important to keep in the sentences that it is a public letter because then the reader knows that it was not a private letter between Kriyananda and SRF. Anyone has access to this public letter... nothing is hidden.

Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. He never agreed with the reasons for his dismissal. In 1995 SRF disclosed, revealed, wrote or said in a public letter the reasons for his dismissal, "specific actions of his - his basic pattern of behavior."

It doesn't matter if churches normally reveal the reasons for firing someone. Not a bit. What does matter is that we have no basis for assuming the reason they gave is the same as the actual reason and fair reason to doubt it. That being the case, any nuetral party should rationally prefer using the version which does not assume we have evidence for something we don't. You feeling like "it really surely must be true" does not count as evidence, just the same as your opinion of the definition of the words "say" and "claim" do not outweigh objective resources like dictionaries. Having an opinion does not make it a fact. I'm suggesting we go with facts.Dhworld (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Those words continue to make the same assumption you are fighting so hard for: that we don't need evidence on wikipedia to make claims. If you want to claim that SRF gives the real reasons instead of a PR spun reason, then please provide evidence that is so. I'd be saying the same thing if we were talking about claims the other side was making. In fact, I did.

Is it more or less neutral to assume that one side in a dispute is telling the truth whenever they make a claim? I would suggest that it's less neutral to pick one side and arbitrarily (read: with absolutely no evidence to support it) assume that whatever they say is true. In my opinion, we should not make that assumption about Kriyananda and we should equally not make it about SRF. My vote is to pick the choice that is neutral (does not assume that either side is telling the truth just because that side claims it to be true).

What is the argument against using the word "claim"? Dhworld (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Dhworld I am tired of debating with you... that is why we are seeking Robert's help, please direct your communication to him. Robert we all want facts with reliable references. My reason for posting and adding reveal and disclose is to give you the complete picture. I am still fine with Said or Wrote if you,Robert, agree and we need to keep the words "in a public letter." When using said or wrote, it is obvious that SRF claims this, to use the word claim is redundant in my opinion. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, then if you already think it's true that SRF is claiming this (rather than it being actually true), then you have no objection to the word 'claim". I mean, if it means "claim" either way, then let's just use claim as it is factually most accurate rather than using some other word and just assuming people will figure out that it actually means "claim" as you said above. Here is a version that uses the word claim but removes what you consider to be redundant:

Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. He never agreed with the reasons given for his dismissal. In a public letter in 1995, SRF claimed the reasons for his dismissal were "specific actions of his - his basic pattern of behavior."

Dhworld PLEASE STOP putting "words in my mouth" and direct your comments to Robert. Robert, I think the word Claim is inaccurate here and casts doubt. We need to leave the reader with the facts and state with clarity what was done and said by both parties without our personal POV views on the subject. This will leave room for the reader to decide for themselves rather than us deciding for them with our POV views. NPOV Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly the point. Red Rose says "Claim is inaccurate here and casts doubt." Of course it casts doubt. There is doubt (One source which establishes doubt: http://www.amazon.com/Place-Called-Ananda-Cooperative-Communities/dp/1565891589/ref=sr_1_1_twi_cas_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1450035539&sr=8-1&keywords=a+place+called+ananda). Since the doubt is real, why should the phrasing hide the doubt with words that don't "cast doubt"? Why would the point of the article on an encyclopedia be to hide legitimate doubt? Dhworld (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You said (Direct quote): "it is obvious that SRF claims this". If that's so, then you have stated clearly that you believe 'claim' to be accurate. Otherwise, you would not be arguing that "said" or "wrote" are good while claiming that it's obvious people will know it means claim. You've been quoted and clear logical conclusions have been drawn from your statement, but no words have been placed in your mouth, nor have you been unfairly represented by your own comments.

I agree about dropping the POV. That's why it's so important not to phrase it in a way that assumes SRF (or Kriayanda, for that matter) are correct. Doing so requires that the language leaves open for the reader to believe or not believe SRF's claim as they wish. This is most effectively done by openly acknowledging that it is, in fact, a claim. Pretending it is not a claim (or using some other word and expecting people to translate it in their head) does not do the job. NPOV means not assuming one side to be right (or telling the truth) without evidence. That's is what I want. NPOV. No language that assumes baselessly that one side's claim is true. 'Claim' does that perfectly.

I will direct my comments to Robert when he shows up. Right now, I'm trying to solve this problem without wasting his time. Dhworld (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that I also made sure to include the phrase you like about "public letter". Dhworld (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. He never agreed with the reasons for his dismissal. In a public letter in 1995, SRF Said or wrote the reasons for his dismissal were "specific actions of his - his basic pattern of behavior."

It seems we have written everything...I plan now to wait for Robert to weigh in. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No matter what you say or do Dhworld - I am done until Robert joins us.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Overall, Robert, here is what I suggest:

Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. He never agreed with the reasons given for his dismissal. In a public letter in 1995, SRF claimed the reasons for his dismissal were "specific actions of his - his basic pattern of behavior."

NPOV. No side is represented as being right. No side is represented as telling the truth. Just facts. All documented and free of assumptions about whether SRF's claim is true or not. Simple language making a simple point. Dhworld (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I had one more thought... If we use claim then this is how it would be balanced.

Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. He claimed the allegations were false regarding his dismissal. In a public letter in 1995, SRF claimed the reasons for his dismissal were "specific actions of his - his basic pattern of behavior."

But I prefer the cleaner route which leaves it open for the reader to decide:

Kriyananda remained in India, serving the SRF until 1962, when the SRF's board of directors voted unanimously to request his resignation. He never agreed with the reasons for his dismissal. In a public letter in 1995, SRF Said or wrote the reasons for his dismissal were "specific actions of his - his basic pattern of behavior." Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the last sentence of your first one above that says: "In a public letter in 1995, SRF claimed the reasons for his dismissal were "specific actions of his - his basic pattern of behavior." So that's settled. Finally a wording we agree on. I knew we could get there.

As to the new second sentence, this is the first time this has come up. What makes it better? It seems like a clunkier way of saying "he never agreed with the reasons" which already makes 100% clear that it is HIS OPINION. What makes it better than the more straightforward version of this sentence we both agreed on ages ago? Dhworld (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

AGAIN you putting words in my mouth - I DO NOT agree with the word claim unless both sentences express that. I do not want to use the word claim and I have already copied and pasted what I prefer. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

How am I putting words in your mouth? You added the bit about "claim balancing it" AFTER I already typed this and saved it. I was trying to find consensus and common ground. Finally, after all this, we both agreed on a version of the last sentence, so I was glad. I didn't even realize at first that you'd made a change to a sentence we had both previously agreed on. Is it so wrong that I'm eager to find common ground?

The reason for using "claim" in the last sentence is that there is dispute regarding it. One side says they gave the real reasons and the other side says they did not give the real reasons. So, we (wikipedia editors) stay neutral. Is the same true in the second sentence? Is there a dispute about whether or not he agrees? I thought that one of the few things everyone agreed on is that he disagrees. Is someone alleging that he pretends to not agree but secretly he does agree? Do we have anything to support such an assertion? Dhworld (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Also: why is the other editor changing my comments to the end of literally making it look like I said something meaningfully different from what I did? (Source: 18:22, 13 December 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+358)‎ . . Talk:Kriyananda ‎ (→‎Third Opinion: NPOV) ). Am I allowed to edit Red Rose's comments to make it look like Red Rose is saying things he or she isn't? If this is not the proper avenue to discuss this, please kindly point me to the place where it can/should be discussed. I am not trying to disrupt, but it is relevant to these proceedings that one editor is changing the comments of another editor and deliberately distorting their meaning. Should I be going through all my comments on wikipedia to see how many have been changed around and distorted? Dhworld (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Dhworld - do you realize that you are continously accusing me of things? I don't know what you are talking about regarding changing your words. I have asked for help from the Dispute resolution group. You might check your talk page for an alert. I am not sure why Robert hasn't joined us. Here is the link [[4]] Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you realize that there is a public record of you changing my words and their meaning? The source is listed right there. It looks like you even forged a time stamp. How many more cases of this will I find if I start digging?Dhworld (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Forged your time stamp?? Give the url link - I have no idea what you are talking ... LOL Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes when two people are editing on the same page and they save at the same time, it screws up the system. Twice today we were posting at the same time and my comments were not posted.... I had to go look for them, copy them and reinsert them in the discussion. That is probably what happened to yours. On Wikipedia they recommend assume good faith. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Which part of assuming good faith involves stalking new members and harassing them?

So, you're claiming that wikipedia might, all on it's own, change some words on my comment, add others, and delete others (including changing the time stamp) and then frame you for it by specifically and clearly showing that you did it?

I think if you read the "assume good faith" article you are so fond of quoting but never put into practice, you will find that one is not obligated to ignore blatant and clear bad behavior in the interest of making sure that older editors can bully new ones without consequence. That's just not part of the rules. Sorry.Dhworld (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Edits after dispute resolution guidance

I took out the SRF letter reference and added that a citation is needed. I changed the wording with Nelsons Illustrated... to the actual words in the book to make it valid not just something we made up. I will continue to look for more reliable sources for this little section.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that since almost none of it is supported by evidence at this point, then the section should be eliminated. There's really no good reason to make a sections full of unsubstantiated claims that nearly all say "citation needed". If sources come along later, it can be added back. Dhworld (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The wikipedia guidance is to date the citation needed which I did and give editors time to find the citation. No need to delete the section just yet.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If the intention is to actually quote someone, it should be listed as such and in quote marks. Paraphrasing is okay, but direct quoting should not be without note, in my opinion. Otherwise, it "constantly arguing" becomes a judgment on the part of wikipedia rather than one person's opinion. Also, book authors deserve credit for what they write. Dhworld (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea - I added the quotes, the number right after the quote is the reference number and lists where the quote comes from. Adding it to the text is redundant.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kriyananda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023064251/http://www.crystalclarity.com/content.php?page=foreign_rights_languages to http://www.crystalclarity.com/content.php?page=foreign_rights_languages

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on removal of 'Swami' from 'Swami Kriyananda'

Hi, I am requesting input on the recent removal of 'Swami' from this entry's name, in the lede and throughout the article. I do not believe this improves the article, but does introduces a subtly biased tone, and is arbitrary. See recent discussion on this page. (FYI: S.K. died 4/21/2013). Red Rose 13 has proposed revising 'Swami' to 'Nayaswami' with some justification, but I believe 'Swami' is more representative and much better known. Jack B108 (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No bias tone here. Note that the title Swami was not removed recently but in November 2012 about 6 months ago by a senior editor, Yworo. See his edit explanation copied and pasted here. 6 November 2012‎ Yworo (talk | contribs)‎ (27,557 bytes) (Yworo moved page Swami Kriyananda to Kriyananda over redirect: biographical article titles use only name, titles and honorifics should not be included)

Also, read the details above that include pertinent links. Also, according to the definition of Swami, Kriyananda is not actually a swami. He renounced his Swami vow in 1985 with the ancient Swami Order of Shankara because he decided to get married and was later divorced. In 2009 he then created his own "swami" line which allows the "swami" to be married. He called these "swamis" Nayaswami. He called himself Nayaswami Kriyananda. Because some of his followers called him Swami doesn't make it so on Wikipedia. I see three options: (1) Keep the name of page as is, (2) Change to Nayaswami Kriyananda or (3) use J. Donald Walters aka Kriyananda. It seems though that wikipedia doesn't use titles, then option (1) or (3).Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as senior editor on wikipedia. Your "senior editor" does also sometimes troll and disrupt wikipedia. It really doesn't matter if somebody has been on wiki for 6 years or 6 weeks.. --Trphierth (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of record, Worldcat shows a host of alternative names, but most (295) of his publications are as J. Donald Walters. [5] After that, the next largest number is 79 as Kriyananda Swami.[6] That would argue for his wp:COMMONNAME being J. Donald Walters. If we were to use a clerical name though, it would still be best to use the simplest one that does not introduce ambiguity. Are there WP articles on any other Kriyananda that would need to be disambiguated by the addition of "Swami" or other honorific adjective? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps using the wp:COMMONNAME might be the way to go - then within the article it can be noted that he took sannayasi vows and took the name Kriyananda and then renounced the vows, etc... Also, I searched for other persons with the name Kriyananda but didn't see one.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use honorifics. 'Swami' is an honorific, therefore it should not be used in the title, nor used when referring to the person in the text of the article (e.g. Stephen Hawking is not at Professor Stephen Hawking, Elizabeth II is not at HRH Queen Elizabeth II, Joan of Arc is not at Saint Joan of Arc, Barack Obama is not at President Barack Obama). The honorific can be mentioned in the article, but we don't use it when referring to the person. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this. FurrySings (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

'Swami' is not as much an 'honorific'as a title, and if editors are going to [very unprofessionally] remove it from this person's name, then all instances of it across WP must go. I wonder why 'Paramahansa' in Paramahansa Yogananda is still there? It definitely is an honorific. Why the sudden interest in this page and why the sudden urge to remove 'Swami' from Swami Kriyananda? This page would be vastly improved if it attracted more attention from individuals more proud of their identity as 'editor' than as 'moral cop'. (BTW, "Professor" is not an honorific, it's an academic title.) 'Sri" and "Paramhansa" are clearly 'honorifics'. Jack B108 (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Since Swami is an honorific on Wikipedia, perhaps all the Swami pages need to be corrected to reflect this guideline. I know there are only so many editors to go around and that is probably why it has not been corrected yet. Perhaps you could do it Jack B108. I don't know how to change the actual title of a wikipedia page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The broader question has been bounced about for some years. The relevant convention wp:NCIN is still a proposal, but has been stable for some time. It may be due for an RFC on adoption. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please. Every instance should go unless there is very good reason not to. We remove titles as well as honorifics--there are no pages beginning Professor ... for real people, just for fictional characters and the like. This part at least of the proposal seems eminently reasonable and in full agreement with out general practice. (I'm not qualified to judge the linguistic aspects of the convention) DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I see various editors, in their remarks that honorifics are not used in wikipedia, completely ignoring the exceptions listed in WP:HONORIFICS, '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."' Look up also Guru Nanak, Pope Gregory, etc. Note also the lack of neutrality inherent in selective application of the honorifics policy. No-one has asked for 'Paramhansa' to be removed from Paramhansa Yogananda. It is no more, and no less, (arguably more if anything) an honorific than the title 'Swami' of Swami Kriyananda. If 'Swami' goes from Kriyananda, it should go from all the other swamis, and 'Paramhansa' should be taken from Yogananda. Red Rose 13 is applying personal judgments of whether or not Kriyananda is 'worthy' of the Swami title. It is none of our business, as encyclopedia writers. We call Alexander the Great, 'the Great' because that is how he is known in the world, whether he deserves that or not. Some say Kriyananda broke his Swami vows; some say Yogananda broke his swami vows too.

      I agree about Red Rose 13 and personal judgments, on this and many topics.  Here Kriyananda was  undisputedly a Swami for about 45 years after ordained to it about 1950.  It's accurate to call him Swami Kri. based on those 4 decades regardless of what happened during the last 25 years of his life.  Also, common usage can form a basis for deciding (like Alexander the Great), and those who speak most about Swami Kriyananda almost always use "Swami" to refer to him.  I've never heard him called Nayaswami Kriyananda.  This is like using "quality product" to mean a good product.  Before something like 1975, you had to say "high-quality product" or "low-quality product" because quality didn't automatically mean "good quality."  Now it does.  The common usage is a fair guide to terminology here.Moabalan (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute between SRF (Yogananda's people) and Kriyananda's people and I see various editors consistently coming down in favor of SRF and against Kriyananda, bringing up the possibility that they have a WP:COI. This is happening in gross and subtle ways. The attack on Kriyananda's 'Swami' prefix seems to be an instance of this.

Thanks for bringing this up for discussion, Jack. Joesonyx (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your input Joesonyx, and agree with what you just wrote here. I don't think that encyclopedia entries should be used to win an argument either. Also, there is no such thing as a 'senior editor' on WP, folks. {how I wish there was!}. Nobody's really in charge, and one person can do a lot of damage to an entry, which is what has happened here, IMO. Jack B108 (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

According to LeadSongDog - the subject Walters or Kriyananda - the name Walters was used approximately 3 times more often than Kriyananda in his publications. So we could use the name Walters, if we all agree that is better. If we use the name Kriyananda, no one will have a problem finding him on Wikipedia with or without the honorific. LeadSongDog also asked if there were any other persons named Kriyananda on Wikipedia and I couldn't find any, can anyone else? Since the guidelines on Wikipedia is to not have honorifics, the only logical thing I can see is that we keep the name as is. Your reference - "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." It is not commonly used as was already illustrated. Also, Kriyananda is not a common name and people will have no difficulty finding him on Wikipedia.

In reference to keeping Paramahansa with the name Yogananda, there is a problem because there is an institute called Yogananda Institute of Technology and Science - and in looking at the page it refers you to Yogananda Educational Society (YES) and there was no mention of Paramahansa Yogananda there. I am assuming it is not Paramahansa Yogananda's institute. It would be important to keep Paramahansa with Yogananda to differentiate the two.

Joesonyx I noticed you spelled Paramahansa but with a missing a, why is that? The title of the page is Paramahansa Yogananda. Also, not sure why you are bringing up a "dispute" between a couple of organizations. We are dealing with Wikipedia guidelines here and the person who took down the honorific was Yworo, a very experienced and what I would call senior editor. He did this about 6 months ago I noticed and I posted that above. We also have posts from other editors here saying the same thing, that the honorific Swami needs to be kept off this page. This is not personal, it is just Wikipedia guidelines.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as senior editor on wikipedia. Your "senior editor" does also sometimes troll and disrupt wikipedia. It really doesn't matter if somebody has been on wiki for 6 years or 6 weeks.. --Trphierth (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Red Rose 13, and LeadSongDog, the fact that Swami Kriyananda has more publications under his birth name (Walters) than under his name Swami Kriyananda is interesting but not at all conclusive that his name (Walters) is the name by which he is more known. Perhaps he published under his birth name when he was younger, or chose his birth name for particular subject matter, or just as a preference which we can't explain. I've noticed that when I look up his books under the name J.Donald Walters on amazon.com it seems to also list the name Swami Kriyananda. I would argue that he is definitely better known as Swami Kriyananda. Does anyone genuinely dispute this?

Also, Red Rose 13, I notice that you are quick to find a reason against Yogananda's loss of his 'honorific'. I don't find that reason compelling (we deal with ambiguous names all the time in wikipedia). The reason I do find compelling is the one in WP:HONORIFICS, which states that the honorific can be kept if that is how he is generally known, and which also applies to Swami Kriyananda.

I leave out the 'a' and spell Paramhansa Yogananda that way because that is the way he did it himself. :) But in the wikipedia article itself, as opposed to the talk page, I'd follow the convention established. There are those who say that 'Paramahansa' is the 'correct Sanskrit'. -- I don't necessarily agree that 'correct Sanskrit' should be the basis for the spelling of his name on Wikipedia, but it is not a battle I've chosen to fight. At least not yet. :) Joesonyx (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with LeadSongDog, FurrySings, and DGG, that the honorific Swami does not belong on this page. I am open to using J. Donald Walters or Kriyananda or Nayaswami Kriyananda (which is the title he gave himself) if honorifics were used on Wikipedia but they are not. So it is between J. Donald Walters or Kriyananda. Joesonyx you might try the same search that LeadSongDog did on Worldcat. Apparently as discovered when reading the article, the subject renounced his swami title to get married and that is probably one of the time periods he was using J. Donald Walters as his legal name and why so many publications are in that name.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look at those searches done by LeadSongDog. There is a pattern and it is as I suspected. Most of his earlier works were published under the Donald Walters name and most of the later ones (after around 2002) are under the name Kriyananda. According to the article, he renounced his vows in 1981; it does not say he renounced his title. It says he officially resumed his vows and title in 1995. Joesonyx (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Did a further surch on worldcat for articles using search for 'Swami Kriyananada" and found 218 articles, see here: http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=swami+kriyananda&fq=&dblist=638&start=21&qt=page_number_link This is a better search for our purposes I believe than the one LeadSongDog did because it includes books about him as well as books written by him. Almost all of these seem to be the Swami Kriyananda in question, but a handful are Swami Kriyananda Saraswati, who I think is someone else. For ones with Walters listed as author, I have seen 'Swami Kriyananda' listed under 'responsibility'.

The evidence as I see it is that for some reason, Swami Kriyananda was inclined more to use his birth name in his earlier years as the author of the work, while still putting the name 'Swami Kriyananda' on the work. In later years he seems to have switched to using mainly (if not exclusively for what I can see) 'Swami Kriyananda' as the author.

Remember again that the issue is how he is commonly known, not the name he puts on the books he authors, although the name under which his books are authored does have an evidentiary role. I believe he is commonly known as Swami Kriyananda, just as Paramahansa Yogananda is commonly known as that. In fact, I had never heard of his birth name myself and never knew him from his birth name. Same goes for Paramahansa Yogananda, Mother Teresa, Brother Lawrence, etc. Joesonyx (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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. The subject is most frequently referred to as Walters, then Kriyananda. "Swami Kriyananda" and "Kriyananda Swami" are distant third and fourth. So, the real question here is, should the article stay at "Kriyananda" or should it be moved to "J. Donald Walters". The fact that his books are published under "Kriyananda" by itself rather than with Swami shows that the exception in WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. When the subject's books don't use it, it can hardly said to be inseparable or "commonly attached" as the exception requires. Yworo (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the searches in detail and the ones for J. Donald Walters ranges from 1977 – 2013 and the ones for Swami Kriyananda (with some with just the name Kriyananda) range from 1967 – 2013 and both had varying dates in between with the vast majority under J. Donald Walters. In the process I found a book called - "A renunciate order for the New Age" published in 2010 - author Nayaswami Kriyananda. He started this order in [7] in 2009. It is clear that he gave himself this title in 2009. So he himself let go of the title Swami replaced it with Nayaswami. But since Wikipedia does not use titles, we are back to J. Donald Walters or Kriyananda.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. So basically, either a consensus to move it to J. Donald Walters clearly forms or it doesn't. Until it does, the article should remain right where it is and Swami should not be added to the text either. Yworo (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Red Rose 13 rewrote much of this article w/o too much approval or discussion. The article was stable from 2009 until about 5 weeks ago, and it was stable as 'Swami Kriyananda'. No 'consensus' was asked for when 'Swami' was systematically removed, a long-time primary source court document was removed, and additional material about lawsuits was added. I in fact reverted these changes, which Red Rose 13 promptly re-reverted, including several of my updates to verb tense referring to the now deceased Swami. Red Rose 13's changes were never approved by 'consensus' in the first place, capiche? So we can't talk here as if this page was stable until I asked for comment from a wider community. Jack B108 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jack. The wikipedia policy is to use the most common name as title, i.e. wikipedia uses Mother Theresa and not Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu, other examples are Rabbeinu Tam and Rashbam and so on. The proper avenue for this discussion is WP:MOVE. Yworo (talk · contribs) has done the same to dozens of articles on Hindus and Buddhists. If these articles can be moved, then Mother Theresa should also be moved to Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu. I also agree with Jack that this page would be vastly improved if it attracted more attention from individuals more proud of their identity as 'editor' than as 'moral cop'. --Trphierth (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Jack, I updated the article in a couple of places along with references to back it up, cleaned up links, found third party citations. As was mentioned before, not sure if you read it, I did not remove the title Swami from the article but was done by a senior editor according to Wikipedia policy. There is no consensus needed when following Wikipedia guidelines. The consensus we are doing now is whether to use J. Donald Walters or Kriyananda. In my research for this page, on this court case I found that it was not complete until the jury verdict of 2002. So I uploaded the 2002 jury verdict and added it next to the 2000 court document. They were both removed. Apparently court documents are considered as a primary sources. Your verb tense changes were appropriately left and then you corrected a couple more words because the subject is now deceased. We can work together on improving this article. There are still way to many primary sources and links to the subjects websites among other things.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as senior editor on wikipedia, no matter how often you repeat that. Your "senior editor" does also sometimes troll and disrupt wikipedia. It really doesn't matter if somebody has been on wiki for 6 years or 6 weeks. --Trphierth (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Modern Yoga pioneer

Kriyananda is a follower of Paramahansa Yogananda who pioneered the teachings that Kriyananda followed. Ananda Yoga is based on Kriyananda's interpretation of Yogananda's teachings. Kriyananda is not a pioneer himself. I am requesting that the category be removed from his page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that Modern Yoga Pioneer is not on the Paramahansa Yogananda page - that is where this category should be placed. Kriyananda was a disciple of Paramahansa Yogananda.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Vivekananda does not belong here

I've removed an irrelevant quote from the lead. The lead is only a summary of the article body. It is no place to construct an editorial argument by assembling quotations that may seem to form an editor's point of view, something that is actually forbidden everywhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I moved this discussion over to the Modern yoga gurus talk page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)