Talk:Kriyananda/Archive 3

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

Reference Yogananda authorization

I looked through the references provided and was unable to find where Yogananda authorized Kriyananda to teach kriya yoga. Also we need a secondary source that states that. Please provide the secondary source with the page number.Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried searching the internet for this, and could only find primary sources. I see that the sentence stating that Yogananda authorized Kriyananda into giving Kriya Yoga doesn't even have a source cited. Let me atleast cite a primary source. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Not everything about a person needs to be on Wikipedia. We need to follow Wikipedia guidelines. "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." WP:Primary
Also the new primary source you just added by Nayaswami Asha is not only a primary source but appears to be self-published - not from a reputable publisher. I couldn't find anything about Chela Publications on the internet. If we don't have a reliable source, then we don't add the information. I found inside the book that Chela Publications is Ananda Sangha in Palo Alto which makes it self-published. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this out. I see that WP:PRIMARY states that a primary sources may or may not be independent source. This is certainly not an independent source, but it's not self-published either. You see, it being a biography, written and published posthumously. Can we keep it for now? It's better to have some citation than none earlier. We already have a banner indicating that the article relies too much on primary sources. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to add more unreliable sources to an article that is filled with Citations needed already. It is published by Ananda and Nayaswami Asha is a part of that, so it is self-published. Please remove the source and place a citation needed there. We also need to remove or place a citation needed regarding the Kriya Yoga issue. Place a date when you placed the citation needed because it cannot be there for too long Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I realize that you are right, thank you. I've added a dated 'citation needed' tag, and will try to find a reliable source. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Kriyananda → Swami Kriyananda – It qualifies for an exception under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics+Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

No, this is a questionable one, not exceptional! ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a contested technical request (permalink). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
No. This has already been discussed and researched in a discussion in the archives. The name was almost changed to J Donald Walters.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Dear @Red Rose 13, I would like to re-open the discussion (we can pick from where it ended last time) as I've observed since past few months that on the internet, J Donald Walters is popularly known as Swami Kriyananda, not by Nayaswami Kriyananda, or Kriyananda, or even his birth name J. Donald Walters. One important point on which I base my argument is that Wikipedia should capture the popular name of the entity or person, not what they themselves would like to be called as, or their official (but not well known) names. Very much looking forward to have a fruitful discussion with you! Have a good day. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
The common name is the one most used in publications. That's it. So we need to search here [[1]] and here [[2]] to see which name is most used on his publications.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Since my editing (Special:Diff/1098783254) makes my oppose clear, might as well write it here for the RM closer. In addition to nom's lack of evidence (assertions ≠ proof), the current title is WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE enough. Redirect target views for closer's reference. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you, Red Rose 13 and Rotideypoc41352, for describing your reasoning. Your comments have helped me realize that my assertion wasn't solid, because it lacked proof. Let me try to present my reasoning with reliable backing.
    • As to Red Rose 13's comment "common name is the one most used in publications", I would like to add that WP:COMMONNAME encourages "independent, reliable English-language sources" which doesn't refer to the subject's own publications (which is primary source), but rather implies secondary sources like biographies, obituaries, media articles, research articles, etc. Hypothetical example: ABC may call himself as "ABC, the great king" in his own books, but if the world knows him just as "ABC, the king", he cannot prevent WP editors from keeping the latter as his article's title.
    • Still, on conducting simple searches of "Kriyananda" with and explicitly without "Swami" on various search engines, the results clearly state that "Swami Kriyananda" is more common and prevalent, than just "Kriyananda" See below:
      • An advanced search of catalog.loc.gov for "Kriyananda" strictly without "Swami", it returned only 21 results, while the one with "Swami Kriyananda" resulted in 86 results. Alas, Catworld doesn't allow such advanced search functionality of excluding keywords.
      • Similar search on Google yields 29,700 results and 169,000 results respectively.
      • On Google Scholar search, it's 11 pages of search results, compared to 47 pages of search results.
    Note: Following arguments are based on the 5 characteristics of a good Wikipedia article listed on WP:CONSISTENT. I encourage fellow editors to keep them as our base for discussion.
    • The above-stated comparisons on Catalog.loc.gov, Google, and Google Scholar indicate the Recognizability and Naturalness of the title. We could do a similar search on YouTube and find the same results.
    • Precision: There exists someone named Goswami Kriyananda. Hence, referring to our article's subject as "Swami Kriyananda" is more precise than 'Kriyananda'. It removes ambiguity to a novice visitor of the page.
    • Concision: A lengthy title would be "James Donald Walter (a.k.a Swami Kriyananda)" or even just "James Donald Walter". On the other hand, "Swami Kriyananda" is concise. No doubt, "Kriyananda" is more concise, but it is less recognizable, less natural, and less precise.
    • Consistency: WP has several articles containing "Swami" in their title, because the above 4 characteristics made it necessary to include the title. This article title is just an addition to that big list.
    • Above points weren't covered in the archived discussion, which was surfaced by Rotideypoc41352 . Hence, we need a fresh discussion.
    • Also, the redirect target views page shared by Rotideypoc41352 cannot be accepted as a proof because it only indicates Google's SEO behavior. People generally click the first wiki link they find on Google. Even if you search "Swami Kriyananda", Google shows WP page of "Kriyananda", not "Swami Kriyananda".
    • I hope this helps put forth a good reasoning to include Swami in the title (and also in the first paragraph of the article). Please let me know your views.
    Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

In my research here are a few things that pertain to this discussion.

  • 1955 initiation as a monastic in SRF given the name Brother Kriyananda.
  • 1962 Asked to leave SRF - used the name Swami Kriyananda
  • 1981 Renounced his monastic vows and then married. J Donald Walters
  • 1995 Resumed the monastic vows - Swami Kriyananda
  • 2009 created a new swami order - Nayaswami and initiated himself and gave himself the title Nayaswami Kriyananda.
  • 2013 known as Nayaswami Kriyananda until his death in April 2013.

The people who were consistent are strictly known by one name like: Mother Teresa, Paramahansa Yogananda, Swami Vivekananda, etc...Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

But you see, a person may have many names, but only the popular one should be the title of the WP article. As I said earlier, the five characteristics for a good WP title captures the popularity aspect under its Recognizability and Naturalness. Requesting you to base our discussion on the five characteristics mentioned in Wikipedia:Article titles. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Since he was known by basically four names, using Kriyananda is best.

  • Brother Kriyananda for 7 years
  • Swami Kriyananda for 19 + 14 = 33 years
  • J Donald Walters his younger life and with SRF until 1955 - 22 + and when he renounced his monastic vows +14 = 36 years
  • Nayaswami Kriyananda from 2009 - 2013 4 years

Also, how people search for him on Wikipedia is telling. Here are the searchings from 7/22/21 - 7/22/2022

  • Kriyananda 19,618 [[3]]
  • Swami Kriyananda 975 [[4]]
  • Nayaswami Kriyananda 0 [[5]]
  • J. Donald Walters 0 [[6]]

It is clear that he is known the most as Kriyananda without a title and on top of that he changed his name to Nayaswami near the end of his life. We need to honor his wishes by calling the page Kriyananda and changing the photo to show him as a Nayaswami, wearing his blue robes.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Independent Review

I see that this page is still hijacked by biased writers and editors who have a vested interest in defaming swami K. Just be aware that this page may be the subject of an independent, comprehensive review outside of Wikipedia that may be published on YouTube. Thanks, Jack B108 (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This page is not up to Wikipedia standards. there are around 25 citations needed. This was written mostly by biased editors who neglected to cite their sources with reliable secondary sources. Edit away.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
hey, you're one of the owners of this page. Take some responsibility for it; why don't you fix the lede? It's quite inappropriate there to be mentioning the results of a lawsuit, as if that was the most important part of his whole life to the reader; it's also blatantly designed to bias the reader up front, because it makes it sound like it was a criminal case decision, which you know very well it wasn't.
My experience on Wikipedia is that the crappier the article, the more the people responsible for it holler and holler about secondary source citations...you need a citation that the sun is the center of the solar system, probably. Jack B108 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
This page was begun in 2005 with many editors working on the page throughout the years. I didn't edit until 7 years later along with many others. I am not an 'owner' of this page. Just recently I came to correct my errors as I did on other pages and as I was doing that if I found an error I might correct it as well. I am learning about correctly attributing quotes, when it is needed and when it is not and about synthesis. If you are not happy with the page, feel free to edit it with reliable secondary sources. I am not sure which legal case you are talking about when you say it was not a criminal case. I have done some research on the legal cases as I searched for secondary sources. Following Wikipedia guidelines, primary sources are not appropriate for controversial things.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
It is true that this page has biased reflection for reasons known to all. But we all have social responsibility to project his so much of good work done in the society and millions have benefitted because of his work and teachings. I did edit this page few weeks back but you removed it within few hours, because of lack of resource. I am in the process of gathering secondary or tertiary resource to give a better look to this page . We all are responsible to project positivity and light in this world, and this we shall not forget ever. Joygupzzz (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Kriyananda photo

I am proposing to place a photo of Nayaswami Kriyananda at the head of the page because that was his religious order when he passed away.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. But I think it need not replace the current picture, rather maybe we can have his Nayaswami photo in the 'recent years' section we the establishing of Nayaswami order has been described. What do you say?
on on Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think of it, we can have a new article on the Nayaswami order. Let me see if I can make one. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it is best to have only one photo and to use the most current one, which would be him in his Nayaswami outfit. Also there is not enough information to fill a whole page on his order. It is best to leave it here.Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for placing this picture of Swami Kriyananda Joygupzzz (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

We can always add more information on the Nayaswami page (once it comes into existence). I think it's better for all to have something rather than nothing. I think it's in line with WP:Purpose, isn't it?

Regarding photos, it's actually helpful if we more photos, one in each section. Just like other articles have it. We can have one at Childhood, then when he met Paramahansa Yogananda, then early Ananda days, then some book launch, then Nayaswami.

Please do point out if there is any official Wikipedia rule on the number of pictures in an article. Bluesky whiteclouds (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joygupzzz It seems you are not aware that there is a process editors have to go through to put photos on Wikipedia. If a file is copyrighted one needs to gain permission to place it here. All files and photos can be used by any reader. You can follow the link to the deletion discussion about the recent photo you added and ask them where to go to learn about it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13 I am aware of copyright issues, I will get permission to publish from Ananda, s that this copyright is take care of. Thanks Joygupzzz (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Long way to go and lot to learn, thanks for the inputs @Red Rose 13 Joygupzzz (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kriyananda/Archive_3&oldid=1186127102"