Talk:Autobiography of a Yogi/Archive 1

Discussing Changes 11/10-18
Let's discuss change as we make them. Here are the reasons why I made the 11/10-18 edits:

Let's discuss further changes as we make them, please. &#2384; Priyanath 20:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed "introducing Vedic philosophy to the West" to the more accurate "introducing the ancient science of yoga and meditation to the West". Yogananda was much more a yogi than a vedantin. His book, as the title makes clear, is more about Yoga than Vedanta
 * Changed '200 colleges and universities' to 'numerous colleges and universities'. Many of these statements need citations. See WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. While the statement still could use verification, the more specific number begs for a reference
 * Added specifics about the 100 greatest spiritual books and a reference.
 * Moved wikisource online book link to top of article: some people think that by coming to this article they are coming to the actual book. Others should also see it at the top (rather than at the bottom of an extremely long article), so they can read the book for themselves, rather than just seeing a book review or synopsis.
 * Moved photo of Yogananda down to the first section, where the article starts talking more about Yogananda, rather than about the book.
 * Added testimonial from Galli-Curci, a famous and notable person
 * Added numerous photos from the book itself
 * Cleaned up quotes
 * Formatted quotes according to proper Wiki formatting, see WP:MOS
 * Re-ordered and combined part of several sections that each talked about Sri Yukteswar, and put them into a separate section, The guru-disciple relationship, that gives proper emphasis to the most important relationship and person in the entire book.

I think you have done a fabulous job. Thanks. I also think chapters "Critical View of Changes" and The Spelling of Paramahansa" are not necessary, they are not important for his biography and some different subject to me. In any case a small reference would be more than enough, but both together are nearly 700 words in an article of 4,000 words, this is too much, and in my opinion irrelevant and superfluous, sorry, I have to say what I think, and I hope it is seen as a constructive remark. I would use that space for other more important facts about Yogananda's life or teachings.--Pedrero (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Publication date
When was the autobiography first published? Evangeline (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Autobiography of a Yogi.jpg
Image:Autobiography of a Yogi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signature Alteration
The article talks about SRF altering Yogananda's signature. The source it links to doesn't provide any information related to the signature alteration. Also, it's not a credible source. Please provide a credible source that shows that Yogananda always used to sign without an "a." It's possible that he signed both with an "a" and without an "a." The discussion that follows after the certain paragraph outlines the difference between "paramahansa" and "paramhansa" from a npov. 207.112.100.8 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Having at hand only the German version, SRF 1998, reprinted in 2002, they (SRF) note on p.xxii that the (almost) mute a inbetween m and h was omitted in a few early versions. Paramahamsa Yogananda first signed his portrait that way. Later they SRF (AND? Yogananda) struck to the official transcription, which seemingly was again changed to Paramahamsa, later. [w.] 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
i reverted the article subject to sectarian vandalism. The article in the Portuguese Wikipedia has also been reverted. The controversy existis and cannot be erased. Besides, there are many publications of the book in print so it is not proper to illustrate the article with the commercial Self-Realuzation Fellowship' s publication cover, as if it is the one and only. The signature of Paramahansa Yogananda has been altered -- forged is the technical term - after the death of Yogananda. To check this please visit any of the 1946 editions free for download, which contain reproductions of all the pages -- his signature, pictures and illustrations. Thank you. I suggest a discussion before editing the page to look for a consensus. Tat Sat (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

= There are a few broken links that should be updated. Thank you Tat Sat (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Tat Sat has performed a vandalism edit just now - the previous major clearing edit was done by a Wikipedia editor about a month ago who completely cleaned up this article according to Wikipedia rules. Also, he, this editor said Wikipedia articles are supposed to be third party references not to commercial enterprises. The same needs to occur on the Portuguese page as well.  In fact Wikipedia there has giving that page a 2 and has asked that other editors come in to fix that page.  There are no broken links - I check regularly.Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

PS As for the Portuguese page it is protected at this moment, due to sectarian dozens of small editions which affected it's imparciality, supressing the controversy and the law suites. improvement in the article is always welcome. The vandalism was reverted. Please, don't forget to sign. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not fair to illustrate the article with the publicity of Self-Realiztion Fellowship' s cover of the book . SRF edited the book after the death of the author and among nearly one thousands changes made in the text, one of the most polemic was the forgery of Yogananda's signature, which impairs SRF's credibility.. There are other publications of the book. My suggestion is to put the original cover, since the book was published in 1946. Tat Sat (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Tat Sat, wikipedia is not a forum to push an ideology. It only allows information from a notable npov & secondary sources. If there are notable third party sources behind your ideas then please provide here first. Otherwise, it is considered primary research. I have also taken a look at the Portugese page. Do not start an edit war as you have done with another editor on the Portugese page. Please take a look at Identifying reliable sources. NestedVariable (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with NestedVariable. I have little knowledge of this subject but was the person referred to above who cleaned things up here. I didn't really ned to have subject knowledge to do what I did. I also don't need it to tell both "sides" of this discussion that if they include unsourced or poorly sourced statements, engage in synthesis, skew things, fail to assume good faith etc then they are on a slippery slope. Please discuss differences of opinion here rather than engage in back-and-forth on the article itself. Try to provide some evidence to support your assertions and give people a few days, rather than minutes or hours, to respond. As for the Portuguese article, well, that is a matter for that version of Wikipedia and is not particularly relevant here. Which is fortunate for me because my abilities with the Portuguese language are little better than my abilities with Gibberish! - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the use of SRF´s commercial cover of the book to illustrate the article
The Portuguese page was protected from Red Rose editions -- not mine -- and you can verify this information even if you don´t speak Portuguese. I think it is necessary to discuss point by point. Let´s start with the use of the cover of one of the many publications (you chose SRF´s commercial cover in detriment of all the others) to illustrate the page. I suggest that if you want to use a picture of the book cover, it should be the 1946 original cover. I have it and can upload it. After arriving at a consensus about which cover should illustrate the article, we can move to other problems, in order to avoid sectarian editions of this article. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't choose any cover. There was a discussion involving several users and that had regard to what appeared to be an image of dubious provenance. Not being particularly interested in image work, I left them to it after having ensured that the "bad" image was removed. One of the others involved was who does have a very considerable experience in image work here. I do think that the first edition cover would be A Good Thing (and I did remove a lot of crap sourced to SRF) but are we ok on copyright grounds? It needs to be public domain both in the US and in the country of publication, or else we need to provide a fair use rationale. I am assuming that the current image is ok due to Magog's intervention. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion may be of interest re: the image situation. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the discussion related to the pic in the Yogananda article, but the principles apply here. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello - in regards to using the cover that is there - I thought it was appropriate to use the current cover of the book, with an attempt at keeping Wikipedia up-to-date. It would be a good idea however to put the historical 1946 cover image below the current cover, where the picture of Yogananda is now. It would be of interest to readers and it would also be next to the section with links to free online 1946 versions. What do you think?Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

PS Why Red Rose makes hundreds of small editions? Not to be detected by the robot? I wonder... Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the book was written and published in the US by an Indian author who lived in the US. The copyright belonged to him, Yogananda, not to SRF. But SRF failed to renew the copyright, so the book and all its contents and images are in public domain. The plentiful of links Red Rose inserted only proves that the book is in public domain -- although he did it probably to avoid people from buying the Ananda´s edition, available for download at Ananda´s site, for free. The excess of links is done to hide Ananda´s visibility. So I think that if you follow the Hague Convention, the book is in public domain around the world. Anyway, has anyone from India complained from copyright infringements to ? I have noticed that SRF members want to erase all the controvert information about the book, but it does exist and the controversy cannot be denyed. They want to use Wikipedia as a means to advertise SRF and its points of view. The vandalism of the page, which I reversed, included the suppression of the law suite of SRF against Ananda, which was a shot in their feet, since it proved, among other things, that the book is in public domain. The only text in English that is protected by copyright is the text modified by SRF. The copyright of the SRF´s cover Red Rose published belongs to SRF, since they changed the original black and white photograph to a hyperrealistic painting -- which copyright also belongs to SRF. Anyway, since SRF has forged his founder´s signature years after his death, we must be wary of anything they say. I hope I can be useful.


 * Please stick to the discussion matter and refrain from personal attacks. Wikipedia tries to remain neutral by basing information on objective & notable/reliable secondary sources. It doesn't mean wikipedia is right or wrong but we need to follow wikipedia guidelines. No one is contradicting that the book is in public domain. was asking if the image that you are suggesting is in public domain or not. If it's not public domain then relevant information will need to be provided. Anyways, Red Rose has a suggestion please provide your input. NestedVariable (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The book was published in 1946. The original cover should be used not SRF´s nor Ananda´s, nor any other one. SRF´s edition should not prevail over the others. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: Isn't the Ananda cover the original cover?Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The cover is very similar. That´s why I proposed to put Yogananda´s picture and not the cover. But the original cover should be used, in my opinion. Tat Sat (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The indenting is going all over the place here, so I've taken the liberty of amending Tat Sat's. . Let's break this down:
 * the article concerns a book more than it does an individual, who has his own article anyway
 * the first image should therefore preferably be of the book
 * we prefer generally not to promote commercial sources when there are alternates
 * there is no doubt in my mind that this article and its companion biographical article were, until my involvement, basically promotional pieces for the SRF, which is effectively a commercial organisation even if it might also be non-profit or something similar
 * the first edition of the book is apparently in the public domain (I am unsure about this statement but it can be ascertained)
 * although Yogananda may have owned the copyright to the text, that does not mean he owned the rights to the cover
 * there is nothing encyclopedic to be gained from depicting covers from multiple editions, unless the purpose of the article concerns the evolution of cover art etc. Which it does not.
 * So, to tighten up my original question, please can someone provide evidence of (a) where the first publication occurred; (b) when; (c) what the copyright notice says for that edition, and (d) is there any indication of the cover designer for that edition. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush are you paraphrasing TatSat or are these your thoughts? I am confused.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I need to clarify a couple of things here:
 * (1) Self-Realization Fellowship is completely non-profit organization so this has absolutely nothing to do with commercialism or money at all.
 * (2) I am not directly affiliated with SRF or Ananda but a concerned person that wants the truth to be told here.
 * (3) I know that Ananda has many businesses under their wings - like Crystal Clarity Publishers, Inner Path, Expanding Light, Happy all the time, Moments of Ananda, Living Wisdom, The Fellowship of Inner Communion, Ananda Pilgrimages, and many many more.
 * (4) Ananda would benefit greatly commercially to have the original cover on the page because it looks identical to their version of the 1946 book.
 * (5)So I don't see too many options here except:
 * (a) to leave the SRF cover with the original version cover placed below it
 * (b) Use a photograph of the original with out the cover which is blue with gold letters on the front and not picture
 * (c) or place a picture of Yogananda here like the one on his page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My previous post represented my thoughts. As far as yours above goes, well, you seem not to be getting it. Firstly, I specifically accounted for non-profit status: "non-profit" does not mean "non-commercial": they exist as an advocacy group and are funded by some means or another to pursue that advocacy. Secondly, I made no comment on your personal affiliations, nor do I particularly care. Similarly, I don't care to read the mind of Ananda, merely to follow as best we can the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community. Thirdly, a picture of the guy would be all wrong if an alternative exists, as would a picture of the SRF cover if the original is capable of being used - and you have given absolutely no reason why I should think otherwise. You seem to be aware of the details of the original cover, so perhaps you can answer the questions that I have now asked twice, in different forms. Given what you have said, could you perhaps take a look at the frontispiece if you have it available? We often use those when covers are bland. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * please explain consensus of the wider Wikipedia community. I don't have the original copy myself nor do I have access to one immediately Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Answer to Sitush
 * The best evidence is that the facsimile of the original 1946 edition is everywhere, from [ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Autobiography-Yogi-Facsimile-1946-First/dp/8172246609 amazon.co.uk] to all the sites Red Rose inserted. It more than proves that the editio princeps - first edition - was printed in 1946.
 * Facsimile means: "a copy of anything made, either so as to be deceptive or so as to give every part and detail of the original; an exact copy or likeness."
 * If you want I can scan some pages of this 1946 edition for you. How should I upload them? I do have the 1946 edition of the book.
 * The copyright page says: "Copyright, 1946, by Paramhansa Yogananda - Printed in the United States of America - Published by THE PHILOSOPHICAL LIBRARY, INC. 15 East 40th Street - New York, N.Y.
 * Last but not least, please read the whole legal case of of Self-Realization Fellowship versus Ananda Church, which -- quoting Wikisource -- discussed the copyright status of Yogananda's works, including Autobiography of a Yogi. The text in question was originally treated as a copyright violation, based on the following renewal notice: Renewal R590359. - Autobiography of a yogi. By Paramahansa Yogananda. © 12Dec46; A9494. Self-Realization Fellowship Church (PCB); 13Nov74. This renewal was the subject of a legal case in which the renewal was voided. "We hold that SRF was not entitled to renew its copyrights in books authored by Yogananda." - Text from the discussion page of this article in Wikisource.
 * Anyone who claims the book "Autobiography of a Yogi" -- its cover, its texts, its photographs and illustrations -- is not in public domain is making a false allegation.

As for Red Rose, I can´t believe he has the courage to say that "Self-Realization Fellowship is completely non-profit organization so this has absolutely nothing to do with commercialism or money at all". Of course they make a lot of money with commercial activities. Or did people from SRF learn some yogic power to materialize money out of thin air? Also, does the similarity between the original cover and Ananda´s cover make the original cover unnacceptable? But Red Rose insists in using SRF´s cover to illustrate the article, of all the covers that exist. It is sectarism. - Thank you, Tat Sat (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, I think that you should take a read of WP:NPA. I am well aware of how organisations similar to the SRF frequently operate but there is no need to personalise your comments quite so much. Thanks for the info. I am not reading a court document - I am not qualified to do so. Since copyrights cannot be renewed & first publication was USA, 1946,, the latter is the bit that matters. Is the cover as Red Rose describes? Does it even have the title on it? - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush - The paper cover is blue with a picture of Yogananda in the center and looks identical to the Ananda Organization's book - if you take the paper cover off - the hardbound book looks like this - http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l2736&_nkw=autobiography+of+a+yogi   scroll down to #25 to see without the cover (not a good picture but I can get one) #3 is with the cover and #4 is the Ananda book.  Hope this helps.  Oops #4 is with the cover & #5 is the Ananda book.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The cover is exactly that. Ananda prints a facsimile of the book, inserting "Reprint of the Philosophical Library 1946 First Edition" in red type. Tat Sat (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush - Fyi...while searching for the covers for you I found two more publishers who are printing the 1946 version and they all have different covers - there are a total of 5 now that i know of - the commercial organization Ananda is the only one with the same cover as the original.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is because the whole book is in public domain. In the United Kingdon´s amazon.co.uk the facsimile´s link is to another publisher of the book. The cover is identical as you can see in the link I inserted in a precedent post -- just because it is the 1946 cover. It also means that the knowledge of the controversy of the "commercial" SRF organization - to quote Red Rose - changes in the text of the book and in Yogananda´s signature after his death is widespread. We should keep our focus in the book which was published in 1946, with a specific cover. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush -It is clear to me that SRF accidentally left the Copyright lax and now anybody can copy the 1946 version and sell it as they wish - that is what is known widespread. Some people use the spelling Paramahansa and some use Paramhansa when they reprint or post the 1946 version of this book. It really doesn't matter - it is still Yogananda and the same book - what they are missing however are Yogananda's edits and wishes for future revisions that he gave his editors regarding future revisions to the AY before he died. These revisions are in the current books Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Question for TatSat - I don't know the answer but could you let us know. Is Ananda a non-profit or for profit?  Also, with all the business that generate from Ananda - are they non-profit or for profit?  Thank you.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oooooh, crap. It now seems that this is turning into a dispute based on affiliations. Both of you are taking positions that - if we reduce it to basics - are related to some ownership dispute between different sects. It may well be the case that neither of you are affiliated to those sects but, with my apologies, that is how it is looking to someone (me) who most definitely is not involved. I am away over the weekend, continuing my mission to fell some extremely high trees. I have the distinct feeling that even this usually simple discussion about an infobox image is heading for WP:DRN but I will have a think. At the end of the day, all that matters here is verifiability based on reliable sources. and as things stand I am seeing a lot of verbiage but no clear-cut verifiability. If it comes to the worst, we simply do not have an image in the infobox - it is no big deal and indeed by far the majority of English Wikipedia articles have no infobox at all. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, this article is about a book that was publushed in 1946 WITH a cover. It as simple as that. Wikipedia cannot hide its cover because Red Rose does not like it. Just look at the page of ANY book to see if its cover can be supress. In the meanwhile the SRF's cover will remain, the chosen one among 6 at least? Tat Sat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi all - honestly I didn't mean any offense and I am sorry if it seemed divisive - I am trying to get the whole picture. The page is about Autobiography of a Yogi. I am ok with no picture or no info box or a picture of Yogananda at this point.  There are basically 6 book cover versions (1 current one and 5 of 1946 versions) that I am aware of and I think to be fair to all concerned that is the only solution I can see...not to favor one cover over the other 5 covers.  I personally can rest until you are available again Sitush. Have a good weekend. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest then, Red Rose, as a first step that you replace SRF's cover by Yogananda's picture I had placed before. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I plan to wait for our moderator Sitush before I make any changes - we need to have a consensus and that includes you saying what it is that you prefer and Sitush agreeing or not agreeing. Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

While we were discussing to try to reach a consensus Red Rose vandalised the article again
While we were discussing to try to reach a cosensus Red Rose vandalised the article again. He supressed even the differences between editions, that I had reverted. Besides Red Rose thinks that the SRF' s book with the text adulterated many years after the author's death is the "complete" edition. If the page is not reverted and we start editing from there looking for a consensus, I will request WP:DRN. Certainly there are editors who have experience in editing articles about books. I repeat: the article is about a book publushed in 1946 WITH a cover and we cannot put the book's cover because Red Rose does not like it. Tat Sat (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Check out what adheres to Vandalism. You are misusing the term. Definitely if we cannot reach a consensus we will have to rely on WP:DRN. The point is any and all edits are welcome as long as the source is reliable/notable. You can provide the differences between the editions as long as you are basing the information on a secondary source. It cannot be based on your primary research or a source that is affiliated with Ananda, SRF or other party with an interest. Before you make any edits please discuss here and come to consensus. Regarding the cover of the book, we need to ensure that the original image is free of any copyrights. I believe Magog has been informed and I suggest both of you work with him to come to a decision. NestedVariable (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I see you have again reverted back to what the page was 3 years back. Do not initiate an edit war. Again, please discuss before making any drastic changes. NestedVariable (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Creating a Consensus regarding what picture to use in the article info box

 * To Sitush our moderator and others - by looking at the edits you can see what Tat Sat is saying is not true. I look forward to continuing our moderation when you return.  The minor edits I did was basically adding two more publishers of the book that had absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing = which picture to put in the info box.  Have a good weekend.


 * Red Rose, I am not a liar so please don´t affirm that what I am saying is not true. I can prove everything I write. I know the beligerency, disputes and controversy that involves the trajetory of this book and would never make a false statement. We should not even be discussing the use of the original cover of the book since it is not a subjective matter. The book was published in 1946 WITH a cover. This cover cannot be suppressed. The page as it is advertises SRF and SRF´s point of view. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Books Guidelines
WikiProject Books guidelines are quite clear about the infobox. The infobox should describe the first edition of the book. Furthermore, it is stated that: "If using an image of the book cover art, try to select the cover of the book's first edition. If using an image of the author, try to select a photo dated around the time of the book's publication." These guidelines should be followed here, and I've corrected the image, the publisher (cited to the US Library of Congress), and removed the ISBN (the first edition did not have one).

These choices are the standards observed throughout Wikipedia with respect to articles about books. They should be implemented without question. Those wishing to follow these standards should not have to go to meditation to get them adhered to. Rather, those who want to vary from the standard have to make a case for such variance and get consensus from all the editors of the page. This has not been done, and the standards should therefore be followed. Yworo (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yworo however, you know we are in mediation yet you changed this before we made a case for a variance or came to consensus. What are the Wikipedia guidelines for that?Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not require editors to participate in or be bound by any mediation unless they agree to be so bound, nor may the fact that a mediation is imminent be used to freeze the article in any party's preferred form. Yworo (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Rider editions
I think the Rider editions are all reprints of their 1950 edition. Anybody know for sure? Yworo (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not for sure, only probably yes. As for SRF' s editions, why not just say it started publishing the book from the 5th edition on instead of listing every new edition? Tat Sat (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In the process of researching it...will let you know what I find out. Good to see the history of the editionsRed Rose 13 (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I googled rider and then searched their site - apparently they are not publishing it - just found a copy and sent in question.  will continue lookingRed Rose 13 (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Tat Sat, for a popular book, showing all editions supports its popularity and shows that it has been continuously in print in various editions, which is actually pretty rare in the book world. Also, where possible I've included the number of pages, which give some indication that editing has been going on. They may well have published 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions as well, but if so, they are not listed the use US LoC or at Worldcat, that I've been able to find. Yworo (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Found Rider 1996 version - Oops! I am still not sure - the info actual takes you to the Crystal Clarity/Ananda book - I am going to revert what I put in.Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Research discovery - SRF apparently has publishers publish some of there books including the Autobiograhy. Rider (UK) was one but isn't now  and Jaico (India) is one.  There could be more that I might discover.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't assume anything from those covers. They are probably simply posting covers of the SRF edition in violation of copyright, while shipping a different edition. This is not uncommon with Indian publishers. Yworo (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok can check with the SRF publisher next week to verify.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ethics in Publication
The quotes I hid refer to one of the many versions of the book published and heavily edited by SRF - after the death of its author. Ethics in Publication forbids unmistakably any change in a book after the author´s death - unless he has left written evidence of his intentions. This is done to protect the work. Since SRF forged the signature of the author many years after his death and has not provided any proof that confirms the author wished to change the text, the book as is published by SRF is a VERSION. There are many opinions of the book that do not advertise SRF as if it was the "official" publisher of the book. This is an article about a book, not a means of advertising a specific publisher. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Tat Sat if you find this quote in the 1946 version, let's use Gutenberg as the reference. For now I am reverting your change until we can discuss it here.  We will need to address all your claims and accusations as we move along in this process. Reading the article it is clear that SRF obtained the rights to the book and has been publishing it since 1953.
 * In my research I have found changes to some of the 1946 versions that have been printed. For instance this one: Autobiography of a Yogi, 2nd Edition: The Original 1946 Edition plus Bonus Material published by Crystal Clarity in 2005, 53 years after Yogananda's death. click here to read about the changes  and this publisher, Gardner, changed the cover, not able to see inside the book [ http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-P-Yogananda/dp/8120725247 ] for examples.
 * Also, I have found two books written by Swami Kriyananda who spelled Yogananda including the a = Paramahansa. Road Less Travelled - [ http://www.amazon.com/Road-Ahead-Sri-Kriyananda/dp/091612407X/ref=sr_1_75?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344747511&sr=1-75&keywords=kriyananda ] and The Path


 * Red Rose, the problem is not the spelling of the name but the forgery of Yoganandas's signature. Tat Sat (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, so you are ok with the spelling Paramahansa, like it is in two of Swami Kriyananda's books?Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The spelling of the sanskrit title Paramahansa is a matter of transliteration. The forgery of a signature is a felony. Tat Sat (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tat Sat (talk • contribs) 12:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Felony? I don't think so. Forgery of a signature on a financial document is a crime, but changing someone's signature after they have died for non-financial reasons is merely misguided deception. Yworo (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are right, Yworo. But why SRF would − let´s say − alter Yogananda´s signature? To reinforce what they say: Yogananda is an avatar, so a perfect being, a manifestation of a deity in bodily form on earth. This can have many indirect implications, including financial ones because the "devotee" donates a lot of money. Every religious tradition needs devotees. It was like SRF´s saying Yogananda´s body was incorruptible when I read the body was embalmed. Anyway, from now on I will use the word "alter", instead of "forge". Let´s give them the benefit of the doubt and consider it a misguided deception. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Another possible way to word it - editorial discretion in the publication process.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I would not go that far, Red Rose. If it was not for the reprint of the 1946 edition, nobody would know about it. Perhaps this explains the lawsuits and the hate members of SRF seem to have for Ananda and its founder − who also was − from what I have read, a direct disciple of Yogananda. I´ve read the lawsuit against Ananda costed around 40 million!!! dollars and nearly bankrupted Ananda. Then SRF says it is non-sectarian? I also found it awsome the number of anonymous websites discrediting and slandering Kriyananda. So much so that I was curious to read what he wrote and the impression I had is that he admits his erros and speaks the truth about Yogananda. However I like literature and I think we should consider the book a non-fiction work. Althoug, as you can read in Wikiquote, "All fiction may be autobiography, but all autobiography is of course fiction. Shirley Abbott, quoted in Mickey Pearlman, Listen to Their Voices (1993), ch. 12. I quote also a famous author in Brazilian-Portuguese language called Nelson Rodrigues who said: "All unanimity is stupid." By the way, I am reading now, in my Kindle, a very interesting book: The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer, by Christopher Hitchens. I think I will contribute to its book´s page at Wikipedia. Tat Sat (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In my research of the editions what I discovered so far, is that Rider was publishing the SRF books since 1950 and Jaico for SRF in India assuming it began on 1975 because that is the earliest date that Yworo found. The other publishers on this page are the ones reprinting the 1946 version. I think the Philosophical one is an error, not sure though.
 * Let's wait for Yworo to return, our expert Wikipedia mentor.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To avoid edit warring lets have Yworo or another third party editor making the changes and redrose or tat sat just offering content and guidance. NestedVariable (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Red Rose keeps editing compulsively the article, as if it was about SRF' version of the book. He insists in inserting information given by SRF not verifyed - in fact, contradicted by a lawsuit.. All the quotes cite SRF's version. The article is sectarian as it is. And NestedVariable keeps saying when I try to edit that we should wait for Yworo, while when Red Rose edits he does not complain. The priest and the sacristan: one prays, the other says Amen. And they say they have nothing to do with SRF. I removed also a link to a former SRF President, Daya Mata. Yogananda never mentioned her name in the book. In one of the hundreds changes SRF made after the author's death, SRF inserted a full page picture of Daya Mata in the text ( she was alive and approved the insertion of her picture).  This contradicts publication's ethic. Srf never proved the author wanted any change made after his death. Specially and certainly not in the adulteration of his signature. Yworo discussed with Red Rose about information that Yworo considered non verifiable and Red Rose ignored Yworo and inserted the very information. Tat Sat (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * TatSat I reverted your revert. I have been conversing with Yworo about this update and I believe I followed his guidance.  If you have a problem with the update, talk to Yworo first. The information is verifiable just by the fact of the list.  You can see that publishing transferred from Philosophical Library to the SRF publisher just by looking at the list.  The intro words have nothing to do with a lawsuit nor about the word copyright.  In my research Daya Mata and Rajarsi Janakanada were both presidents of SRF and are appropriate here.  Please finish your page - please note I am not editing or reverting on your page. It is clear to me that you don't have the full research regarding the Autobiography and I would be happy to share what I have found with you.  Apparently Yogananda did request that the book be updated by adding photographs, footnotes, etc...with the purpose of keeping up with the times.  Not sure where your animosity comes from but my intention here is to bring truth to this page and edit in harmony with fellow editors.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Quoting Yworo:


 * 1) Please do not make the claim that the the Philosophical Library edition was printed at the behest of SRF rather than for the undisputed copyright holder, unless you can find a third-party source that states this. You can't use an SRF source for this claim. Same with the claim for transfer of rights, self-published material by the SRF would not be considered a reliable source with respect to this particular information, as it is "self-serving". See WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF for the guideline about this. Both statements also make claims about a third party (i.e. Philosophical Library), for which self-published sources also may not be used. Yworo (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) We don't have to analyze who has what rights in a Wikipedia article; if there are no third-party sources about it, it need not be mentioned. And no, we can't use the Affadavit, especially when published by one of the parties. First, it's a primary source, even when republished. Second, we don't trust copies. I've got nothing against SRF and have no reason to suspect the affadavit might have been altered in publication; but seriously, SRF admittedly changed Yogananda's signature and didn't reveal this until years later, after it had been pointed out by others. Even with organizations with no history of such, oh let's just call it "editorial prerogative" to be polite, we wouldn't accept a copy of the document, only statements from a third-party researcher about the document. Yworo (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC
 * Red Rose it is extremelly tiresome to deal with you. You deny you have any kind of affiliation to SRF. Only you believe this. You keep inserting links to SRF that cannot be veritied. You should not be editing because your point of view is not neutral. Tat Sat (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tat Sat it is also tiresome for me as well but I am listening and changed the wording to make it more clear. PLEASE stop accusing me of things.  I am trying to bring information to the page that is neutral and the truth.  Let's work together and find a common meeting ground.  Yworo will help us.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As I told you, Red Rose, claims such as you tried to insert into the article must be cited to third-party sources. You made claims that were completely unsupported by any sources at all. You can't do that. You are making assumptions from primary data (the copyright pages of the books), which is original research. I've removed such claims. Please don't add them again. Yworo (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yworo, thanks for your edits, it looks nicely cleaned up in date and alphabetical order. Don't understand why we on wikipedia can't say that the SRF publisher took over from Philosophical Library when it is blatantly obvious.  Is the intent here for the reader to see it for themselves so we don't need to say so? Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we can't make any statements not sourced to a third-party source. As far as I know, there is no third-party source that makes any statement about a transfer or a "take over". There are simply several publishers, which each published the book for varied periods of time. We don't know from third-party sources the relationships between the publishers, why one stopped and another started, and we aren't permitted to make deductions or even point out obvious implications. In the latter case, yes, it's assumed the interested reader will make the necessary assumptions. Yworo (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Updating & improving Autobiography of a Yogi page

 * I updated the paragraph The books describes...by mentioning more about the beginning of his life, adding the organizations he started for his teachings, and about his return to America and his focusing on his teachings including writing the Autobiography. Also, it was good to clearly illustrate where he met these people, London, India and America.  As it was, the paragraph was not broad enough.  It seems this paragraph should be moved to the Overview section because that paragraph gives you a broad overview...what do you think?Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated the same paragraph with links to indicate the chapter in the Autobiography. Also, corrected the spelling of the names to match the Autobiography.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again TatSat you continue to attack my integrity and accuse me of many things...sigh.... if you would take a breath for a moment from attacking, you might be able to see more clearly. Please look more closely at my edits, you will see I improved the page for the Autobiography of a Yogi, no matter who the publisher. I thought it was important to expand the overview of the book from his childhood to his last days and everything in between.  So that is what I attempted to do. Yogananda is the legal founder of Self-Realization Fellowship from what I have discovered.  That truth cannot be hidden.  We are also waiting for Yworo to help us come to completion. When that discussion does occur, I have some interesting discoveries to share regarding missing poems and editing etc... I made sure the spelling of the people involved were spelled like Yogananda did but still were linked to the Wikipedia article even if the article spelled the name differently.  In reality even if people spell the name differently...it is still the same person.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Updated the page today by organizing the paragraphs and placing them where it seems logical to put them. Integrated a number of things from TatSat's page. We are a team, please give feedback. Not sure about the word prosperous in referring to his family - will research this.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Removed prosperous found no proofRed Rose 13 (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you think about adding links to the chapters from the reference area?Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC) added the linksRed Rose 13 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Yworo for showing me how to better link to a wiki page. In regards to Sri Yukteswar, I remembered that Wikipedia doesn't use Sri but the reason I left it in was because that was how Yogananda referred to him in his autobiography.  I thought it was appropriate to duplicate what the author did. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Updating and maintaining the article sectarian
Red Rose, this page is not about the SRF´s version of the book. Funny how you are worried about the spelling of the Anandamayi Ma´s name and corrected it because you said something like "that was not how Yogananda spelt it". And yet, you think the forgery of Yogananda´s signature is immaterial. A case of two weights and two measures? You "adapted" some text I wrote at Yworo´s draft page of the article. And I spelt it Anandamayi Ma - and not "Ananda Moi Ma" as you have "corrected" for a reason: I checked and saw it should refer to the Wikipedia´s article about the same person - which is spelt like I wrote. Going a little bit further, as Yworo wrote, "Tibetan and Chinese mispronunciations of Sanskrit mantras actually work for the Tibetans and the Chinese, but if you have a mission to "correct" them, you've got your life's work ahead of you, I guess." The mantra Om mani padme hum ओं मणिपद्मे हूं, (in tibetan ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པ་དྨེ་ཧཱུྃ )- especially revered in Tibet, is pronounced by the Tibetans quite differently: om mani peh meh hum. In Mongolia they chant "Om mani pay me hum". I saw thousands of Tibetan Lamas and Tulkus and Lopöns reciting it in unison in the Himalayas - Himagiri, Hemagiri: "Giriraj Sringe Mahadev Sange" - . And it seems to work for them. As for you, as long as you deny you having any connections to SRF, the "page of Autobiography of a Yogi" cannot improve. It´s nice to have a modest and unpretencious nature. I´m speaking generally, of course. And you keep preventing me from making it neutral, although you keep making literally hundreds of small editions to make it difficult to to separate the wheat from the chaff. It seems this page belongs to you for advertising Self-Realization Fellowship heavily edited version of the book, done after the author´s death. Deliberately a provocation agains the neutral point of view of Wikipedia, as it gives the false impression Wikipedia supports SRF´s version. Tat Sat (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of copyrighted image
Wikipedia´s decision to remove the copyrighted image of SRF´s cover of its version of the book has been disregarded. Red Rose uploaded the same image erased with another name. I removed it again. It was not my decision. By the way, Red Rose asked to have the image of Yogananda´s signature which is in public domain erased saying he was not sure the image was copyrighted - a doubt removed the image which is in a public domain book (all its content). The article as it is, is not neutral. I will be posting the changes made in the book after the author´s death, including its signature. Hope we can come to a consensus. I am not intending to remove SRF´s point of view, though, just add another point of view. Tat Sat (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Reinstating the Image
Wikipedia Commons removed the image of the current cover. Yworo said to upload it through Wikipedia itself, which I did yesterday. Please stop removing things unless you have discussed it here. If you are going to accuse me of things, show proof. I did not have anything to do with the removal of the signature. Yworo our expert Wikipedia editor said regarding your wanting to post abut the changes on this page -

"The most we are really going to be able to include would be something like the following:


 * Ananda Sangha has detailed editorial changes in the text made by the Self-Realization Fellowship starting with the 1956 7th edition,(cite) including a change made to Yogananda's signature in 1958, inserting an "a" to change "Paramhansa" to "Paramahansa".(cite) SRF responded to these observations in a letter dated such-and-such, stating that all changes were done based on the wishes of Yogananda himself.(cite)

Anything you add about this beyond what Yworo said that we are allowed to do on Wikipedia, I will be reverting.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the current image in the infobox is a copyrighted image that will have to be deleted from Commons. It can be uploaded to en:WP under a fair-use license, but this file is still on Commons. The image of a later edition displayed lower in the article is correctly uploaded to en:WP under a fair-use license. As for the content dispute, I have no opinion either way, except that the number of edits here by both Red Rose 13 and Tat Sat is quite staggering. You are both risking a block under WP:3RR. I suggest you both cool down and discuss you disagreement(s) calmly and rationally here before making any further edits to the article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Guillaume, I was instructed to add this file to Wikipedia because Commons needed to delete the previous one. Did I again upload it to Commons by mistake?  How do I upload to en:WP?  I didn't see a link in your post.  I didn't change the name to sneak it in - I thought the wording was better.  Also, I have permission from the publisher to place this image on Wikipedia and need to get this info to Wikipedia.  How do I do that? I don't know how to revert to a previous user otherwise, it would have been one post. Tat Sat has been instructed by expert editor Yworo what he can post regarding these issues...see above post.  There is a long history here.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just reread your post - I did upload it correctly then onto WP...The photo lower in the article is the one that was deleted from Commons and I uploaded through WP. ThanksRed Rose 13 (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Red Rose, you are acting very much in bad faith here. Guillaume has been drawn into something by your actions and will not be aware of the background, which has involved ANI, mediation and numerous user talk pages. You know that this image was deemed unsuitable and you continued insistence on promoting the SRF is likely to lead to some serious admin action unless you toe the line. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sitush, please review what has been said on this page. Yworo has been working with us for a month now and you might want to review our discussions before you accuse me of doing something in bad faith.  Yworo in one of those discussion said that it is ok to have two covers on a Wikipedia page the 1st edition and the current cover.  The 1st edition is in the info box which Tat Sat uploaded.  The current cover is down with the Editions section.  Commons deleted it and Yworo said I should upload it in WP instead, which is what I did. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That must be a very recent development. However, you are well aware that there is more than one current edition and in my opinion - as someone who has zero involvement in yoga etc but a lot of knowledge of your contributions - your selection is based on promotion/COI. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sitush, if you look at the page now and see editions listed, perhaps it will be more clear for you. But again I suggest you read through all the discussions on Yworo/Autobiography of a Yogi and User talk:Yworo archived.  Yworo moved the current edition out of the info box and down into the editions section. I really value Yworo's input because he completely understands the Wikipedia guidelines and is fair minded. I have learned a lot from him and hope to continue in the future.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need to keep boosting Yworo here. They took on a tough job and have done it well, but all these references to "expert editor" etc are of no particular relevance and I am pretty sure that if they disagreed with you then you would feel differently. The outcome of Yworo's efforts are similar to what I said here months ago. here and elsewhere. The pair of you (RR and TS, not Yworo) need to back off a bit with the warring etc here. Maybe go edit some articles that are completely disconnected from this subject? - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sitush, during the process Yworo did disagree with me many times, but he explained why and I then understood.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect removal the image of the book´s cover which is in public domain
Guillaume, the curent image in the infobox is not a copyrighted image. The book and its contents, including the cover, illustrations and photographs is in public domain. Red Rose will not allow the article to become neutral. We went through mediation and it took us months to insert the correct picture of the cover you just removed. Who told you the image is copyrighted? But the image you say is correct was deleted by Wikipedia because it is copyrighted. Could you please put the cover of the book back? Besides Red Rose will not allow a neutral point of view. The page as it is advertises the version of the book published by Self-Realization Fellowship. I will tag the page as not neutral. If I keep being unable to edit the page with facts and the book history, we will have to ask mediation again. Mediation was just closed. Is that what Red Rose wants? Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The page on Commons says that the image is released under CC by "I, the creator", which may or may not be true, but is invalid anyway because such an image cannot be released under CC by an anonymous editor. If the image is in the public domain, then please provide evidence of that in the deletion discussion at Commons. As for the other image, I have no opinion on whether it belongs in the article or not, only that it has been correctly uploaded, with a correct license template, in en:WP. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Once I learned that this is Wikipedia guidelines, it is clear that the 1st edition needs to be in the infobox. According to Gutenberg, the 1st editions is in public domain and is ok to be in the info box.  Tat Sat will just need to clarify that with them.  We have been in discussion with Yworo a Master editor II  for at least a month now and a lot has been worked out.  See his comments here  and the rest of the discussion has been archived by Yworo in his archived section.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * TatSat in regards to you wanting to add more than what Yworo has said is acceptable by Wikipedia Guidelines, you will need to discuss that with him. I value Yworo's input because he is fair and completely understands the guidelines set up by Wikipedia.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What I inserted and you removed is absolutely correct and neutral. It also has SRF´s point of view. We are dealing with facts. SRF did change the text immensely after the author´s death. And the author´s signature. I hope you agree with a neutral point of view. Just read what Wikipedia says in the help section. As it is the article is not neutral and you are aware of this. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead section
I have (deliberately) not looked at this article for a while. I've just now read the lead section and, well, it seems dreadful to me. What on earth are all those hagiographic quotations doing in there? Where is the attempt to be neutral and not to give undue weight to any particular person's opinion etc? - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with you, Sitush. Also the encyclopedic list of reprints of the book by SRF and other publishers is ridiculous. I have not seen this in any other book aticle. Only the changes should be mentioned, for example: the book was published in 1946 and was well received (I have a list of reviews from Newsweek, The New York Times, etc.). Then in 1951 there was a new edition - and we should mention the changes made by Yogananda, who was still alive and added a chapter. After this SRF started publishing the book and we should mention the changes it made (at least the most controversials, since there are literally hundreds of them. Since I am only interested in facts, not subjective matters, you would most welcome by me at least to help improving the article. I am not interested in promoting any cult. My intent is to focus on the book and its trajectory of publication. As it is, it is all about Self-Realization Fellowship´s version. That´s why the article is not neutral. I could give you the facts, you could check them, remove all the dreadful text, etc. Since you are familiar with the article and its contents and you are impartial, I repeat your contribution is most welcome. Tat Sat (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The kind of detail about changes to the text listed in the table is simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The most we are really going to be able to include would be something like the following''' - Ananda Sangha has detailed editorial changes in the text made by the Self-Realization Fellowship starting with the 1956 7th edition, (cite) including a change made to Yogananda's signature in 1958, inserting an "a" to change "Paramhansa" to Paramahansa". (cite) SRF responded to these observations in a letter dated such-and-such, stating that all changes were done based on the wishes of Yogananda himself.(cite)
 * Yes, I agree the Lead section needs to be just neutral facts with reliable references. In regards to TatSat allegation about the "changes" I am in agreement with what Yworo said -

This statement along with one more sentence addressing the signature with a (cite) would be a neutral way to express the disagreement. Then the reader can follow the links and decide for themselves. The page should be about the book not the so called controversy by one party.

Also in regards to the reprints, it is actually a list of editions, if we listed the reprints, we would be overwhelmed with the number. Yworo actually researched and found most of the editions and placed them there. He mentioned that it is significant to have a list of the editions because, it is very unusual, indicating a very popular book even after 66 years. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Red Rose you wrote: "... not the so called controversy by one party." Which party are you referring to? Certainly SRF. Or can´t you agree that it was SRF that made the hundreds (literally) of changes after Yogananda´s death? PS In Publishing, a new edition is when the text is changed. A reprint is when an edition is sold out and you reprint the same edition. Since Yogananda died, there could not be new editions in any book by a dead author. People use wrongly the term "edition". You can check this information. Tat Sat (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Will the pair of you STOP FIGHTING and concentrate on the matter at hand rather than dragging up other stuff every time. This section concerns the state of the current lead section, nothing more and nothing less. Leads are supposed to summarise articles and this one not only fails to do that but is also very hagiographic and arguably runs against the spirit of WP:LEAD. I'm not interested in rehashing discussions about who printed what when etc. Well, not now at any rate. If you cannot concentrate and use a talk page as it is intended to be used then I'll be sorely tempted to find an admin who is willing to block for disruption. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Red Rose lead proposal
I added the first sentence and then here is what is in the overview section right now that when I reread it, is actually a good summary in my view.

What do you think? Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Tat Sat lead proposal
Tat Sat (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Blending Attempt
OK Here is my attempt at blending the one I wrote and the one TatSat wrote. What do you think TatSat?
 * Red Rose

Red Rose, the article should start with a summary like the one I wrote. In another section we can keep your information. Have you tried to read the best rated book pages of Wikipedia? I have been doing this a lot. The article as it is is not good. I suggest we start with my text because it is concise and succinct. Then we keep your text, if you want — without blending it. What do you think? My interest is on the book. Not SRF or Ananda although both are publishers and have equal weight as sources of information. Tat Sat (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi TatSat, do you have the link to the best rated book pages of Wikipedia? I'd like to look at it.After I look at other pages, we can discuss further.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

PS Red Rose, I wrote Yogananda came from a wealthy family because it is written in Chapter 1 "A daily gesture of respect to Father was given by Mother´s dressing us carefully in the afternoons to welcome him home from the office. His position was similar to that of a vice-president, in the Bengal-Nagpur Railway, one of India´s large companies ... Yogananda also said his father gave him money for his trip to America and that all the family had cars. If you read the Chapter 2 you will see they had two houses at a time and the preparations for his brother´s wedding were truly elaborate, ... the English, Scottish and Indian orchestras...
 * I am ok with using the words "well to do", ok? Red Rose 13 (talk)

As for your saying you don´t have anything to do with the request for deletion, you are the one who keeps saying perhaps the book is not in public domain, perhaps the cover is not in public domain, etc. You seem to know more about SRF than about the book, so please forgive me but I cannot believe you have any doubts about the book being in public domain and it includes the cover and the content: text, photographs and illustrations. I do not appreciate this. I never made a false statement. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think my beliefs are, is your personal opinion and doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. I see Wikipedia as a neutral place that deals with factual truth.  Again, I had nothing to do with the photo being tagged and would prefer that it not be deleted at this point because the Wikipedia guidelines say that it is important to have the 1st edition cover on the books page. You will have to upload it through Wikipedia itself which you can find in the column to the left- "Upload File". That is what I had to do with the current cover. Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please, Red Rose, the current cover of SRF´s version of the book, please. Tat Sat (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I wonder what do you have against saying Yogananda came from a wealthy family? He says so through all through the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tat Sat (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a time of compromise as I see it - Do you have the link to the best rated book pages of Wikipedia?Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Blending Attempt 2
When I googled the best rated book pages of Wikipedia and looked at a few, I think this is good, but I am open to input from Yworo and Sitush for clarification. Not sure what we will cover in the Overview - that would be good to know.

Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not commenting in detail right now, for reasons of which you are both aware. However, on the rather minor point of "wealthy" vs "well-to-do" vs "well-off" etc, I note that the Paramahansa Yogananda article only describes his family as "devout". Instead of using his Autobiography for this, can we find a 3rd party source and use it in both articles? Preferably, one that is not connected to any of the various movements that are associated with him etc. There would be no need to cite the source in the lead because that certainly would be required in an "Overview" secion (which, by the way, I think is a good idea in principle). My preference is to avoid quotes, lists and citations in lead sections wherever possible. This should usually be possible because the section summarises the article and therefore anything said in it also should be in the body, where it can be sourced and dealt with in more detail etc. - Sitush (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't settle down! If either of you care to trawl through the archives of WT:INB then you will find various discussions concerning mention of varna in lead sections. The consensus of the India Wikiproject is that varna should not usually be mentioned there because it just causes so many arguments and edit wars, and is usually not particularly significant. It does appear in some of the drafts above, although it is mistakenly termed "the Kshatriya caste" (varna is not a caste but rather a ranking system of religious or mythological origin). I suggest that we avoid the term: it is not relevant to the man or the book, and there is a wider consensus to exclude it. - Sitush (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, no need to post another draft at this stage, I feel. Let's discuss the various ones that we have. - Sitush (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Proposed final sentence of lead: - Sitush (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to post this but I already worked on this draft before I saw your note - Also, I thought you blocked us from posting and I posted this on Yworo - perhaps we were posting at the same time and was blocked temporarily? Anyway, I am working on this because tomorrow I will be working all day and not be able to check in except on my lunch break primarily - so please allow me time to participate at that time.


 * Draft 3 -
 * Autobiography of a Yogi is an autobiography of Paramahansa Yogananda (January 5, 1893–March 7, 1952) first published in 1946. Yogananda was born Mukunda Lal Ghosh in Gorakhpur, India, into a Bengali family. The Autobiography of a Yogi introduces the reader to the life of Paramahansa Yogananda beginning with his childhood family life to finding his guru and establishing his teachings of Kriya Yoga meditation.  There are chapters on The Law of Miracles and the lives and missions of spiritual luminaries.  The Autobiography is an introduction to the methods of attaining God-realization which includes miraculous encounters with spiritual figures of both East and West.


 * Autobiography of a Yogi has been in print for 66 years. In the United States alone, there have been fourteen editions including many reprints of those editions as necessary.  The first edition is in public domain according to Project Gutenberg and at least five publishers are reprinting it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * editions definition on wikipedia – - The bibliographical definition of an edition includes all copies of a book printed “from substantially the same setting of type,” including all minor typographical variants.


 * Reprints definition– - a new impression, without alteration, of a book or other printed work.


 * Hope you are feeling better tomorrow Sitush. Also, please invite Yworo to be a part of this discussion.  He has guided us for so long and I think it is important that he be here.  Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush, I highly recommend reading the Yworo/Autobiography of a Yogi talk page and Usertalk: Yworo archived page about this. We have covered a lot of discussions regarding this page and it would bring you up-to-date so to speak. There is a never ending stream of accusations from TatSat where he offers no proof or citations just opinions. Wikipedia is not about bullying others to get what you want on the page. Please see the current discussion on Usertalk:Yworo regarding the edits by TatSat which did undermine the article. Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Sitush - was just reading about the lead section here and it says that. "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article. "  Doesn't this mean that whatever is in the lead needs to be sourced by third party references from a reliable published source? Further down in the citation section is this quote - "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation."  Doing some studying about the section we are working on.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been in hospital, sorry. I'll be trying to catch up on things over the next day or two but am pretty tired at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No rush...take your time and rest. Was it the flu shot?  take care. Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just checking in, are you feeling up to begin the process? We can do it in small increments if you want. Thanks for your help with this.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a good call, RR. I'd kind of forgotten about this - perhaps some sort of Freudian thing! I am still on meds etc and they are messing me up a bit but I am around and will try to get involved again. I do think that we are not too far off getting an acceptable lead here. It would be great if you both could work together to achieve this: I don't really want to take sides and rather hope to find a compromise that fits with our policies etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Blending Attempt 3

 * Hello Tat Sat and Sitush - I read the article in the Wikipedia lead section and came up with another version. TatSat please comment on what you think. Sitush please let us know if I followed the Wikipedia policies.

Autobiography of a Yogi is an autobiography of Paramahansa Yogananda (January 5, 1893–March 7, 1952) first published in 1946. Yogananda was born Mukunda Lal Ghosh in Gorakhpur, India, into a Bengali family.

The Autobiography of a Yogi is a captivating introduction to the spiritual thought of the East, which had only been available to a few in 1946. Rarely does a spiritual person of such stature write accounts of his life experiences. The account begins with Yogananda’s extraordinary childhood, his adventurous search for his guru and the establishment of his first school. Yogananda journeys to America to speak in a religious congress in Boston, travels across America giving lectures and ends up establishing his teachings here. He then returns to India which includes encounters with the miraculous lives and missions of many spiritual luminaries. Returning to America he continues establishing his teachings, including writing this book. The book is full of fascinating stories told in a gentle manner with humor and common sense. The Autobiography has been in print for sixty-five years and translated into twenty-nine languages. In the United States alone, there have been fourteen editions including many reprints as necessary. According to Project Gutenberg, the first edition is in public domain and at least five publishers are reprinting it and four posted it free online. The author claims that the writing of the book was prophesied long ago by the nineteenth-century master Lahiri Mahasaya.


 * Well, it is POV, isn't it? "Captivating"? "Fascinating"? "United States alone?" I'm sorry, Red Rose, but you are going backwards here. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sitush - OK I am learning - what do you think now. From what I understand this section is just a summary indicating that more details are in the article. Also, my understanding is that this section does not need to include references/citations except if "the material is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." So I add a citation re: 100 Most... because it was a quote. Tat Sat, I integrated some of what you said, what are your thoughts as well?

The Autobiography of a Yogi introduces the reader to the life of Paramahansa Yogananda and his encounters with spiritual figures of both East and West. The books begins with his childhood family life to finding his guru to becoming a monk and establishing his teachings of Kriya Yoga meditation. Throughout his life in India, the author claims encounters with the miraculous lives and missions of many spiritual luminaries. The book continues in 1920 when Yogananda accepts an invitation to speak in a religious congress in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. He then travels across America lecturing and establishing his teachings in Los Angeles, California. In 1935 he returns to India for a year long visit. When he returns to America, he continues to establish his teachings, including writing this book.

The Autobiography of a Yogi is an introduction to the methods of attaining God-realization and to the spiritual thought of the East, which had only been available to a few in 1946. The author claims that the writing of the book was prophesied long ago by the nineteenth-century master Lahiri Mahasaya.

The Autobiography has been in print for sixty-five years and translated into thirty languages. It has been highly acclaimed as a spiritual classic including being designated as one of the "100 Most Important Spiritual Books of the 20th Century." According to Project Gutenberg, the first edition is in public domain and at least five publishers are reprinting it and four post it free for online reading. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

New additions to the Reception list
Another editor added Dennis Weaver and Gary Wright to the SRF Lake Shrine page without any citations. So I searched and found a number of citations for Dennis Weaver and expanded what the editor wrote and added the citations. In the process I discovered two more Autobiogaphy Reception additions, so I added them to the Autobiography page as well. Gary Wright I couldn't find anything so I left a citation needed for him. Thought it was good to explain the additions to this page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While looking for a quote for the lake shrine page for Gary Wright, I found his account of receiving the Autobiography of a Yogi so I added that here.Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am cutting the section back. It has far too much waffle, a fair amount of which appears to be trying link to the SRF and almost all of which seems in fact to be a game of "connections" between various adherents of New Age thinking such as Harrison, Shankar etc. (One reads, passes on to another, who passes on to another ... etc). - Sitush (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the corrections but what is a "waffle"? Learning... No game intended - just what I have found - in my discovery it was interesting to see how Shankar gave to Harrison who gave to Wright.  Hard to find 3rd party references for Shankar but I will continue to look.  No, not trying to link to SRF, in my research, it just comes up as what is but if it is best not to link to an organization, ok then.Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I couldn't see the original research link? which one?Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Waffle = irrelevant padding/filling-out of material. For example, it really doesn't matter to this article that Dennis Weaver joined the hippy band or whatever it is and lectured for 17 years. It is blatantly obvious to me that this notable phenomenon (the book) is going to attract oddball showbiz attention, just as Tom Cruise is promoted in connection with Scientology.. Being neither literary critics, theologists nor philosophers, the amount of weight given to the opinions of such people should be limited and this is especially so when there is an incestuous appearance to their "life skills" etc relationships. - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Updates to AY page
Removed the word caste per our discussion, moved one quote to overview section for now, deleted POV quote, moved third quote to Reception all per our discussionRed Rose 13 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Added the lead section from the discussion above since there were no objections. Trimmed and moved Dudley quote to reception section.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In part this article reads like an advertisement. I'm thinking especially of the list of people quoted in the Reception section. MurraySuid (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)