User talk:Skyerise/Autobiography of a Yogi

Headings
The first thing we need to decide will be which of the heading variants to use for each heading. I propose:


 * Overview
 * Publication
 * Reception
 * Contents
 * Editions
 * See also
 * Notes
 * External links

Yworo (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The image is of the original cover. It is not currently on Wikipedia. Since English is not my first language, I would not feel comfortable in editing the article. I agree with what you propose. Tat Sat (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. Where can I find the image? Yworo (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I´m preparing the original cover to post. I have the 1946 edition (and others), but the dustjacket is in tatters. I have some suggestions about the page and I will post them soon. Thanks. Tat Sat (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Principles for use of self-published sources
Our sourcing guidelines are clear that self-published material may be used to support the beliefs or opinions of the self-publisher in Wikipedia articles. What they may not be used for is for opinions about other people or organizations. So, there is nothing wrong with using Ananda Sangha as a source for its own opinions and beliefs that Autobiography of a Yogi has been progressively edited or for objective comparisons between editions. A book is, after all, neither a person nor an organization. What we cannot include are opinions about SRF or their motivations. We could only include these as covered by a third-party reliable source. As long as any accusations against SRF are not included in the article text, we are within Wikipedia guidelines for the use of self-published material. Also, if SRF has opposing opinions, these should also be included to SRF sources, so long as they are objective statements about the editing of the book, and not opinions about Ananda Sangha or the people involved in it. Yworo (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you are saying. I must go out now. I´will be back in about 30 min. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Requesting clarifications. As per WP:NOR, we are to use secondary sources of information. Stating opinions of Ananda/SRF based on Ananda/SRF sites would be utilizing primary sources of information. It is not important for wikipedia to list opinions, beliefs and justifications of various groups if it's based on primary research. NestedVariable (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:ABOUTSELF. The same exception is being used to allow SRF sources to be used, such as for the number of languages the book has been translated into by SRF. Yworo (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am aware of that but we also need to be cognizant about WP:EXCEPTIONAL. As per my understanding, WP:ABOUTSELF is upheld when the claims can be verified by secondary sources. There is an obvious interest among both parties (SRF and Ananda) to have information portrayed in a certain way. Also, none of the claims (of edits & justifications) of either parties have been verified by parties that are not affiliated with them. NestedVariable (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not exceptional to point out verifiable changes in the text of a book. We are not doing the original research. Ananda has done the research, and we are reporting on it. Yworo (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, in this particular case, it would be exceptional unless has been verified by secondary sources. I can be wrong but it seems all the claims of SRF & Ananda are supported only by primary sources. If all the claims are verifiable and notable then surely a secondary notable source would report it. Ananda/SRF might have done the research but we are reporting on information derived from a primary source. NestedVariable (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing two things here. Primary source, which SRF would certainly be, but Ananda is not; and self-published source, which both are. The point here is that SRF is the publisher whose editions are being compared. They would therefore be a primary source, that is, they are the actual publisher. Ananda on the other hand is a secondary source with respect to comparing the editions published by SRF, a third party. They are still a self-published source, and should not be used for opinions about SRF itself, but as a secondary source with respect to the comparisons, their research should not be excluded. Yworo (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Two weights, two measures... SRF, yes. Ananda, no. Both of them are publishers of the book: the original one and a version, heavily edited. We will have to mention the forgery of the author´s signature, admitted by SRF. Anyway, I am preparing the 1946 edition´s cover to post. I have the original one (and others, too) but the dustjacket is in tatters. I will also make some suggestions regarding the text of the article, soon. I think the original book should be the primary source then the article will mention the trajectory of the book. It is controversial due to the hundreds of changes made in the text after the death of the author. What do you think, Yworo? Thanks and best regards, Tat Sat (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, the best sources to use regarding changes are admissions by the changer. While self-published, such admissions are about themselves and certainly be used to support the fact that changes were made. Especially since we can't bring in speculation by another self-publisher about their motives, in any case. The important thing is, subsequent editions and signatures, etc. were indeed changed. The article should mention that, that's pretty standard for articles about books when successive editions do undergo changes. We can't, however, characterize the changes as controversial unless a neutral party, such as a news source, calls them such. Yworo (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Since I do not intend to edit the article myself I will just bring facts and you can write them. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yworo, I am going to include 3 early edition of the Autobiography of a Yogi. I have two of them. Also how should I upload the original cover? Thanks. Tat Sat (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You use the "Upload file" link in the toolbox section of the menu on the left of every Wikipedia page. Yworo (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Yaworo. Soon I will be uploading the cover and put a link for you to see it. I found the links listed under "Editions" confusing. For instance, I have the 1946 edition, the 1952´s and the 1956´s (all original). Well, the Philoshophical Library published 4 editions of the book at least before SRF bought the rights of publication. (1) In my 1952 edition it says: Copyright, 1946, by Paramhansa Yogananda - First Edition, 1946 - Second Edition, 1949 - Third Edition (enlarged) 1951 - Fourth Edition, 1952. Philosophical Library, Inc. Publishers, etc. (2) The 1956 7th edition published by SRF says Paramhansa Yogananda and has the correct signature (without the "a" in ParamAhansa, which was inserted in a later date). It also says: Copyright, 1946, by Paramhansa Yogananda. Self-Realization Fellowship is listed as the publisher. Then it says in another paragraph: A London, England, edition of Autobiograpy of a Yogi is published by Rider & Company (4th edition, 1955), 21 shillings. (3) We can add the number of pages for the 4th and the 7th edition. (4) When did SRF forge Yogananda´s signature? Until the 7th edition in 1956 -- published by SRF -- Yogananda´s name is still spelled Paramhansa. And it says the copyrights belonged to Yogananda, not to SRF. (5) What should I do, please? Is it relevant to list the UK editions? (6) if you think it should be necessary, I can scan and upload the copyright pages of these two editions -- which by the way do not have a ISBN number. (7) The roaring praise of the book came from the first edition. PS Some links point to wrong information. The Philosophical Library did not publish the book after the 4th edition. The link that says The Philosophical Library 1994 points to a book by Crystal Clarity, the Publisher of Ananda. Also I do not think Rider is publishing the book again. I don´t think the WorldCat is a reliable source of information. I looked at Alibris, amazon.com, Abebooks, etc. and Google but did not find anything. So my suggestion is that we erase these links. Tat Sat (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Worldcat is actually more reliable than commercial vendors. Not only does it typically list the correct information, it is based on copies actually held in libraries. All I can say is that the later editions by Philosophical Library must be complete reproductions. If Crystal Clarity did not add their own title and publication data page, libraries will use the reproduced page, and they are correct to do so. It's not a new publication without a new title page, it's a reprint of the PL edition. Yworo (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have just uploaded an image of the original cover of the book published in 1946. First edition_cover of Autobiography of a Yogi.jpg. Tat Sat (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest we use the ebay cover for authenticity and remaining free from any copyrights. []. NestedVariable (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter which picture of the cover is used. If it is still under copyright, it is still fair use, though the file would need to be moved from the commons to Wikipedia if that's the case. However, it appears to be in the public domain like the rest of the book, due to improper renewal (by an organization which did not hold the right of renewal). As the eBay photo is of exactly the same book, the considerations would not be any different for it than for the scanned image. WikiProject Book suggests that a scan of the actual book cover is preferred to one taken from Amazon or eBay, in any case. In fact, taking the one from eBay could be considered to infringe the rights of the eBayer who took the photograph. It might also have a watermark. Yworo (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I see. I didn't realize it was a scanned image but recreated graphics of the first edition. I agree it doesn't make a difference in that case. NestedVariable (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

= About the text of the article =

Yworo, my first suggestion for the text. The article starts: Autobiography of a Yogi is an autobiography. This is redundant. Why not describe the book something like this: Autobiography of a Yogi is a book written in 1946 by the Indian guru Paramahansa Yogananda. Considered his magnum opus the book is about the wise men of India, their lives and extraordinary powers. It says in the title page: "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." - John 4:48. Yogananda narrates his search for a guru and his encounters with leading spiritual figures -- such as Therese Neumann, the Hindu saint Sri Anandamoyi Ma, Mohandas Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir C. V. Raman, and noted American botanist #not plant scientist# Luther Burbank, to whom it is dedicated. The preface was written by Walter Evans-Wentz, the author of The Tibetan Books of the Dead, Tibet's Great Yogi Milarepa and others. (My text needs to be edited.) Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yworo, Yogananda cites the Bible all through the book - which has provoked criticism as you can see in this link - and I could look for other links - and dedicates a chapter to "The Law of miracles". Throughout the book he tells the story of unusual wonders such as raising the dead, healing terminal illnesses, seeing through the walls, materializing parfums, jewerly and objects, living without eating, reading thoughts, levitating, among other marvels. What I intend to show is that Yogananda is not the unanimity SRF´s says, there are pros and cons. I could give the information and you could edit what you think is relevant. It is difficult to go from a bad text to a good one. Certainly the text is not as good as the standard Wikipedia´s texts which are a reference for their outstanding quality. Tat Sat (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does have a standard form for the lead sentence, and our guidelines do indicate that the article should start like it does, even if it is redundant. The reason is that Wikipedia is hyperlinked. We can't link to the autobiography article unless we mention the word. Other than that, I see no reason not to move in the direction you indicate, though of course there should be a citation to support that there is a general consensus that it is a magnum opus. Yworo (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation.So let´s forget the magnum opus and maintain "Autobiography of a Yogi is the most popular of Yogananda’s books". Could you please explain to me why when we look for "Autobiography of a Yogi" in Google search the SRF´s version cover illustrates the link? Thanks. Tat Sat (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Google just needs to update the cache. It will update to the blue cover soon NestedVariable (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, NestedVariable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tat Sat (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)  Tat Sat (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Yworo. I am going to hide the present text and edit the outline of the article. This means the text can be reverted at any time. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am preparing other texts for the article, Yworo. I tried to respect the interlink by linking to the word "Autobiography" in the book´s title. If you think it cannot be done, please change it. Thanks. Tat Sat (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tat Sat. I will be removing the list of Evans-Wentz's books. This article is not about him, and how many books he has written has no bearing on the Autobiography of a Yogi article. This is Wikipedia, and his name is Wikilinked. A list of his books is one click away for the interested reader. Also, we are not supposed to link one word in a title, especially when it is the bolded subject. That's why it was written the way it was in the first place. Yworo (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. Much better now. Tat Sat (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

PS I think the list of people the author met should be moved to another place, since it is too long. The rest of the sentence lost it´s meaning. My interest is to improve the article so change everything you wish to make it better. No ego-trip from my part. Sorry for the insistence about hyperlinking the "autobiography" of the title. I will be more careful in the future. It is not fair to make you lose your time to explain to me twice the same guideline. Tat Sat (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, it did result in my realizing the sentence could be made simpler. No need for "written by" with an autobiography. It's a given that it is written by the subject. Yworo (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right! I read Red Rose denying (for the second time) he/she is associated with SRF. Amazing. Let´s see what will happen "before a cock shall crow two times"... By the way, I was wondering why did you remove the link to Stripping the gurus? Thanks Tat Sat (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't neutral and on further investigation, it appeared to be self-published. It was likely to become the subject of argument in a way that Project Gutenberg would not. Yworo (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yworo, hi. I have been trying for over 2 hours to upload the copyright page of the 1952 4th edition which I scanned. To no avail. I will try again tomorrow. Also, I can upload the copyright page of the 7th edition, published by SRF (it still says "Paramhansa" and has the correct signature in the frontispiece) which proves the forgery of Yogananda´s signature occurred many years after his death. When I see that Red Rose keeps editing the article — after denying he has anything to do with SRF — to insert editions by SRF, quotings which favour SRF, supressing the rival sects, it gives me a pervasive, overpowering feeling of nausea. Once I was interested in eastern spirituality, until I checked and found out that what they say is not what they do... SRF´s "devotees"´s hate of Ananda´s "devotees" is specially unrelenting. Swami Vivekananda, whom I consider a much greater thinker, said that more people have died in the name of religion than for any other reason. People who consult Wikipedia want correct information. Let´s give it to them. I abhor lies and sectarism. I have uploaded the 49th chapter added in the 4th edition. I will upload as soon as I can (I have been working over 10 hours a day these days) the 48th chapter so people can compare the changes and realize that SRF current edition has also heavily edited the last chapter. I was not able to add the 49th chapter to the free Wikisource 1946 edition of the Autobiography of a Yogi. Thanks. Tat Sat (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yworo and TatSat, I just uploaded the file that shows a picture of the cover, copyright page and the publishers notes page for the Autobiography of a Yogi, 1956, 7th edition. I had attempted to do it days ago and had to have it deleted.  This attempt seems ok.  Here is the link Autobiography of a Yogi Copyright and Publishers Notes 1956.  TatSat, I am not sure why you continue to feel threatened by my edits and continue to accuse me of things I am not doing.  It is confusing to me.  My edits improve the page for all the publishers of the Autobiography. Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops! I just remembered there is a process to bringing things to Wikisource so I need to continue the process before it is visible as a page So I need to ask a wikisource editors help.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just been told by wikisource that I need to upload this to Commons and they are going to delete...live and learn...I just typed all the text of three pages! THe document I will upload has the cover photo, copyright page and publishers notesRed Rose 13 (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * TatSat I just realized that the pdf I made of the 1956 cover, copyright page and publishers notes needs to be redone because it needs to be one page to a pdf page so that it is readable. It would be a total of 4 pages as one pdf. Can you do that?  If not, I will be able to do it next week.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Tat Sat (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How can we insert other covers of the book presently published, Iworo? I think the article should not have only the SRF´s current cover. Thanks. Tat Sat (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

PS The present SRF cover is copyrighted. Ananda´s original cover was also modified so it is also copyrightes - as well as the other publishers covers. What should we do? Tat Sat (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Two covers is pretty much as many as an article should have. The first edition and the latest or most popular edition. People can follow the ISBN links to a variety of places to see the covers of additional versions. Also, I am not sure that uploading scans of anything but a cover is permitted. You should really ask around on this on the projects where you are attempting to upload them. Here, they really constitute primary sources being used to do original research. We should rather use and cite the published research of Ananda Sangha. Despite strenuous arguments to the contrary, Ananda is not a primary source with respect to comparing version of the Autobiography. They are a third party when comparing the Philosophical Library and Self-Realization Foundation editions. So, we can simply cite their material for these changes. However, because they are self-published sources, we cannot cite their opinions about SRF motivations, only the factual comparisons. Yworo (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. I have relatives in town for the Labor Day weekend so probably won't have much time to respond until Tuesday. Yworo (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. Let´s forget Ananda´s cover and cite their research. I only uploaded the 1952 copyright page to use it here, because I wanted to show you it says there were editions (1949, for instance) we cannot find. I will keep editing the outline of the article hoping you will correct it and make any changes needed to improve the text. I hope you have a nice weekend. If I have any doubt I will post here. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, right. I can add those editions. Yworo (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Yworo, I am trying to edit the outline of the article. Could you please check the English and the formatting and correct my text? There is still much work to be done. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Signature
Just googling Yogananda's signature or handwriting (google image) it seems, he didn't sign "Paramhansa Yogananda" anywhere else except on the book. All the official documents and letters he signed as "Swami Yogananda." In order to avoid the controversy, it should be pointed out that the signature that appeared on the book was altered rather than giving the impression that Yogananda's official signature was altered. Also, on that paragraph, the change was deemed controversial but as Yworo pointed out earlier somewhere that we cannot call the changes controversial unless a third-party calls it such. In anycase, feel free to improve from what I have there. NestedVariable (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * TatSat Show me where = "NestedVariabel edits with Red Rose to dismiss the controversial issues" Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Time for an admin
Yworo, I think it is time we could have an admin "merge" this new version of the Autobiography of a Yogi page (based on the template at WikiProject Books) into the edit history. I just reverted 16 small editions Red Rose kept making in the Wikipedia´s page of the article - yesterday only. The way it is I am banned from editing and the page "belongs" to Red Rose, NestedVariable and Self-Realization Fellowship. I say the page - as it is - is about the heavily edited version SRF´s book. I think the information about the changes and when they were made is extremely important, as well the forgery or alteration or whatever they did with the author´s signature, which was only revealed by the 1946 reprint. I insist that changing a text after the author´s death infringes publication´s ethics. The page as it is is sectarian and is not neutral. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC) PS I could not see a list of all the editions of a book released by a publisher (in this case SRF) anywhere else in Wikipedia. It is unbelievable. Only relevant changes should be mentioned. Tat Sat (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * TatSat no one is banning you from making edits that have verifiable citations but all you do is revert other editors edits. Everything I added is the truth so I am not sure what the problem is here.  I am focused on this page right now in exclusion of all others because we are trying to continue bringing truth and neutrality to this page.  In the process I am learning more and more about editing in Wikipedia...thanks to Yworo's guidance. In my study, I have seen that Yogananda started Self-Realization Fellowship which is covered extensively in the 1st edition.  I am not sure why you have a problem with that.  During the merging process I will be addressing your claims of over-editing and the name change which we haven't discussed yet. Let's work together in harmonyRed Rose 13 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I remember Yworo saying something like to have these many edition/reprintings is unusual which clearly illustrates the popularity of the book.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Red Rose, a popularity of the sum total of one person only? I would like to tell you that there is no harmony withouth truth. You denied twice already having anything to do with SRF. Neutrality? C´mon Red Rose. Tat Sat (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes TatSat - It would be ideal if you and I could work together to bring the truth to this page. We would need to really listen to each other and understand that we both want the "ring of truth" to greet readers on this page not the shrieking sound of disagreement.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Before we can integrate the Reception section from this page to the main page, we need actual citations to where this has been said. Can you find that TatSat? Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have integrated some of what you wrote TatSat...in regards to issues about edits and adding an a to Paramahansa, it might be best to wait for Yworo to be a part of our discussion. During my extensive research, I have discovered new information regarding the edits to bring to the discussion.  One important point that I have discovered is that the publisher SRF had made a statement in 1956 7th edition of the Autobiography of a Yogi and in a public letter dated November 1995.  There is a wealth of information there to help with our discovering the truth.


 * "Later revisions, made by the author in 1951, were intended to appear in the fourth (1952) American edition. At that time the rights in Autobiography of a Yogi were vested in a New York publishing house. In 1946 in New York each page of the book had been made into an electrotype plate. Consequently, to add even a comma requires that the metal plate of an entire page be cut apart and resoldered with a new line containing the desired comma. Because of the expense involved in resoldering many plates, the New York publisher did not include in the fourth edition the author’s 1951 revisions.


 * In late 1953 Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) bought from the New York publisher all rights in Autobiography of a Yogi. SRF reprinted the book in 1954 and 1955 (fifth and sixth editions); but during those two years other duties prevented the SRF editorial department from undertaking the formidable task of incorporating the author’s revisions on the electrotype plates. The work, however, has been accomplished in time for the seventh edition.” and from the 1995 open letter [redacted]


 * Printing is so much easier these days but back in the 40's & 50's each page had to be laid out onto electrotype plates (scroll to printing section.)  Apparently it is time consuming and expensive.  Hope this helpsRed Rose 13 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi was edited over one hundred times in the last two or three days by Red Rose
Yworo, where are you? Red Rose keeps editing the article but the structure is sectarian. He knows more about SRF than about the Autobiography of a Yogi. I can show you this when we start editing. What´s going on? It took months to change the cover. How long is it going to take to change the article? We need to insert relevant information. People who consult Wikipedia are being deceived. SRF´s version is not the book written by Yogananda. I don´t try to change Red Rose´s editions because he and NestedVariable go there and revert my contributions. Don´t you think it is time for an admin? Besides, anything I write is undermined - literally buried - by Red Rose´s verbosity. I am waiting for a solution. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't see what you been by "the structure is sectarian". The article appears neutral to me. I will look at the edits, but there is nothing that says an editor has to make one major edit rather than many small ones. Yworo (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is about SRF´s heavily edited version of the book. Let´s see:
 * It is not acceptable to advertise SRF´s version, in a serious detriment of the many other Publishers of the same book. I insist Wikipedia is being used to advertise SRF´s version of the book.
 * The article should be neutral and start about the book as it was published before the changes made by SRF.
 * The article does not address the changes SRF has made along the years and after the author´s death. Specially the forgery of the author´s signature has to be mentioned. SRF has admitted having changing the author´s signature. The transliteration of the Sanskrit name is not important, but to alter a signature is.
 * The article does not mention why the first edition was reprinted.
 * At the beginning of the article it says: "The introduction of the 1997 edition states that ... ". First, it is not an edition, it is a version. This introduction is of SRF´s 1997 "edition" of the book. It is not neutral. What the introduction says could come later in a subdivision dedicated to SRF´s versions of the book.
 * Red Rose removed the work "prosperous" – saying there was no proof of my statement (I wrote the author was born "into a prosperous Bengali family"). However, in the first chapter of the book,, page 5, Yogananda wrote: "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. ... Of course you know, I´m sure, "prosperous" means that a person has economic well-being. Later, in chapter 2, page 15, , the author says: "I had previously witnessed the splendor of nuptial rites for my two elder sisters, Roma and Uma; but for Ananta, as the eldest son, plans were truly elaborate. Mother was welcoming numerous relatives, daily arriving in Calcutta from distant homes. She lodged them comfortably in a large, newly acquired house at 50 Amherst Street. Everything was in readiness – the banquet delicacies, the gay throne on which Brother was to be carried to the home of the bride-to-be, the rows of colorful lights, the mammoth cardboard elephants and camels, the English, Scottish and Indian orchestras, the professional entertainers, the priests for the acient rituals. All through the book Yogananda tells the reader how his family was affluent.
 * There is no point in having a link to one of the presidents of SRF, who received the monastic name Daya Mata after Yogananda´s death. Yogananda never mentioned her name in the book while he was alive. After his death SRF inserted her picture! in the text of the book.
 * What do you suggest? Red Rose does not accept any of my contributions to the article, unless I follow SRF´s point of view. It is time that we call an admin to help editing and finishing the book´s article. It would be very nice someone with experience in editing book´s article and in publication´s ethics. If you can do it, we don´t need an admin. I am very happy and grateful for your help so far, but it´s been nearly a month and I could not include any of these issues that are an inevitable part of the book´s publication history. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi Revisions Discussion

 * I have already posted the explanation that SRF gives as to why Yogananda's edits were not able to be added until 1956. It had to do with the fact that Philosphical Library didn't want to go to great expense of resoldering many plates to include all the revisions.  Then when SRF took over publishing the book they basically reprinted the 1954 & 1955 editions.  During "those two years other duties prevented the SRF editorial department from undertaking the formidable task of incorporating the author’s revisions on the electrotype plates. The work, however, has been accomplished in time for the seventh edition.” and the fact that publisher back then had to use electroptype plates:  and [redacted]

Now with that said I would like to delve into the details of the revisions:

In regards to the three poems mentioned by TatSat,I discovered that Yogananda apparently moved the poems to his book Whispers from Eternity in 1949, 3 years before his death.
 * God, God, God - see fifth revised edition Whispers1949 page 199
 * The Soundless Roar - Yogananda changed the name to Om and moved it to Whispers - see fifth revised edition 1949 page 197
 * Samadhi - see fifth revised edition Whispers 1949 page 191

Another important note is - Because Yogananda "clearly foresaw that this book would continue to reach wider and wider audiences as the years went by, he instructed his editors to add — in the way of incidental footnotes, pictures, captions, etc. — whatever might be necessary in order to keep the book up to date." and [redacted] (page 12) This seems to account for the many so called "changes" TatSat is referring to.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Red Rose: you admit the changes have been made and inserted what SRF said. However, SRF never provided one single proof that Yogananda determined these changes to be made. You keep quoting "anandauncoverd", an anonymous site which aims mainly to the difamation of rival sect Ananda targetting Kriyananda. We are discussing a book. If you want, I have many links to sites who give information about lawsuites against Yogananda himself by early Indian associates. Yogananda was even prosecuted by them, and lost - altough he never paid what he should have. He was accused among other things of sexual misconduct. Also other links say he had love "children", although he was a monk. Also Tara Mata, another vice-president of SRF who never married, had a child. It is a long story. You know, let´s keep to the book, it´s better for you, for SRF and for Ananda. We must insert the changes, what SRF says about them and opposing views. Without opinions, just facts. We don´t need adjectives. If you agree with this, we won´t need a mediator. We should start making the article neutral, so let´s publish opinions about the book, not about SRF´s verion of the book, which however, could be included when we address it in a sub-topic. If you don´t agree let´s keep with the mediation. Tat Sat (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We need to stay with mediation apparently. Like I have said before TatSat, the truth and neutrality is my goal on this page.  However please don't interpret what I have posted to mean that I am "admitting" anything, insinuating that I had something to admit.  I want the truth.  My extensive research revealed:


 * the publisher has clearly explained on their webpage and in the 1995 letter why it took them so long to finish adding Yogananda's edits.
 * The publisher also clearly stated what Yogananda's wishes were for future editions.
 * I clearly illustrated for our benefit what actually was revised in 1956, please read this carefully. This shows that most of what is in your chart is inaccurate.
 * I only completed the chart for our benefit and not for the page itself.


 * I can agree to keeping the page neutral and adding facts with third party citations.


 * Btw, the only reason I am posting the 1995 letter from Ananaduncovered because I found it there. I would prefer to take it from the publishers website but I noticed that they have not posted it on their website.  Do you know of another website that posts this letter?Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Red Rose, you only accept as the unquestianable truth the very questionable statements of SRF. This is not neutral. Ananda is also a Publisher. If you quote SRF, you must quote Ananda. I will request the mediation to officially start since we are not advancing regarding SRF being the one and only unarguable reference. For you SRF does not need a third party citations. That´s the very problem. You admit - as you must - changes were made. However you don´t admit mentioning them in the article. They are a most important and are a part of the history of the book. You cannot supress them. Tat Sat (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC) PS By the way, it is not "my chart". It was in the article before you supressed it. I have many other relevant changes to quote. In fact there are literally hundreds of them. Tat Sat (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * TatSat, I assumed we were in mediation with Yworo. He seems to think we can resolve it here.  We just need to ask him to join us in the process.  Give me the quotes you have and I would be happy to research them but be doubly sure they were not revised in the 1956 edition.  Don't give me revisions in footnotes or pictures because SRF was asked to "keep up with times".  Also I remember Yworo saying that we could put a fact on the page but not be able to give an opinion about it. Example:  SRF added an a to Paramahansa due to transliteration and they also added the a to Yogananda's signature on the book. Also, how can we progress, if you don't stop assuming and accusing? Write down what you want to add and run it by Yworo and me.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Red Rose, the fact is that the 1956 edition was published 4 years after Yogananda´s death. By the way, the signature was not forged yet. I have the 1956´s edition. We can quote what SRF says about the changes – if SRF officialy says anything in its site. Anyway, in the preface of "Whispers from Eternity" SRF admits having changed the signature. You can check.
 * For instance, in the last edition published while Yogananda was alive, he wrote, in Chapter 48: "In 1939 I paid a visit to the SRF center in Boston. I as accompanied by Swami Premananda, founder of the SRF Church in Washington, D.C. In the nation´s capital he holds aloft the light of Lahiri Mahasaya´s ideals. ..." When the 1956 edition was published, the highly praised Swami Premananda (praised by Yogananda himself) had left SRF because he did not agree with certain decisions made after the death of Mr. Lynn, the first president of SRF. So what SRF did? Took all mentions of Swami Premananda from the book. Do you really believe Yogananda wished this? He remained loyal to Yogananda and only left SRF after Yogananda´s death.

But we must understand that any change in the contents of the book (including pictures although I don´t particularly care about footnotes, as long as it states clearly they were made by the Publisher) after the author´s death infringes publication´s ethics if SRF does not have written proof they were made by request of the author. The intent is to preserve what the author wrote. Yworo is not a mediator he is only a great helper but your verbosity is so vast it is difficult to keep up with it. I have asked Yworo´s opinion on the matter. As for you, I don´t consider you neutral, since you put all the emphasis on SRF´s point of view, and therefore your own point of view is one-sided and biased. And you are implying you have the right to edit the article without discussing what you intend to do, but I am banned by you from editing because I should need your permission. You have no admin´s rights, Red Rose. Tat Sat (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have already addressed all of your accusations and I don't plan on repeating it again here. Did you read my post?  It clearly shows that the addition of an 'a' was after the 1956 edition. Yes, in the preface of Whispers from Eternity, SRF explains why they added the 'a'. I googled Swami Premananda and found his church called Self-Revelation Church which is based on ..."Absolute Monism which is basic to the establishment and development of the Self-Revelation Church..."  "He was the founder of both the Self-Revelation Church and the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Foundation."  I am going to continue my research.  Looks like he left SRF but need to research more.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You consider "accusations" my affirmation that you edit following SRF´s point of view. This is not an accusation, but a statement of facts. Also, could you please refrain from writing inside my post? Anything you want to comment, you comment in another post. SRF never provided any evidence of Yogananda´s wish to change the text and an incredible number of changes certainly were and could not have been wished by Yogananda, like "dressing" the yogis, for instance. There are hundreds of them. Tat Sat (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Since this is Yworo's page, I will let him decide where he would like me to post this discussion. I don't have a preference.  If you actually looked at my edits, you would see that they are neutral and cover all subjects on the page.  It actually appears to me that it is you that is one sided, please correct me if I am wrong. Also, stating that there are "hundreds of changes" is easy to do, but proving or showing those changes is quite another Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * From my research I found re: Swami Premananda from the Self-Revelation Church  - Swami Premananda Giri of India, came to America in 1928 and founded his church called Self-Revelation Church which is based on ..."Absolute Monism which is basic to the establishment and development of the Self-Revelation Church..." It seems that he was never a part of Self-Realization Fellowship and would naturally be on his own when Yogananda died. I have not seen any animosity from Swami Premananda towards anyone, let alone Yogananda's organization SRF. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Red Rose, you did not need to search in your anonymous sites. It is in Chapter 48 of the book and I quoted ipsis litteris what Yogananda himself wrote in the 1946 and 1951 editions of the "Autobiography of a Yogi". It is not possible to waste so much time discussing facts. Please go and verify what the author of the book himself wrote in Chapter 48, page 480: – "Joyous dedication of a Self-Realization Church of All Religions took place in 1938 at Washington, D.C. Set amidst landscaped grounds, the stately church stands in a section of the city aptly called "Friendship Heights." The Washington leader is Swami Premananda, educated at the Ranchi school and Calcutta University. I had summoned him in 1928 to assume leadership of the Washington Self-Realization Fellowship center. "Premananda," I told him during a visit to his new temple, "this Eastern headquarters is a memorial in stone to your tireless devotion. Here in the nation´s capital you have held aloft the light of Lahiri Mahasaya´s ideals." Premananda accompanied me from Washington for a brief visit to the Self-Realization Fellowship center in Boston. What joy to see again ... " Red Rose, you seem to know less about the book than you do about SRF. Try to focus in the book. Confronted with facts you remain adamant, refusing to accept evidence. I want to edit the page instead of writing miles of text fruitlessly. Tat Sat (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * TatSat I think you might misunderstand me. I read that part in Chapter 48 but I am uncovering other information that relates to our discussion.  The site you call anonymous is this one that was posted in my previous post - http://self-revelationchurch.org/ - I will continue the search but will not post it here until I have completed it. Don't you tire of putting me down and judging me? Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yworo, also, it is a good thing that I am researching the claimed "changes" to the Autobiography because more facts are coming out. It would be a shame to post false information on Wikipedia. Be sure to read about the three poems above that are claimed to be removed without Yogananda's consent from the Autobiography.  In reality it appears that Yogananda moved them to his book Whispers from Eternity for his 1949 5th edition and even changed the name of one of the poems in the process. We don't want to be making false claims on Wikipedia. I would be glad to upload scans of this information to Wikipedia temporarily if that would be helpful. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, in the expanded chart above in which I added what was in 1956 edition (when all of Yogananda's revisions were finally able to be added), the phrase SRF-YSS Kriyaban (Kriya Yogi)and Fulfilling one's earthly responsibilities need not separate man from God were in this edition. It seems his name was spelled Paramhansa in the 1956 edition and changed after that.  It also seems that phrases about world brotherhood colonies were in the 1956 version and gone after that. Out of 7 examples including the 3 poems, 5 are not true and 2 appear to be so far. I am looking into the Swami Premananda claims and will post when I complete my research.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In researching about Swami Premananda I found this from the book American Veda (p. 126-127), "Swami Premananda (1903-95)who was summoned to America in 1928 by Yogananda and ran SRF's Washington, D.C. chapter. After Yogananda's death, he split with SRF and established the Self-Revelation Church of Absolute Monism in suburban Maryland." Also, I found his website - Self-Revelation Church of Absolute Monism  Clearly when he left, he was no longer a minister for SRF and started his own church.  I haven't found any mention of any animosity between him and SRF.  Hope this helpsRed Rose 13 (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I really don't see where all of this argumentation is heading. 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)