Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Autobiography of a Yogi

Autobiography of a Yogi

 * Users involved in dispute
 * , filing party, and the volunteer who dealt with the dispute resolution noticeboard thread


 * Removed per . AGK  [•] 12:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Articles concerned in this dispute

The copyright status of the various possible infobox images complicated matters, leading to the noticeboard thread going stale after attempts were made to ask for copyright help. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
 * Discussion on the article talk page: Talk:Autobiography of a Yogi/Archive 1
 * A thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard: Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 38
 * Attempts to find help on the copyright status of the infobox image:
 * Media copyright questions
 * commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Issues to be mediated
''All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on .''

A lot of these issues could probably have been worked out at the dispute resolution noticeboard. However, the image issue has proven tricky to resolve, and would benefit from formal mediation. Issues such as how to describe the editions may also benefit, but there are some issues that may be resolvable through normal discussion and editing. I think the other involved parties should agree between themselves on which issues need mediation. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Primary issues
 * Which image to use in the infobox. Suggestions have included:
 * File:Paramahansa_Yogananda.jpg, a black and white photo cropped from the cover of (ostensibly) the 1946 edition
 * The cover of the original 1946 edition, perhaps this version from eBay or this version from Amazon
 * File:Autobiography of a Yogi Current Book Cover.jpg, the current image (although all parties have agreed this can be changed)
 * The general factual accuracy of the article, including, but not limited to:
 * Whether the original publisher was Philosophical Library or the Self Realization Fellowship
 * Whether there should be an ISBN in the infobox, given the various different publishers of the book
 * What the correct editions of the book are
 * What to do about the unsourced content in this version


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Whether with the new information I have discovered, the current image File:Autobiography of a Yogi Current Book Cover.jpg is the appropriate image to use or a composite image of the 1st edition and this current image. Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Additional issue 2
 * The image currently in use is of the book published by Self-Realization Fellowship -- and is copyrighted. There are other Publishers of the book, though. SRF made literally hundreds of changes in the book's text after the death of the author. Altough SRF says the changes were made by the author, who died before he had time to implement them, the forgery of his signature, made nearly 20 years after his death, raises doubts about the accuracy of this information. That's why other Publishers decided to publish the first edition again - which is in public domain and for sure was solely written by Yogananda. The problem with the book article is that it is about the book published by SRF, not about the book itself. All mentions about the original book published by Ananda, a rival sect, are systematically suppressed. The use of the original cover proves the forgery of the signature and this seems to be a problem, when it is only a fact. In the Talks it is said that there is not even proof of the signature's forging -- which of course is not true. Also the editors of the current page refer all the time to SRF only, while barring Ananda. The article as it is, seems to have the goal to sell SRF's book, and to prevent people to know about its rival Ananda Church's edition, directing to links where the first edition can be dowloaded for free, ignoring that Ananda sells the book while and, at the same time, allows people - who do not want or cannot afford to buy it - to download a facsimile for free. While SRF 's book is only for sale and is called "the complete" version, it is correctly an "edited" version. I think the book should be considered a literary work not a propaganda of a sect. I would like to know please when the mediation can be started. Thank you, Tat Sat (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC


 * Additional issue 3
 * Hello, as it seems, I am the only one interested in this mediation since the page, as it is, was made by the other contenders. They are very happy with it. Why change it? The page of the Autobiography of a Yogi keeps being edited as if nothing happend, as you can check. But when Mr Stradivarius corrected the Publisher of the book -- since everyone agreed the book was first published by the Philosophical Library, not by Self-Realization Fellowship as it is wrongly stated in the article -- his correction was reverted, since the article was waiting for mediation. It is a pity that this article should be considered of no importance by Wikipedia´s editors. I think each article sould contain only correct information. I hope something will be done. It is taking months... Also, I think the mediator should be an experienced editor in book´s article, and knows how to deal with sectarism. I have agreed to the proposed mediator and I hope he has the heart to face a lot of controversy. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional issue 4


 * There is an interest that persists among the editors to have this page portrayed in a certain way. I might sound like a broken record, but it is important for editors to remain neutral and free of pov. Content needs to be based on secondary and neutral/notable sources as per wikipedia guidelines. NestedVariable (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional issue 5
 * This dispute should never have had to come to mediation. WikiProject Books standards are very clear that the infobox should always describe and depict the first edition of the book and not subsequent editions. With regard to the images, WP Books standards clearly state "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." Those attempting to use the cover of a recent edition of the book in the infobox and also changing the publisher to reflect a different edition of the book than the first edition are clearly in the wrong here, and should abide by WikiProject Book standards, which give consistency to our articles about books and prevent surprising the reader with misleading data in the infobox. Yworo (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional issue 6
 * Is Yworo now a part of our mediation group? I am confused. Please explain?
 * Tat Sat brought us to mediation with many issues/accusations without including citations to back them up. I haven't addressed these issues here because I thought it best to wait until mediation. Just because someone states an opinion, it doesn't mean it is true.  In reference to one of the issues, the photo in the info box, it was updated in Good Faith many months ago thinking it was a good idea to keep the page current. There is no hidden agenda here. I purposely left the info box alone and as is, even if corrections needed to be made, in respect for our mediation process. We are all learning and have been waiting for about a month now to discuss the issues.  I would like to add these to this list:
 * Copyright status regarding the current cover
 * Copyright status regarding the 1946 first edition book
 * Is the 1946 first edition really in public domain
 * Revisions by Yogananda and his wishes for future revisions
 * Court case conclusion in 2002 with jury verdict.
 * I need to clarify a point before we begin. Yogananda created Self-Realization Fellowship  and Yogoda Satsanga Society of India as nonsectarian, religious organizations. He didn't begin any other religious organizations.  SRF is not a sect, it is the established organization created by Yogananda himself.  During my research I discovered that a few direct disciples, who either left or were asked to leave, started their own churches. These churches are sects according to the definition of sect.  Also, due to my research and important relevant information I have found, I see this discussion as a new beginning in our mediation process.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether or not you consider an organization a "sect" has no bearing on this dispute. Our neutral point of view policy requires that all points of view be represented fairly and proportionately. Being a "sect" does not exclude a view from being represented on Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yworo seems to be a part of the mediation and is making edits to the Autobiography page that relate to the issues still being discussed in this forum. Please explain the Mediation guidelines to me, to us all. I am assuming that editors hold off on editing a page regarding the issues being discussed in this mediation out of respect for the process. Am I in error here? Because the result of doing that can bring the issues over to the page which could create an editing war. Yworo also has added a 1st party references to the page and has added incorrect/misleading information. I respectfully request that all editing stop "regarding the issues" in this mediation until we are finished.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional Issue 7


 * I am not a party to this mediation and am not bound by it. Editors who are not part of a mediation do not have to "stop editing" when there are several clear violations of Wikipedia guidelines going on, including violations of our neutral point of view policy and violations of our WikiProject Books guidelines for article structure and infoboxes, as well as possible violations of our conflict of interest policy. It seems to me that this meditation was started for the wrong reasons, to force editors who were actually in the right to stop editing indefinitely. I will not join such a mediation, so effectively, the mediation is over. Yworo (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation
''All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.''
 * 1) I don't need to take part myself, as I have only been involved in my role as a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. I´m sorry Mr. Stradivarius is not participating in this mediation. The page was edited in a sectarian way, with wrong information, using Wikipedia to advertise Self-Realization Fellowship´s book as if it had Wikipedia´s priceless sponsorship - in terms of correct information and confiability. The book is in public domain so the original cover should be used, not the cover of a recent publication -- among many publications currently in print. This is one among many issues about the article of the book "Autobiography of a Yogi". Thank you Tat Sat (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) if the mediation case goes through I would like to be part of the discussion. However, I think this can be resolved without a mediation. All information needs to be properly sourced by secondary reliable sources, not blogs or sites affiliated with the subject matters. NestedVariable (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. Yes I agree because we need to resolve which photograph to be used in the info box and in my recent research, I have discovered new relevant information to bring to the table. Because of this new information, I no longer can agree with statement above "all parties have agreed this can be changed" regarding the current image on the page File:Autobiography of a Yogi Current Book Cover.jpg.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree. Yes I agree because we need to resolve which photograph to be used in the info box and in my recent research, I have discovered new relevant information to bring to the table. Because of this new information, I no longer can agree with statement above "all parties have agreed this can be changed" regarding the current image on the page File:Autobiography of a Yogi Current Book Cover.jpg.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to ItsZippy's offer
, an experienced editor and current candidate to join the Mediation Committee, has accepted an offer to be assigned as the mediator to this case. Only credible nominees may be assigned as a mediator to the committee's cases. However, because ItsZippy is not yet a member of the Committee, the Mediation Committee requires that the parties specify that they consent to a non-Committee member mediating this case.

Therefore, I ask that all the parties to this case indicate below whether they "agree" or "disagree" to ItsZippy mediating this dispute. The same format as in the above section should be used here. Thank you.

For the Mediation Committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Tat Sat (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. NestedVariable (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
''A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.''
 * Recuse. I have already given my opinion on what some of the outcomes of the dispute should be, so my neutrality here is slightly compromised. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 23:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Accept. Sitush has stated that he has no intention of participating in dispute resolution proceedings concerning this dispute, so per the committee's Procedures for waiving the requirement for a specific party to consent to mediation it is acceptable to proceed without his consent. A mediator will be assigned to this case within a fortnight, and I expect that the dispute can be expedited through mediation due to its contained nature. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  [•] 12:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)