Talk:Kriyananda/Archive 1

message: __TOC__Unlike what the previous contributor seems to say - Swami Kriyananda was directly accused by Bertolucci. Check this link Bertolucci testifying in court
 I personally discovered later on, however, that "Swami" repeatedly abused his position of
 power within the church to convince young women in the church to satisfy his sexual desires while simultaneously convincing them it was to their spiritual benefit. I was not aware of his sexual interaction with young female church members until it  happened to me.''
The previous contributor is trying to confuse readers when he/she says that the charges were against some other Ananda minister. Also their tactics of posting all those links is to drown out the relevant links to Anandainfo site which contains actual court documents.Jai Guru.
----
How about if I create a separate page for the court case(s)? Disagreement, particularly on the Bertolucci case, has been played out on the web for a long time -- we can't reasonably expect to find consensus on it here, and might as well present both sides in a separate article. This would also help people by being able to give a full treatment of the case in a more appropriate space. --jocosley June 30, 2005 17:50 (UTC)
----
Just a couple of revisions: since no charges of abuse were filed against Swami Kriyananda, I took out "abuse" from "Kriyananda faced accusations of sexual misconduct and abuse" since no charges of abuse were filed. Also, I think whomever wrote "although no formal charges of sexual misconduct against Kriyananda, himself, were actually filed " just misunderstood the cited article. No formal charges were filed by eight women, but Bertolucci did in fact file charges (see , "On November 28, 1994, Bertolucci filed a lawsuit against Danny Levin, Ananda, and Swami Kriyananda."). --jocosley June 30, 2005 20:58 (UTC)
----
Jocosley , I am sorry if this sounds offensive but your editing of Kriyananda article appears biased.It looks like a recruitment brochure for Ananda making Kriyananda appear in a very positive light which Ananda people seek to do.. JDW is actually a very grey personality like any other ordinary person.He has a mix of good and bad qualities.Your article is misleading for newcomers who might stumble on this website so my suggestion is let us not go for a separate webpage for Bertolucci lawsuit and put it on this page itself - Rahul
----
Hi Rahul, thanks for your comments. I'm not offended. Part of the reason for my earlier additions / subtractions is that it seems strange to me to have such a large portion of the article devoted to "the controversy" instead of "the person". (The "Sex and the Singular Swami" article also does feel biased to me, but instead of removing it maybe there is a more balanced substitute.)
I'd like to add more about Kriyananda's writings, music, life history, and perhaps "world brotherhood colonies", but I truly do not want to be biased. Truthfully, however, I do see Kriyananda as a bright rather than grey personality. Please let me know your thoughts, and I'll start writing some more stuff. --jocosley 18:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

message: You can see the changes and additions at this page. I've tried to be less "brochure-like" in writing the new sections: "Early life," "World Brotherhood Colonies," and "Books and music." The changes made to the controversies section were fairly minor: I corrected a quote, changed the order of a paragraph, and changed a few word choices.
Lets work toward a point where we can remove the "Neutral Point of View" template at top. We may not agree about the points at hand, but I bet we can express the points of view in a way that we can all feel comfortable with.
--jocosley 17:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005-09-06 Additions and edits 

message: I added this based on similar lists in other Biographies on Wikipedia. Let's discuss if there are any objections. I think there are other books that I missed, and I hope to add publishing dates for each book. ॐ Priyanath 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: I would suggest to use the  template to all web links directly linked from the article text. The format of this template is as follows:

≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 00:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cite format + refs 

message: ... should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. The section about the Redwood City tria, needs to be sourced exclusively on existent secondary sources, namely the article on the SF Weekly, available in their archives here , or other secondary published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any material in the article that should not be there? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed this comment - I originally put that WP:BLP excerpt there because the article was in much worse shape at that time (2006), and vandals were making frequent additions that violated WP:BLP. ~ priyanath talk 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I read through some of the sources provided in the Controversies section, and would argue that the material there needs to be re-written to provide a more factual and neutral representation of these sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any reliable sources to back up Ananda's self-published claims about the relationships between Bertolucci's lawyers and the SRF? If so, we should be using them as the current sources are questionable. --Simon D M (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ananda's website would be a reliable source for this, since the claims in this article are prefaced by "According to a letter from Ananda's leaders,....". ~ priyanath talk 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that self-published sources cannot be used yo make claims about third-parties... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so the explanation of the bankruptcy filing is ok, but the explanation of involvement by Self-Realization fellowship isn't? If so, then the latter should be removed and the former left in place. ~ priyanath talk 23:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another question, Jossi, since you seem to have an understanding of sources and policy: The SF Weekly is a tabloid (in format and spirit) weekly that arguably doesn't meet WP:BLP: "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page" and "Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It would help, and be appreciated, if you could be more specific - or better yet edit the controversy section yourself (if you have time and inclination) - since you are a neutral party, admin, and knowledgeable about sources. I removed the part about the letter from Ananda leaders, per your feedback. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 03:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the offer, but I will need to decline.... I would be better assisting by searching for some good sources, and post my findings here. You can then attempt to work these in the text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I checked all the databases I have access to, and found nothing besides this article , which covers some of these aspects in a neutral manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you consider the SFWeekly to be a neutral article and/or reliable source per WP:BLP? Should it be replaced with this source? I'm just trying to get an understanding of sourcing for BLP articles. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I see goes beyond assessing the SF Weekly as a source. The concern is that it seems to be an isolated source. If the subject is notable, it surely would have attracted more coverage than an oped in that weekly magazine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than Malibu Times and SF Weekly, Google News shows that the story was dealt with in several other local newspapers. --Simon D M (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources... 

message: From WP:BLP: External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links.
Note that this also applies to talk pages. Priyanath talk 00:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Reminder about [[WP:BLP]] 

message: With all due respect, I think this article could be improved by shortening the Bibliography or making it a separate page. It seems excessive (and perhaps creates the impression of positive bias) to list all works of the prolific Swami here (one can perhaps get that info from the Swami K. or Ananda websites). Now this is a living biography, but still, try comparing this with the Wiki bios for two other prolifics, Mozart and Goethe--neither has in incorporated Bibliography of this length. Just an idea to help this article become higher in quality.Jack B108 (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still my opinion that this article does not look like a proper encyclopedia article with a very lengthy bibliography and discography. I am planning to remove these two sections very soon, as this material can easily be found elsewhere. Also, there seem to be too many headings in this article; I think some of these could be removed or combined and it could have a cleaner look overall (look at Wiki bios of Mozart and Goethe, for example). Jack B108 (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the long listing of his creative works detracts from the article. Bertport (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography could be made new page 

message: I think that the warning that this page may have bias in it has been up long enough. This article is more neutral and balanced than it was even 6 months ago, and I propose that this statement (up since Jan. 2007) be removed soon.
Jack B108 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias or unbalance in article?

message: The article says that SRF spent millions of dollars suing Kriyananda. The only source seems to be a book published by Kriyananda's Crystal Clarity publication, which is not a credible or npov source. I am removing the mention about the dollar value. Please add "millions of dollars" only if there is a credible and neutral source is found. I have also reworded the sentence to give it more of a neutral view. 173.206.2.17 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Millions of dollars spent suing 

message: I cleaned up citations, deleting words that were not actually citations, added authors, corrected citation to match the words in the paragraph and added citations needed notations. There are a number of dead links that need to be deleted or corrected. There are mostly POV citations and not enough third party references. Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned up Citations more needed

message: Bring your ideas hear to discuss desired changes on this page.  Making POV changes does not help the article to neutral and objective.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted edit 14:29, 24 April 2013‎ by Jack B108 - This editor completely changed the whole section.  Asking that this editor bring and discuss changes to this talk page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit discussion

message: The article in the 'recent years' section has a POV, non-encyclopedic piece, beginning with 'According to Yogananda' below:
::He was later divorced. In 1995, on his own, he officially resumed his monastic vows and title. According to Yogananda in his first edition of his Autobiography in reference to the ancient swami order, “because it is a formal order… no one can give himself the title of swami.”[30]
I removed it, with the subject title, 'Removed disapproval of Kriyananda's re-assuming the Swami vows on OR and POV grounds'.  It has been reverted by Red Rose 13.  Red Rose 13's defense of her removal is 'the statement is a fact back up by a reliable source'.  This is an inadequate defense.
Red Rose 13, not all things that can be backed up by a reliable source are to be put on wikipedia. POV and OR concerns also prevail. The meaning of the offending piece is, 'According to what Paramahansa Yogananda said, this would be invalid'.  This may be an arguable point and even a correct one, but that is POV of SRF (an organisation founded by Yogananda with which Kriyananda has had an interminable dispute), and it's also, in its context, OR, Original Research: Yogananda wrote that, he wasn't talking about Kriyananda. This application of something that Yogananda has written,  to something Kriyananda later did, in the context is OR.  It doesn't matter if you believe it follows logically from what Yogananda said.
The offending piece should be removed on NPOV and OR grounds.
Joesonyx (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it as a fact no matter who the author was talking about, the fact remains the same for all.  It also brings in a neutral point of view to the article and shows a different dimension.  Again one might not agree with the statement but it is true just the same. You mention an organization called SRF, Yogananda, Kriyananda and some dispute?  Are you representing an organization in this discussion?  Otherwise, why would you bring it up.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Joesonyx, my loyalty is to be a neutral editor that brings balance to the articles I work on - to bring NPOV and third party references whenever possible - which includes non-affiliation with any organization. I am an independent editor that edits spiritual sites and then adds them to my watchlist.  Some sites are more active than others and I am determined to support NPOV on the pages I work on and will bring a balance whenever I can. WP:ORIGINALSYN has nothing to do with this reference.  I easily found the reference online which refers to all people who try to give themselves the swami title just like parables taught by Jesus...they are meant for everyone. A little bit of OR is bound to happen on any page.  Speaking of that there are 9 references to the subjects book "the Path".  On top of that there are 10 others references that are OR and either take you off Wikipedia to a website or an OR reference to the subject himself - We need to actually look at those and replace with third party references. There should be only one external link which is to the subjects personal website.  External links should not be in the body of the article as a reference.  WP:EXTSee Links normally to be avoided. Hope this helps as we bring this page up to Wikipedia standardsRed Rose 13 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Joesonyx, let us clarify.  Kriyananda received his sannyasi vows into the monastic order under Yogananda's monastic order which is under the Shankara order.  So it is important to point out here that Kriyananda was giving himself the initiation into the swami order many years after he renounced his connection with the swami order.  Yogananda words used here is not disapproving but clarifying.  It is a statement of fact:  Here is the whole paragraph - "Every swami belongs to the ancient monastic order which was organized in its present form by Shankara. Because it is a formal order, with an unbroken line of saintly representatives serving as active leaders, no man can give himself the title of swami. He rightfully receives it only from another swami; all monks thus trace their spiritual lineage to one common guru, Lord Shankara. By vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to the spiritual teacher, many Catholic Christian monastic orders resemble the Order of Swamis."  I would be willing to add more of an explanation if that would be helpful - like. -  According to Yogananda under his monastic line, "Every swami belongs to the ancient monastic order which was organized in its present form by Shankara. Because it is a formal order, with an unbroken line of saintly representatives serving as active leaders, no man can give himself the title of swami. It is more clarity than disapproving. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another draft: Kriyananda married in 1981, and publicly renounced his monastic vows with Yogananda's monastic order of the ancient Shankar line, on the occasion of his second marriage in 1985.  He then returned to using his birth name, J. Donald Walters and later divorced. In 1995, on his own, he officially resumed his monastic vows and title which was not in Yogananda's monastic order because no one can give oneself the title of swami in the Shankar line. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Ok to bring peace here and still bring NPOV truth to the article.  I added the complete statement by Yogananda in the section After Yogananda passing and removed it from recent years.  The truthful information is in the article and the reader can decide for themselves.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

text: It is taken care of including the citation. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and OR issue in disapproval of Kriyananda re-assuming the Swami vows.