Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Paramahansa Yogananda

Did he have a father?

Who was his father? 115.96.217.147 (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is stated in the second paragraph under Youth and Discipleship. "He was the fourth of the eight children, and second of the four sons, of Bhagabati Charan Ghosh, the Vice President of Bengal-Nagpur Railway,"Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SRF/ YSS negativ promotion

In some places of the articles, one has the impression that it was only written by SRF supporters. Eg the deaths or exaggerated SRF teaching on every corner. Especially from the author Red Rose 13 and his colleagues I have known for a few years, I have the impression that they undermine the Wikipedia rules. You have the feeling that they come to heaven when they convert others. Regulars also come to Eidtwars. For example, current on YSS links that have nothing to do with article except to direct them to you. Riquix (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all I agree with you removing that link in External Links. It is unnecessary there and redundant. Not sure who put it there. Second, calling that link "negative promotion" makes no sense. It is used in the article to clarify... nothing is negative. Third, accusing fellow editors is against Wikipedia guidelines. We are told to focus on the issue at hand.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Red Rose 13 you inserted the link first.[1] Then you deleted him again at least once.[2] And your colleague Azure Dave also reversed him, the link. [3] In the article "Autobiography of a Yogi" you restored a similar link a few days ago.[4] Therefore, I cannot understand your statement that I would accuse you unfounded and that you don't know anything about the link.--Riquix (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is confusion in your statement. (1) DIFFERENT SECTION - this is line 246 and from 2012 - 10 years ago and this section doesn't seem to exist anymore, (2) I updated the website link and you reverted it back to an old link that doesn't work anymore(3) the editor Azure reverted your reverting error. In the AY page you took out the link and I could see it was already in the article and it was not needed there any more so I let your revert stand. And still your accusations are unfounded. On Wikipedia we try to work in harmony and for what is best for Wikipedia. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please make your statements with a link, I did that. If you look at the history, then you can see it. I think harmony is for you who you can make negative advertising. There was already discussion with you where you meant Yogananda the cause of death was Mahasamadhi [5]. Or yogananda way is no hinduism [6]. Where you made editwars in other articles and long same discussion.[7] --Riquix (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am at a loss about what you saying. All the links you provided where respectful discussions and were resolved. I don't have time to provide links. I used you links and answered your concerns. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You write: " (1) DIFFERENT SECTION - this is line 246 and from 2012 - 10 years ago and this section doesn't seem to exist anymore", -> If you look at the versions you have reverted the link again and again. Until now. "(2) I updated the website link and you reverted it back to an old link that doesn't work anymore" ->I always deleted him because he has nothing to do with the article except for negative advertising what you want. "(3) the editor Azure reverted your reverting error." ->They had restored the advertising link.[8] "In the AY page you took out the link and I could see it was already in the article and it was not needed there any more so I let your revert stand." That is not true you restored it with the description "fixed link and formatted".[9] I did not find the other discussion like this respectfully, rather strange to write in a lexicon that was Mahasamadhi cause of death.[10] And that Yoganandas way is not Hinduism for long and repeated discussions, although even the SRF have contradicted you.[11] --Riquix (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your communications are very confusing and all about the past. I cannot continue because I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. I suggest we stay in the present moment and discuss things as they happen. You are accusing me of something which I have no idea what it is. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have all documented with the link versions. Unfortunately, it was mostly in discussion with you that you wanted to enforce strange things with violence. Apparently you don't understand it anymore. Most of your negative advertising is not long ago. Perhaps you are more concerned with not being responsible for what you do and that you can continue with advertising.--Riquix (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
are you accusing me of violence and advertising? Lol...First of all none of my communications are violent. Posting a link of Yogananda's organization YSS is not advertising. It is relevant to the article. So if the reader wishes to know more about Yogananda's organizations SRF & YSS, the link is there. It is normal on every Biography to include the subjects organizations or business. Also the link you provided here are correcting the link from the old SRF web page to the new SRF webpage. This was stated in the edit summary. Please define what you mean by negative advertising??Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have actually discussed everything several times. The link from PY article went over "The lineage of Gurus with Yogananda" and in autobiography they have no content to it. I find their behaviour strange that you write negative advertising for Yogananda here, but apparently do not want to be responsible for their actions. I will not continue to discuss now. The links that I have given, above in the discussion, are clear.--Riquix (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am an uninvolved experienced editor who has been following this discussion because it is watchlisted. @Riquix, I have to agree with @Red Rose 13 that your critique does not make sense. Firstly, it's imperative that talk page discussions focus on content, and not on contributors. Please refrain from making accusations towards other editors, for example, @Red Rose 13 is participating in negative advertising, negative promotion or exaggeration, as it is not helping to resolve the dispute between the two of you. From my perspective, you are both contributing in good faith, but respectfully, it does not appear that you have the English language competency required to edit en-WP (meaning the ability to read and write English well enough to communicate effectively). If you can clearly and succinctly simply write in a sentence or two what you think the article should say (not how you feel about another editor), then that can be analyzed by others and hopefully a consensus can be reached. For example: This sentence says X, I (meaning you) propose that it be changed to Y. Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I explained what I meant at least twice at the top. It cannot be unfounded, otherwise she would have to be in articles, which I have removed a few times. Please look at the above links (numbers) in the versions.--Riquix (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Riquix, I read through the discussion twice and looked at all the links. I have no idea what you are trying to say in the second sentence of your message above. In one sentence can you say one thing that you would like changed for example, "Change X to Y" followed by a rationale (reason) that does not insult or comment on another editor. Then we can move on to the next item.
@Red Rose 13, do you have an external relationship WP:COI to any of the links or content you have added? Netherzone (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No… No one has ever asked me to edit on Wikipedia for them nor have I been employed or paid to edit on Wikipedia. I began editing on Wikipedia back in 2011 on my own initiative. I have a variety of pages (69) on my watchlist which are mostly spiritually oriented. On rare occasions I will contact a source to clarify something.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering, @Red Rose 13. What do you think about my proposal to shorten the Goldberg quote in the lead section as a compromise? My suggestion is below, and can be seen in this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AParamahansa_Yogananda&diff=1134627734&oldid=1134619001 Netherzone (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the external links have been constantly inserted, which has not to do with the article, I started discussion. The third section and her source in the topic "Death" i think is not really really suitable for a lexicon. Started with "According to the book Divine Interventions:" from the book with the title "Best selling author of Way of the Peaceful Warrior" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramahansa_Yogananda#Death Twice the same statement that no condition of death was determined. I think it is enough for one content from the notarized letter from Harry T. Rowe, the mortuary director.--Riquix (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand your point. Let's take things one at a time. Starting with the cause of death.
I propose: Creating a new subsection under "Death" called "Cause of death". That section that would present both the official medical cause of death, and the other "cause", along with citations for each.
This approach is in compliance with Wikipedia's guideline on neutral point of view WP:NPOV and balance. I volunteer to make that edit. How does that sound? Netherzone (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your edit and it neutrally clarifies the issue.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made that change. Shall we move on to the next item such as the external link issue? Netherzone (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you. My mother tongue is not English, so please excuse my spelling. In the first Section of the article "His continued legacy around the world, remaining a leading figure in Western spirituality to the current day, led authors such as Philip Goldberg to consider him "the best known and most beloved of all Indian spiritual teachers who have come to the West....through the strength of his character and his skillful transmission of perennial wisdom, he showed the way for millions to transcend barriers to the liberation of the soul."[15]" In other articles that are more frequented, of which there are also positive things, there is nothing there of this kind in the first Section. Such as kind Gandhi,Obama and Aurobindo.--Riquix (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand now what you are saying. On English Wikipedia we call that "puffery" or "peacock" language. See this link for more information: WP:PUFFERY. Let me know if this is what you think is the problem that you were calling advertising, promotion or exaggeration. Netherzone (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation does check out with the citation, Goldberg did say that. However I understand that similar articles do not contain that type of praise in the lead section. The lead basically already says everything in the quote, so it is redundant to leave it as is. I propose shortening the sentence to something more neutral:
He remains a leading figure in Western spirituality to this day; Yogananda's biographer Phillip Goldberg considers him "the best known and most beloved of all Indian spiritual teachers who have come to the West".
How does that sound? Netherzone (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only suggestion I would make is this: He remains a leading figure in Western spirituality to this day; A Yogananda biographer Phillip Goldberg, considers him "the best known and most beloved of all Indian spiritual teachers who have come to the West" Goldberg is not the only biographer, I believe.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly let out the quotation in the introduction. Because of the external links, they are outside at the moment and I hope they stay outside. Unfortunately we already had discussions here where even where asked SRF and agreed to take content it out and then it was put back in again. I only took a closer look at the section death and the introduction. I am sure that other things are still there. I also saw some news about Hindu nationalism in India and because of the other things I chose such drastic words. There have also been many time -consuming frustrating disscussions. I would see myself as a PY follower, but I don't like things like that now.--Riquix (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you postpone this there if it is relevant? https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paramahansa_Yogananda#Quotes_about_Yogananda --Riquix (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Rose 13 and @Riquix, I have completed the edit to the quotation at the end of the lead which was puffery and redundant. It seems that progress is being made in coming to a compromise. Thank you both for your patience, and participation. Moving on to the next issue, which seems to be the dispute about some external links. Can each of you explain your position in a single sentence? Netherzone (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing this issue here is what I noticed: (1) There is no External Link section just a See Also section. We should create an External Link section (2) Under See Also, Self-Realization Fellowship and Yogoda Satsanga Society are listed but they are linked to the Wiki page and should be linked to the actual websites. (3) We should change that to say Official Website for both - both organizations are linked together and created by Yogananda. See under Youth and discipleship at the end. (4) to make it easier to navigate this page we need to add table of contents. (5) Using this as a guide [12] Hope this helps. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to discuss things one issue at a time, because our fellow editor, Riquix is not a native English speaker, and I think it's courteous to do so. To my mind, keeping each issue separate allows these matters to be resolved more easily and collegially in this case.
Issue 1: External links section, you are mistaken. There currently is an External links section and it is placed in the correct location after the references. Scroll to the bottom of the article to view it. Netherzone (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you are right! Lol... I didn't scroll down far enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs)
I think we can complete the topic of external link because they are now normal. But please leave it that way.--Riquix (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Issue 2: See also section, you are mistaken; items in See also sections should ONLY link to internal Wikipedia articles (or internal sections) not to external websites. Therefore, they should NOT include websites. The WP Manual of style clearly states the following: MOS:SEEALSO. The current See also section is correctly placed and formatted at this time. If something is wikilinked in the article it should not be added to See also, as it duplicates content and creates more redundancy. Netherzone (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I am not the only editor on this page...hopefully they will read this as well. Yes I agree having too many wiki links in the article is not necessary. It seems to me that three of the links in the See Also section were redundant in regards to the page. I somehow assumed they were linked to the website. Thanks for clarifying the differences between See Also and External Links.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs)
See WP:OVERLINK and WP:LINKCRISIS. Netherzone (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the links but I don't overlink articles as I have said before, there are many people who have edited this page. Hopefully this discussion will help other editors as well.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now they are normal Wikipedia styl. If there is a need, you can see in the versions history who inserts things. That takes a time but it works.--Riquix (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Rose 13, no one is accusing you over overlinking the article, and I did not say you overlinked the article. When reviewing the article, I cleaned up the excessive overlinking as an act of article improvement and noted that in my edit summaries. Netherzone (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that I edit on many pages and I don't overlink.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Riquix May I make the suggestion to consider the Assume Good Faith guideline when working with other editors instead of accusing them? [WP:GOODFAITH]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs)
Red Rose 13, please sign your comments, as it looks like I wrote the above comment, and I did not. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops so sorry.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Rose 13, from my perspective it does not seem that @Riquix is acting in bad faith at all. It seems quite clear to me that they are a good faith editor who is struggling to find the correct words in English; therefore misunderstandings and frustrations can occur. Perhaps you can try to exercise active listening? Just a friendly suggestion offered in good faith. Netherzone (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but I think you might misunderstand. I was requesting that he ASSUME GOOD FAITH regarding other editors. It was my subtle way of asking him to stop being personal with the discussion and assume other editors are doing the best they can. Thanks for the suggestion to listen. I thought I was listening but I didn't understand what he was saying. You were better at figuring out. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Issue 3: This is a biographic article on Yogananda, not on his organization. If he had a personal website, that would be appropriate to add as an Official Website to external links. The article on the Self Realization Fellowship (SRF) has the official website linked, and the SRF is properly linked in this article, so all readers have to do is click on the wikilink to go to the SRF article and the link to the website where the offical website is linked in BOTH the infobox and in the External links section. (It is not necessary to have it linked twice, really.) Netherzone (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume his "personal" website would be the SRF webpage since he created SRF, is no longer alive and the website seems to be all about Yogananda. What do you think?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs)
I disagree, and believe your assumption is incorrect. If there is not a personal website specifically for him, we should not force the matter by adding an erroneous "Official website" to an organization/institution, even though he founded it. This article is a biographic article. External links should be used with discretion per the Manual of Style. The website is linked on the appropriate article, which is Self Realization Fellowship. Wikipedia is not a link repository or web hosting service. Netherzone (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is ok if we disagree and because you are an admin I have to let go to your view. And of course I know that Wikipedia is not a link repository or a web hosting service! Sarcasm! Like I have said before there are many people who have edited on this page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to Wikipedia, that's the case.--Riquix (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Rose 13, Not sure I understand what you mean by Sarcasm! BTW, I am not an administrator, I am a volunteer editor who has been watching this article for some time now, and who has been familiar with Yogananda and the Self Realization Center at Lake Shrine since the late 1960s. Even if I were an admin, admins do not act to gain advantage over others, or force their views. In this specific case I am only here on this talk page to help resolve what seems like a long dispute that was moving in an unproductive direction. We are all equals here. Netherzone (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone Thank you for explaining and I do appreciate your help here. I need to discuss and clarify something because I have given what you wrote some thought. If there was a webpage that was biographical only about a person would that be an official website? How do we determine if that biographical webpage is official or not? And (2) if the subjects organization that he started created a website that has a biographical section in it, why can't that be considered the official webpage for a biography? If you go to yogananda.org click on Paramahansa Yogananda and the choice to go to Biography: A Beloved World Teacher is there. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Rose 13, I stand by my comments above. How could it be his official personal website, when he died long before the internet and World Wide Web and personal websites were invented. The content on the Yogananda.org site was written by, filtered through, and interpreted by others, with no oversight by him. We may have to respectfully agree to disagree on this matter. Netherzone (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok the word his personal website and the person needs to be living, is the key that makes a website official. I agree with your view now. :) Thanks for taking the time. Have a great day!Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Issue 4: The article DOES have a Table of Contents. It follows the lead section per the Manual of Style. If you are editing on a mobile device, you may see a different format. Also, because the Wikimedia Foundation just changed the default skin from Vector 2010 to Vector 2022, they are still working some bugs out. Netherzone (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am using my PC at home and I don't see the table of contents nor do I see it on other pages. Somehow the bugs are affecting what I see.
I found it! It is now formatted to be the left column of the page rather than within the main central part of the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rose 13 (talk • contribs)
That is the way the new Vector 2022 skin is designed. Netherzone (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I will need to study this new "skin". Thanks for the link.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this clears things up, Red Rose 13. Netherzone (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To some degree.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign your all your comments to maintain the integrity of the threading such that each comment can be attributed to a specific editor. Thanks! Netherzone (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been clarified so far. So I think we can end it from my side.--Riquix (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial aspects

Why are controversial aspects about him are not included in the page? Such as, Ben Erskine claiming to be his son. There was even a law suit about it, but there's no mention of it on this page. Coderzombie (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, that happened quite some time after Yogananda died, so it was an SRF issue. It is covered in the article for Self-Realization Fellowship. Perception312 (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it was an SRF case, it pertains to paternity of Yogananada. So no reason it should be excluded from here. Coderzombie (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree... done.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENGVAR

I noticed that the nowiki text at the top of the article states "Use American English" (dated Nov. 2019), but the talk page states the article is written in Indian English which was added long before that. Does anyone mind if I remove the no-wiki text stating American English? Netherzone (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of thoughts about that. (1) Even though he was born in India, he moved to the US permanently in 1920 at the age of 27 and became a citizen. (2) All of his writings printed in english are printed in American English. (3) The whole article is writing in American English. (4) All related articles are written in American English. So I think we should corrected the talk page. Thanks Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Rose 13 upon looking deeper, I think you are right. Even tho the nowiki note use Am-Eng. was placed in 2019 and the ln-Eng. banner was dated earlier, I just did a history search, and the first instance of the American spelling "center" is from 2 January 2005. So it seems it was created in American English long ago. You are correct in suggesting that we change the talk page. Netherzone (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for seeing it and now correcting it, Netherzone. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paramahansa_Yogananda