Talk:Swami Maheshwarananda

Lalit82in (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename?

Now that the AfD is done, I would like to rename this article "Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda", as the name most commonly appears online. Any objections? Looie496 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Thanks for following through. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposed new title seems OK. Thanks a lot for helping cleaning the article up :)

Atmapuri (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary of factual accuracy dispute

What is disputed is the name of the person. Verification is currently not possible as there is no support on Wiki to submit legal documents (passport copy or proof of residence). The current name has been "verified" by checking with his secretary. Atmapuri (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Misspelled honorific in title?

Just because it is a commonly used title and is used in other places it is nevertheless is a honorific title. Thus it should not be part of the name of the article. Wikid^as© 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The honorofic is not misspelled. Check the google for a quick proof. Paramhans is legaly part of his name as per passport. If you are regarded as worthy of it in India, you can have that (honorific spiritual title) as part of your name in passport. Swami is also a title. It means monk and there could be thousands of Maheshwaranandas. There is just no way, you can cut the legal name in parts without actually deleting it and Adf was already done. The naming culture in India does not follow western concepts. Atmapuri (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So why do not go back to Vishwaguru Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda Puri as it was at the time of AFD? Swami Maheshwarananda is sufficient, obviously, even in India unless you are trying to be respectful (which is not the purpose of Wikipedia). Even Ramakrishna Paramahamsa is redirecting to Ramakrishna -- there are so many Ramakrishnas... in India I guess. The names that are honorifics are removed.Wikid^as© 16:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem with removing honorifics unless they duplicate legaly also as the first name. Atmapuri (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion: Agreed; ditch the Paramhans. There is a proposed convention for this, and it says "Generally, titles and honorifics should not be used either in the article body or when naming an article," though it does leave an exception for when a person is known by their name with the honorific included. In this case, though, I don't think it's needed. Side note: this article really does read like a fansite. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Paramhans according to his passport is his first name, Swami is his middle name and Maheshwarananda is his last name. If we would follow the suggested logic, a person named Doctor Pope, would be deleted from Wiki, because all his names would be Honorific titles. Atmapuri (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikidas, can you find proof showing that Paramhans isn't his first name? Also, according to swami, the word "swami" is an honorific. So really, all I'm seeing here is two honorifics followed by a last name. Am I wrong in that judgment? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Atma you are being disruptive -- you have removed here your own reference confirming that Paramhans is a title and added it at the same time and now you claim it is his first given name. Are you this person's fan? I will leave a note on you talk on being disruptive. You called a vandalism reasonable edit. You should never do it or you will run into a block. evidence that it was not his first name is both his given name and this edit [1] Wikid^as© at this time -- 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, wow. I guess that one covers it for me. Thus, Paramhans is an honorific and should be removed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends upon how far back you looked. I did not originally author that sentence. I have removed the modified version which said, He uses his honorific title... That is in fact not true. What matters are facts and not little tricks. His name was given to him some 45 years ago by his Guru. That became his legal name. It is customed in Hinudism that Gurus name their desciples giving them new spiritual names.

If a guy in Bronks would choose to be called Vishwaguru Saint and would become notable, Wiki would be required to use his name as a title in his biography. The problem here is that one culture is mutilating another culture by badly applying well meant rules. Names as required by the person to present themselves in court and on the passport, should not be shortened in any form.

It may be that you have removed parts from the names of other Hindus Masters. But everybody answers for his own actions and I can not help you there. The bottom line here is that "genuine" legally valid parts of names are being stripped from persons names, because in western culture it is not practiced to give people honorifics as part of their legal name. Atmapuri (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this another way. Can we find reliable sources to prove this one way or the other? Either a source stating "Paramhans is his legal name and he no longer has a first name," or one saying "Paramhans is an honorific and his current full name is x." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. We are talking here about a living person with a residence in Austria in Vienna. There are documents like proof of residence which shows his name. Then the passport, personal ID, etc.. However, this dispute must then be raised to high enough level by Wiki admin's that this will seem appropriate and that documents provided will not be misused to violate laws of personal privacy. I am not at all clear how is this then handled on Wiki. In what form and to whom are this documents to be communicated, who verifies their accuracy and so on. To my knowledge there is no such statement on the internet. I never heard of a dispute like that (about the name) before. Normally you show your passport and documents and that's it. Atmapuri (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I need some clarification here. Why do you have access to his personal documentation? Are you somehow personally related or affiliated to this guy? If so, we have a lot more to discuss. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

At the time of AFD when article (the same ad) was named Vishwaguru Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda Puri Atma/ the same user said:

Comment I was also considering how to change the title in to something shorter, but did not find a way. I disagree though with plain dismissal of facts, especially by people whi are really not in to yoga in similar things and not interested in the subject. Has anyone even checked the list of links provided to establish notability? I am getting a feeling of being ignored here. Atmapuri (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Now what can I say more to it? How can someone first claim to find no way to change a title "in to something shorter" (at a time 4 honorifics and a name) and now claiming that he is in a direct possession of that same guy's utility bills and passport that states current now much shorter article name with just one honorific title and the name? I would put it up for an official move by an admin and am very concerned. Wikid^as© 22:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(to translate it those who do not know what honorifics stand for: Vishwaguru Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda Puri - "Teacher of the universe" - "The lord of the arena of sacrifice" "Super-human-being" Swami Maheshwarananda "Pure". After AFD it was renamed only to "Super-human-being" Swami Maheshwarananda. I am sure it is his 'passport' name... Wikid^as© 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, this does sound vaguely suspicious. If this is going to start dealing with sensitive data, then we might need some admin help. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The initial title was longer because I was unaware about the title rules on Wiki. (no honorifics required) If you check the article, you can find a link to his cover organization and a phone number. If you can reach his secretary, you can get additional information like that. Atmapuri (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying that you don't have a direct affiliation with him? Either way, we need some good secondary reliable sources to prove one way or the other. Basically, Atmapuri, the burden is on you to prove that Paramhans is actually his first name. We really shouldn't have to do this by getting in touch with him and going through a strange certification process. If he really is notable enough to have his own article, then the information should be out there. But as far as I can tell right now, Paramhans is just an honorific. And at some point, we need to stop going round and round in circles and come to some conclusion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is how things stand. When I originally submitted the article, I simply specified entire title, because I did not know better. Then somebody suggested that it should be shortened, I had no problem with that, because the name Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda is used on his books and it is the name most frequently used in the public. Later when Wikidas attempted to changed the little I began to wondered what is his "real name" as per passport, so I made the inquiry. The information that his formal and legal name in his passport is Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda, I got from his secretary (I believe). The problem of this discussion however, is that I have mentioned at the beginning of all this talk, that this in fact is his formal and legal name, but for some strange reason nobody really cares about that.

When the article was moved the first time, it was first suggested on the talk page, left for any comments for a few days until everybody agreed and then the move was made. The current procedure was change first, check later. That is not what one would consider civilized behavior. Not even on Wiki.

What is the truth can not simply be ignored. I am sure legal documents can be submitted, if necessary, but only according to the law. This can not be avoided. Not every bloke on the street can ask for your ID either. There must have been issues like that before. How where they handled? Must all living people with bio on Wiki be ready to show the passport at any time to anybody? Maybe mediation would be a good start? Clearly it is a simpler path, if Wikidas tries to find proof for himself only, rather than for a general public. There are methods how to verify somebodies real name. I did that to a reasonable extent, but cant do that for you Atmapuri (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Okay. Based on what I can find in news sources, it does seem that he's almost always referred to with Paramhans in the name. So maybe it's just easier to leave the name the way it is. Having said that, though, this article still reads like a fansite. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved - discussion seems dead, and consensus if anything is against the proposal Kotniski (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Swami Maheshwarananda → Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda —

• Because of redirects it is not possible to move the page back to its original name. The original name discussion was done on the talk page in great extend several months ago. It was agreed to keep Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda. Explanation: Paramhans doubles as title and legally first name as per passport. Atmapuri (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Paramahamsa appears to be an honorific title. Given the article has some move history suggest it be discussed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion was already done. See this talk page. Consessus was already reached, but the recent move was made wihtout any discussion or suggestions.Atmapuri (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I read the discussion and I still don't see any indication in the sources that Paramhans is part of his legal name. You mention that its his name as it appears in his passport, Do you have a source that confirm that?--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Existence or absence of third party source readable on internet, does not affect the reality of things. As mentioned in the discussion, I have made reasonable efforts to establish the truth. Even if ones name is made solely out of honorifics, the name should not be nulled because of that. In the absence of internet source to confirm or dispute a statement it would seem reasonable that at least a second source of information (not necessarily on internet) is found which contradicts the first, before any action is taken to assume that the first is wrong. Atmapuri (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I doesn't have to be an internet source, it can be any reliable and verifiable soruce. Your word that this is his official name is not sufficient. If you can't provide a reliable source for your claim that I don't think this can/will move forward.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Passport of a living person is a reliable source. My word may not be enough, but anybody is free to verify it with enough interest in the subject. Reluctance to make the effort does not count to disqualify those who did make the effort. For example, because this is a living person, you can actually track his whereabouts and go meet him. To my understanding, it is not a celebrity of such kind that he would be unapproachable. Then, if asked politely I am sure, you can have a look in to his passport. Ignoring the truth inevitably results in violation of Wiki rules. The name of the living person with a biography on Wiki should at least be what it really is. Atmapuri (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• There were only unreliable claims that that his name is legally Paramahans or Paramahamsa. These claims are not supported by third party reliable sources that can say it is his legal name, nor is there a need to include a honorific in the name, even if it is a legal name. The policy is - MOS:HONORIFIC-3 and as the member of clergy he may be called Paramahans, but the policy is not to include such name in the article. The editor Atmapuri is in a serious WP:COI and may need to be reported to the appropriate board. In any case we should note that COI editing is strongly discouraged. Besides his other POV pushing [2] Wikid^as© 18:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comming from a fan of Paramahansa Yogananda, this sounds as a compliment. The truth however is only one at the end. There is no POV attached to it. Atmapuri (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sexual Harassment Allegations

There was a section on the fact that various media reports have been published in different countries about a number of former students of MS reporting sexual misconduct by Swami. The entry also mentioned that some long-term disciples left Swamiji because of this reason (most after some serious heart-searching). I understand that this is not what followers like to have on this site, but it is part of Maheshwarananda's public persona, and there is ample reporting on this issue. The original entry (now back up again) made it clear that Maheshwarananda and his organization deny the allegations, and there are several links and references. Just erasing this without giving a good reason is not a very productive way of managing this entry and its objectivity. Remember, this is not an advertisement space or a place to honour one's guru maharaja, but it is an encyclopedia entry. The current entry does not say that he did, nor does he say that he didn't do it. It reports that there have been allegations, and that some journalists followed these cases and found them to be believable. Merely disliking this is not a good reason for erasing it. 62.178.23.79 (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this section is deleted again and again and again, making good material for reports of vandalism. If you think this does not belong here, then please at least provide ONE single argument. All this may backfire, i.e. it really appears as if YIDL has to hide something. Otherwise, you'd able to provide good arguments rather than just deleting without a single word. Fact is that more and more such allegations (note the word!) are coming forward. 62.178.23.79 (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP accusations may not be added without citing reliable sources - this is our default. You've cited two sources, one is a blog (not acceptable), and I can not access the other to check its reliability. Materialscientist (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Point accepted. I corrected and added references. By the way, profil is a serious Austrian news magazine, akin to the Spiegel, Newsweek, Time magazine; and Connection is one of the longest standing German magazines on things yoga, meditation, etc. and has a good record of doing sober research and work. But that you may research yourself. By the way, the sources in this section stand now in sharp contrast to some of the other sources quoted in this article, most of which are in-house publications of YIDL or totally missing (such as the blood donation work for the Red Cross). 62.178.23.79 (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This goes to 62.201.19.45: Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Because yet again it's gone, deleted by the very same 62.201.19.45 who always deletes the bit about the sexual harassment, and does so without argument, without comment, and even after the references were updated. 62.201.19.45's Wikipedia history references ONLY changes on this site, or, more precisely, only this one change: deleting this paragraph. Please stop, this is not a place to censure entries, it is a place for information. Thanks Pythagoras01 (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Lakata, is there a reason why you deleted the section on sexual harassment? The section gives references (much more accurate than many others in this entry), it is relevant, and it is a well-known fact that such allegations exist (a google search may convince you of that). Not mentioning it here, then, would seem to come close to censorship, no? I therefore reverted it; if there are non-partisan arguments for deleting the section, I am of course ready and willing to be discuss. Pythagoras01 (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The points Pythagoras01 made are unanswered and still stand, therefore the continuous blanking of the sexual abuse section is unwarranted and in my opinion constitutes vanadalism. If there are differing opinions, why not discuss them here instead of just vandalising the page? 193.110.28.9 (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Pythagoras01, do you have real evidence for it? Since otherwise you spread slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakata (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Lakata, I am so glad you are finally ready to discuss the matter. I am not Pythagoras01, but since I have reverted the section blanking several times myself, too, I feel partly addressed, too, and would like to take a stab at an answer. Look, what do you mean by "it"? The article talks about media reports. Those are referenced. I think there is little room to dispute the fact of the media reports. Then, keep in mind the guidelines for biographies of living persons, which say: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I think reports by reputable news sources qualifies for "well-documented". Wikipedia articles requires a neutral point of view, I therefore need to ask you to make the effort and please try to think like someone outside of your little cult for a moment, and understand that the public has a legitimate interest in being informed about negatives as well as about positives of the person in question. 217.13.184.246 (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources provided look inadequate to avoid problems of WP:UNDUE. (One is a dead link, incidentally.) Has this guy actually been charged with any crime or, better still, convicted of one?

No one has been charged with a crime or convicted. The edit regarding "Media Reports on Sexual Abuse" is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people even with the principles fairness at all. Lakata (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be consensus here to include the material, not consensus to exclude it, so please don't edit war over it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear anyone, the section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Maheshwarananda#Media_Reports_on_Sexual_Abuse) is removed, because still there are no real facts that support these published allegations. Otherwise it is only spreading of slander. Lakata (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I ask everyone, please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia regarding the section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Maheshwarananda#Media_Reports_on_Sexual_Abuse), especially if it involves living persons. Still there are no real facts that support these published allegations. Otherwise it is only spreading of slander. Thank you. Lakata (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the majority of reports on this person from reputable media, as opposed to self-published or obscure, deal with the sexual abuse, I call it very disingenuous to the public to exclude this angle, especially since what is left is just advertisement, fluff and self-aggrandisement. Lovelybeing (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC) ,formerly 217.13.185.14 (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

They look obscure to me. Then again, I don't understand German. Would you care to justify your claim that they are "reputable media"?

The promotional wording can be dealt with separately. We don't put in dubiously sourced potentially defamatory claims about a living person in order to balance out promotional self-aggrandisement in their article! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

With pleasure. I am new to Wikipedia, thanks for giving me a chance to explain.

1) http://www.profil.at/articles/1124/560/299653/yoga-gibst

Profil is the longest established and one of the biggest Austrian news magazines with a long history of politically highly relevant media scoops. Comparable to the German "Spiegel", and if there is such a comparison, to the English "Economist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profil_(magazine)

2) While the Respekt article was not referenced, it should have been.

http://respekt.ihned.cz/respekt-in-english/c1-53834960-the-nightlife-of-a-great-yogi

On Respekt itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respekt

3) As has been said, Connection is one of the longest standing German magazines on things yoga, meditation, etc. and has a good record of doing sober research and work. http://www.julia-koloda.de/mediapool/128/1289718/data/Yoga1.pdf http://www.connection.de/index.php/magazine

I understand your point that sources must be evaluated independently, and that the dubious sources for the fluff don't justify sources for the criticism which are not up to par. But I hope that the links I have given show that they indeed are.

Lovelybeing (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Respekt piece is apparently "Translated by Roman Peterka for Beyond Orange, an organization founded by former members of the Yoga in Daily Life community" - so it seems to be merely repeating claims made by a small number of people who have already had disagreements with the subject of the article.

Why is the piece from Connection not on Connection's own website, but on "julia-koloda.de" instead?

I'm going to look a bit further into the others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've mentioned this at WP:BLPN so hopefully we will get some more input soon. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

In any event, the original sources of articles may not be serious. No one has been charged with a crime or convicted. Consequently, adding defamatory content without solid evidence (a lady said that) to Wikipedia is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. Lakata (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I very much appreciate understanding Wikipedia´s editors who temporarily blocked the controversial content because of the suspected sources. Thank you. Lakata (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Julia Koloda is the journalist who wrote the Connection piece.

I have looked over to the Sathya Sai Baba page , which has a long section on criticism, while Sathya Sai Baba has never been officially charged with anything either, as far as I can see. Seems in his case, the official charge sheet was rightly not made the be-all and end-all of determining legitimacy of criticism. Lovelybeing (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but that dude was the avatar of Shirdi Sai Baba, right?

On a more serious note, the sourcing there is a lot stronger than what's offered here. I'm not saying it can't be improved. It may be that some of that article is WP:UNDUE. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, the subject of our article here is a very minor figure compared to the Sai Baba, so hour-long BBC documentaries are not to be expected.

Wanted to remark regarding a gossip loop, as mentioned on the BLP notice board, that's t to my understanding not the case here, since each source has done original interviews with one or more abuse victims. Lovelybeing (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I am happy that there is some discussion on this topic here. The former edit-delete-undo-delete circle was getting boring. I would just like to point out that not only are the articles independent of each other (compare countries and cited persons/alleged victims); also, while not exactly the BBC, there is a recent TV report on the issue in New Zealand: http://www.3news.co.nz/Yoga-swami-faces-allegations-of-sexual-abuse/tabid/1771/articleID/300358/Default.aspx Of course we can all pretend it never happened and that all these articles and reports do refer to a completely different person who just happens to look like Swami and has the same name. Or we concede that this issue is part of his persona, and hence has to be part of this entry on Wikipedia.

And Lakata, if neither profil, nor Respekt, nor New Zealand TV, nor Connection, etc. are reliable sources, who or what is? Should we discard all the journalists, newspaper and TV editors, etc. involved, sit back and nod to your and Swami's version instead? Then why didn't he or YiDL sue them for slander? All of this is not a minor detail. An article which, for example, claims that Swami started to meditate when he was three years old, that there are "thousands of YiDL centers around the world (proof? addresses?), and does not back this up, may at least also cover the fact there are some fairly well references allegations of sexual abuse. In fact, the documentation for these allegations is way better than almost everything else in this article. (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, you've got the point. if administrators are not biased I can't see how can they let some 'facts' be in this article , and on the other hand to block quite relevant and documented information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.14.150 (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the paragraph did not claim that Swami sexually abused people; it referred to the fact that in recent years, such allegations have been reported in a number of media. Given the references, this is difficult to deny. Wouldn't it seem a little bit dishonest if we failed to mention this aspect of the Swami? I mean, if he made headlines in the past few years, it was precisely because of the sexual abuse accusations - and his Wikipedia entry should be mute on this? I can't believe it.Pythagoras01 (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Look up the kid who wanted a cooking lesson from a famous TV chef, but ended up swimming with dolphins instead... and ask yourself why Wikipedia is mute on that topic too. This may help you to believe it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so does anybody know how to involve neutral, non-partisan Wikipedians in the dispute of whether the fact that reports of sexual abuse have been published in five different countries is noteworthy information about Swami (or not)? It may also be noteworthy that in a recent declaration, the New Zealand branch of YiDL does no longer deny these allegations; they only say that they are not in a position to investigate them (http://www.3news.co.nz/Portals/0/images/Yoga%20in%20Daily%20Life%20Society%20Response.doc). So if even YiDL takes note of this issue, Wikipedia should also take note of it.

And by the way, nobody blocked the Abuse section as Lakata claimed. It's up there again because unless decided otherwise, and for objective reasons, it is part of Swami's public persona. A google news search suffices to prove that. Reports, from DIFFERENT people, have appeared in Austria, Australia, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Germany, and England. What more do you need?Pythagoras01 (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This is part of your problem. Most of the people who are in disagreement with you, are neutral and non-partisan. I'd never heard of this yoga guy outside of Wikipedia (I can't even spell his name), and have no interest in his teachings or indeed in yoga. Just like I'd never heard of the famous TV chef outside of Wikipedia (famous to people interested in cooking - not famous to me).

Whereas I have the temerity to suggest a possibility that when multiple WP:SPA accounts turn up desperately wanting to put "scandal" into the biography of a living person, some of them might not be neutral. I mean, come on, you're telling us that you're just a neutral uninvolved man on the Clapham omnibus who read in a magazine about some bad things a yoga guy allegedly did, and suddenly you're on a crusade that these particular allegations must be covered by Wikipedia? Really? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You can look up my former name, it was something like Diogenes and then a number. I forgot my password. I am asking for neutral people not because I think that they necessarily agree with me, but because the back and forth is utterly unproductive. Additionally, it is not the motive which counts but the result. The article makes wild unsubstantiated and inconsistent claims about Yoga in Daily Life (e.g. MS developed it, doctors developed it, it is ancient and presumably therefore older than both MS and the doctor who developed it, etc.; his gurus are held to be avatars of Siva, but there is no reference, etc. etc.)

I readily admit that the fact that the fact that the abuse passage is being deleted again and again and again made me especially sensitive to what is happening here. I have no personal ties to, nor did I have any, to Swami Maheshwarananda, so I am relatively neutral, yes - besides the fact that I am allergic to the very idea of censorship.Pythagoras01 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

One note on 'neutrality' of the editors- I am sure that Swami Maheshwarananda's page on Wikipedia is not written by an neutral person,' but from his devotees, and that is obvious from it's style of praise and lack of objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.14.150 (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

To Demiurge: ... for a moment, try to get into my shoes ... how would you react if you read an article in a good and trusted political news magazine (profil) and posted the content of this article on Wikipedia. And then your passage would be deleted about 6 times without any comment? Then, finally, someone said that the references were no good, therefore the deletion. Okay, so I researched the references, found pretty good ones, and lo and behold! - deleted again. Without comment. Then, finally, a comment: now it wasn't the references, but the content. So I dug up more references, posted it again. Others pointed out that the newspapers which published the reports were, after all, decent and in part high quality media, but the followers now said that these newspapers only quoted one and the same witness. Which turns out to be not true (more references, more countries). Post it again. Again deleted. And then you come along and say that because I posted this so often, I cannot be neutral. And therefore, this doesn't belong here. That's Kafkaesque to the extreme. And please note: All the entry says is that there are these reports; it even includes the disclaimer that the Swami and his org are denying the allegations - though as I found out and pointed out above, the NZ org does not deny the allegations.

So yes, I guess by now I am no longer neutral as far as the history of this passage is concerned. As far as the Swami or Yoga is concerned: I couldn't care less. But the history of one of my few attempts to do something worthwhile on Wikipedia is, I admit, frustrating.Pythagoras01 (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

See it like this: Wikipedia has strict guidelines for the biographies of living persons, which by default reject adding such allegations to the article, unless there is hard evidence for them. I am not happy with the removal of such information, but I understand that we have to play by the rules even when we personally dislike the outcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Where I beg to differ is the evaluation of "hard evidence". There are around a dozen female disciples who have come forward with reports of being sexually abused by the Swami. Additionally, the entire board of at least two national organizations and some long-standing teachers have resigned after checking the validity of these allegations. Against this, the accused is one person and this one person (expectedly) denies the validity of the allegations. Now, weighing the evidence ... how hard does it need to get?

Furthermore, and strictly speaking, the evidence needed for the claim that there are media reports on sexual abuse by the Swami are the references themselves (provided). It still seems very strange to me that you claim that on Wikipedia, one cannot even mention the one fact about a person with which this person has made headlines in the past few years. It might be damning headlines, but that should not count as much as the fact that if the Swami was in the media during the past few years, it was precisely because of the sexual abuse allegations. I guess Wikipedia would be much less informative if we applied the same criteria to other living person biographies. Please, therefore, reconsider whether we should continue to pretend that there were never such reports.Pythagoras01 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Georgescu, please let's be objective, but really objective :Hard evidence? This whole article is based on "not at all" sourced, and to be honest, more than biased claims that serve more as a marketing tool for a personality cult ( and sound more like a fairy tale than a LPB ) rather than as a serious and factual wikipedia page of a real person LPB. On the other hand- at least 7 witnesses (more than 4 of them with open identities, 2 of them speaking in top time tv show interviews, others telling theirs stories in respectable magazines , and ALL of them long time devotees of swami maheshwarananda ) are not thrustworthy , not enough "hard evidence" to take a notion of the possbility of sexual abuse had ahppened ? Victims of sexual abuse/mind control have problems of facing the ( horrible ) reality so it is known fact in psychology that such cases are often popping out later the 5 years period of the actual abuse and that is unfortunately too long period to make court case in most countries. If almost WHOLE BOARDS of YIDL in Serbia and Australia had resigned ( more than 30 people ) - claiming in open letters ( Swami Chidanand ) that the sexual abuse allegations are real - and we are talking about people that were in YIDL for a long periods of time, some of them for more than 30 years ( very close and important associates of SM ) and most of them with more than 10 years of being in YIDL doesn't that ring a bell?

Ler me cite this line from wikipedia own policy on LPBiographies : " If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." If such obvious allegations and INCIDENTS as those on sexual abuse mentioned in the article are not noteworthy , not relevant , or not well documnted than what IS? Does wikipedia serve as a marketing tool for certain individuals or as a place to share relevant information of the public interest and benefit? 109.60.14.150 (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The place for voicing such concerns would be the WP:BLPN, there is where the matter gets decided according to Wikipedia policies. I suggest reading WP:GREATWRONGS: Wikipedia is not a platform for combating real or imagined harm done to others, but it is an encyclopedia. The promotional tone of the article needs to be curtailed, but that's a different matter from making allegations of sexual abuse. I find that many Wikipedia biographies of saints, gurus and cult leaders are biased in favor of such personalities, unless he/she gets convicted by a court for some crime, and in this case a conviction is unlikely to follow. In BLP, polemical sources are often discarded by default, so it's hard to get criticism in such articles. But that's what follows from Wikipedia policies. If you ask me the real abuse wasn't having sex with the guru, but drinking his feet-bath water. If one performs the later, the former is a rather trivial issue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia's one and only purpose is to inform with relevant information on certain phenomena, event, person etc. Purpose of the information is action, not just useless piles of data for curious bookworms. Information on sexual scandal ( huge and relevant incident ) involving a person that has ambitions to be a spiritual leader is relevant and important. Also it would be interesting to add that a person that promotes his system of yoga and healthy living is a person with long list of health problems ( severe heart problems ) and obesity. So, let's be honest and simple - allegations are heavy and well documented and their place is on this wikipedia page. Period. 109.60.14.150 (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

TGeorgescu: To repeat, and you can check this yourself: These are not, as you claim, polemical sources. To call profil polemical is a bit like calling Time magazine and the Economist polemical. If you mean that the nature of the allegations is scandalous - perhaps they are, but that's not the fault of a journalist reporting on it. So, what do we end up with? I always thought that one of Wikipedia's strengths was that it offers information beyond mere basic data. But if we need to stick to basic data, we may need to just leave the most basic facts there: name, job description (yoga teacher), birth date and place and books he wrote. I'd call this process unwikipediation, but if that's what "we" want, so be it.Pythagoras01 (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, I have sympathy for such criticism, but this has to be sorted out according to policies. There is a reason why the BLP policy is biased against criticism: Wikipedia does not want to be dragged in legal battles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not the main reason. See User:Demiurge1000, near the end. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Include There's a nuance between gossip and scandal that's dogged BLP editors since the beginning when it comes to sex scandals. As for religious leaders, there's an entire category for just those by Evangelical Christians. Consensus in these articles can be a waxing & waning tide, but for this subject it certainly looks like enough reliable sources have weighed in - this scandal itself affects Maheshwarananda's legacy, therefore it should go in. (One point - It is NOT slander or libel to quote & cite a reliable source in a BLP.) EBY (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - the comparison with similar entries referring to evangelical Christian is a very good one. Here, too, it is not only legal matters which count, but legacy.Pythagoras01 (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what will happen next. I am surely biased, but to my mind, the arguments offered by the "include"-side are good ones, and haven't been answered yet by the "delete"-side. If the "delete"-side wishes to be consequent, there is a whole lot to delete on the evangelical scandal list (and other entries, too). In other words, change the face of Wikipedia to a considerable extent because if the abuse headlines don't belong to Maheshwarananda's Wikipedia entry and if we want to have some equality policies here, a whole lot of information which is neither the subject matter of legal court cases, nor has been admitted by the alleged culprit to be true, has to be deleted. If, on the other hand, one wishes to keep Wikipedia as it is and harmonize the Maheshwarananda entry with the rest of Wikipedia (rather than the other way round), the sexual abuse issue should be included in the article. So: Include or change Wikipedia. Also, I would like to point out that in this case, no decision is a decision, i.e. it would by default favour the "delete"-side - and yet not through argument, but through mere inaction (calculated or not). Hence my plea to come to a decision, please. Pythagoras01 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just removed the allegations because at least one of the sources, "Smythers, P. Sexual Abuse in Yoga Groups: The Case of Swami Maheshwaranda. Journal of Social Group Processes 33:1", seems to be made up in whole cloth. I couldn't verify the existence of the journal or the article. Two others are PDFs not hosted by the purported publisher. None of them supported the given content. Huon (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice justyfiyng...one reference "seems to be made up" so you remove it and all the rest ! Really scientific and neutral approach !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.252.233 (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you care to explicitly state which of the references do not support the given content? Each of them does, so your claim is just that, a claim. Anyway, by now it is well-known within the yoga community that a number of Maheshwarananda's disciple confirm the sexual abuse. The fact that this is everywhere but on wikipedia and YDL websites only confirms the less than straightforward dealings with the issue, so I pledge for keeping it here in the discussions. It's a worthy testimony, especially if the reasons given are as shallow as Huons. Let's keep it like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.23.79 (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)