Talk:Paramahansa Yogananda/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mahasamadhi

Here are 4 links to articles that include Mahasamadhi, the conscious act of leaving the body.

• See Swami Vivekananda under Death
• See Ramakrishna under Last Days
• See Lahiri Mahasaya "In 1895 he began gathering his disciples, letting some of them know that he would soon be leaving the body. Moments before his passing, he said simply, "I am going home. Be comforted; I shall rise again." He then turned his body around three times, faced north, and consciously left his body, entering mahasamadhi"
• See Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri under Spiritual life
• Time Magazine page 57, August 4, 1952 - Guru's Exit [[1]]
• On March 7, 1952, the great Guru entered mahasamadhi, a God‑illumined master’s conscious exit from the body at the time of physical death. He had just finished giving a short speech at a banquet honoring India’s ambassador to the United States, Dr. Binay R. Sen, at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles…. Huffington Post article [[2]]

I plan to add Mahasamadhi back into the article Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Mahasamadhi is not a medical term for death cause. Give me one good article who makes this in the Infobox. What do you mean to my edits senior post. Please remember that we have multitude Problems with your edits. As example that the Path of Yogananda ist not Hinduism.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

We have some problems with your edits and I have had to make many corrections. I saw the words Senior Post somehow appeared in the infobox and I followed the edits all the way back to when these words appeared and it was right after your edit. Please correct it. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

True Mahasamadhi is not a medical term and that is the point. When he consciously left his body after fully reading the poem My India, his body then died. Spiritually he consciously left his body and then his body expired. I don't need to educate or convince you about Mahasamadhi. Perhaps it is something that you can research and educate yourself about. I also plan to expand the Mahasamadhi page perhaps that will help you. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I hardly ever receive emails and when you have emailed me, I have not received them. I just updated my email address, please resend your email.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

We all make mistakes and I am not upset about it. It just needs to be fixed. I think we can work together if we support each other in this process. I have been editing on about 50 pages for the last 7+ years and watchlist about 30. I know a great deal about editing on Wikipedia but there are always things for us to learn.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok I will start working on the Mahasamadhi page to bring understanding and clarity.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You used the article Ramakrishna as example that the Mahasamadhi is the cause of death in the Infobox. I watch it short in the infobox there are named "Throat cancer" no Mahasamadhi. In the text from the article stand that "according to his disciple" that was Mahasamadhi. So I think is correct for Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna Thank you --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok I took out the third persons comments because he/she doesn't know not change another's posting and hasn't signed his/her posting. To the new editor if you want to make a comment in a discussion, you need to start at the very bottom of the discussion using the : (colon) sign to indent further than the person before you. I used 6 colons and you will need to use 7 colons. Also when you finish your comments, you sign the comment by typing in 4 of this sign ~. You can see all this when you click on edit button. I had to take out your comments to reinstate my comments. Let us know if you have any quesitons. Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Paramhansa vs Paramahansa

I notice in the picture it says "Paramhansa" whereas in the text it says it should be Paramahansa. Can someone correct this? --GoodGollyGuy 05:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

While it is commonly used as part of his name it should not be in any form used in Wikipedia since it is a common honorific. Needs a move. Wikid^as© 20:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yogananda never spelled his name with the extra "a." In his lifetime it was Paramhansa. After he died his editor and/or other leading devotees in SRF decided to add an "a." I don't know what their reason was, possibly that it would come off the English-speaking tongue better. The historical character we are writing about here was Paramhansa from the time of receiving this as his monastic name until the day he died in in L. A. in 1952.Moabalan (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems correct, although the present spelling may now have become the common name through use and repetition. File:Autobiography-of-a-Yogi.jpg, the first edition of his main book, does not include the extra 'a'. Interesting, and certainly an RM should be initiated to at least discuss changing the page title to apparently Yoganada's correct name. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past and settled. The name Paramahansa Yogananda has become globally established in the public domain in hundreds of publications for over 50 years now - to just list a few: Los Angeles times, Huffington post, Yoga Journal, Philip Goldbergs books, New York Times, in the movie Awake: The Life of Yogananda seen by thousands of people, in the book "Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, etc...Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, which is too bad because the fellow didn't spell it like that during his lifetime (although he was also using "Swami Yogananda" up to 1935, per the name used on the incorporation papers of his society). At some point after his death someone else had the idea to add the extra 'a' to the authorship line on his book titles, did so, and the media copied it. Akin but quite different than the Mahatma Gandhi situation (Gandhi didn't use the title and didn't want others to use it), as this is actually a misspelling of Yogananda's name. Has any other post-death change such as this been discussed, and can you link to the past settled discussion? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to retrieve past discussions. Perhaps there is someone who can. If my memory serves me, one of the reasons it was changed had to do with pronunciations from different languages. It truly is a minor change but does reflect how it is spoken in English. Parama is how it is spoken in English. Param is not how it is spoken in English. Even if you bring up the previous discussion, we cannot change it now. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

indic scripts not allowed

Pleaser refer to WP:INDICSCRIPT, do not add bengali in the lead. offcourse he was from Bengal but belonged to all Shrikanthv (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Four versions of the same photograph

I notice that the article contains four versions of the same photograph of Yogananda - the plain photo as the lead image; the cover of his book, adorned with that same photo; and two postage stamps, also with the same photograph. It really would be better to vary the diet slightly; at the least, having two such similar postage stamps is probably WP:UNDUE, and I shall boldly cut one of them now, leaving just three versions of the image: still rather too many, I'd say. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Three seems fine, in different contexts. Thanks for your move and creation of the disciples page (maybe some photos of the disciples - initiates? - will show up on it or the standard photograph of Yogananda, who could have spent more time in a photo booth). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Because each stamp is different - one done in 1977 & the second time in 2017, both photos need to be kept in the article. This is a part of history. I thank you too for moving the list of direct disciples to its own page. Nice clean up Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC) However I think having each name bolded made it much easier to read and to scan over. Please add the bold for each name back in.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply. However, I don't think the reasoning is correct; what if there were five stamps, or a hundred? Clearly, we would not wish to attempt to include all of them, or we might refer readers to a Commons category or page. The text states (at some length) that there were two such stamps; they are rather similar; and as Voltaire wrote, the art of boring people consists of saying everything. One of the two should go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

[This concerns the other article.] On the boldface names, it is non-standard to use bold except in the lead section. An alternative would be to format the list as a table, so the names would appear in a separate column (and could be made sortable), with another for dates, etc. But thank you for your kind words about the cleanup. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Since there are only two stamps Red Rose has a good point. It is unusual for a 20th century spiritual leader to have one stamp, let alone two, so showing them both fulfills an encyclopedic purpose. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Paramahansa-Yogananda-with-book

Paramahansa-Yogananda-with-Anandamayi-Ma

Ah, that's rather a different message from your previous comment. We are now back to 4 versions of the same photograph, which (I felt) the two of us had agreed upon was rather too many --- as indeed I'd have thought the community at large would agree with also. Personally, I think the duller of the two stamps is the least worthy of the four images, but we could equally well remove one of the others; in particular, it's a bit unusual to have a book's cover in an author's article (ok, they're often in copyright) especially when there's an article on the book also. We really should not be presenting an image of the subject, however iconic, four times in an article: Wikipedia is not an advertising site. By the way, Randy K, there are more images of Yogananda on Commons, so we could consider using a different (shock, horror) lead image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

When given reasonable viewpoints I often change my mind. Another lead image? Yogananda would be rolling over in his grave (which incorruptibility would make easier). Do you have one in mind? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I haven't got any cunning plan. But here are two images that wouldn't go amiss in the average article; or see Commons for yourself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The one where he's holding the book would work (my cunning plan to get that picture back into the lede). But seriously, a good idea, since the well-known photo is on the page several times, and the holding the book one works well. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I notice that if we use that image, there'll still be 4 versions of that image! :p) (you may have to look closely...). But it'll be an improvement, certainly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Saw the book. The image with Anandamayi Ma would be a good one for somewhere on the page as well. Nice find (well, Commons, but you found them). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I've put in the Ma image, a good one. I notice, btw, that both stamps are also exhaustively explained and illustrated in Yogoda Satsanga Society of India, so personally I'd be even more ready to remove one (or both) of them from here, we're in danger of stamp-spamming, something I wouldn't be seen dead in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

SLOW DOWN - I was writing a response with links and somehow it was deleted and then I noticed all the changes - I think we need to discuss them here first. I put back the original photo - it is the same photo used in many articles and it is a common link plus Yogananda is more than his book.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Um, possibly it's you that needs to slow down. Randy and I have spent hours thinking about this and discussing it too, including creatively finding alternatives around your multiple objections. I'm off to bed now, so feel free to discuss with Randy and others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

you are moving too fast for this page - I have a life outside of Wikipedia and I am asking you to put back the original photo and then discuss it here. You changed it because of your personal preference and there is a system going on that you don't know about. The pages that relate to Yogananda all have the original photo as the main one. It helps to keep it cohesive for the reader. Feel free to add the other photo if you want but the original needs to be at the topRed Rose 13 (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I also was going to suggest putting the current book cover on this page next to the Autobiography section and here is a link to the photo[3] I have to run out to an appointment and I am requesting the editing to stop until we can discuss it. I will be putting back the original photo of course unless you did it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If you still want to change the main photo, please open a discussion about that on the talk page. The other editing that you did, looks great and made the page much more interesting.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the approval of the "other editing". Be assured that I am only here to improve the article from a neutral standpoint, and I'm glad you agree the work done so far has in fact done so.

On "personal preference", I have none - all the images of Yogananda are interesting and I exactly do not come to this page with any favoured image, as should be clear from what is written above; I looked at the available images on Commons, saw some that could clearly be used, and tried placing them.

"Four versions of the same photograph"

On the question asked in this section, the four uses of the identical icon-image, which I now understand is also copied in all the other Yogananda articles (as an icon indeed, a recognition-image, at least an understandable purpose), you have given no answer; and it would be helpful to hear it. To repeat, it does not seem good to have the image repeated four times in the same article, however iconic it is. To state the matter more starkly, multiple usage of an iconic image of a religious or spiritual leader could be taken by readers as WP:POV (for example, it might be devotional). I note that the stamp images are repeated in the Satsanga article, and indeed the second one is actually about the Satsanga (with image of its building) rather than Yogananda per se, so it might be best if it were not repeated here: that would cut the number down to three, at least an improvement.

On the book cover question, I do not think we should have multiple book images, and since there is a separate book article, it might be better to have the photo of Yogananda holding the book here (after all, this article is about him, not the book), and to leave the book image(s) to the book article. That way, we'd be down to two or three icon-images in the article, which is still plenty; and the book section would still contain a highly relevant image of Yogananda-and-the-book, something that could hardly be improved upon. There, that's my suggestion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this discussion. I am giving this some thought and will reply shortly. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Just got back to this. I think the first edition book cover image is essential for this page. Yes, Yogananda is more than his book, but the book is his most notable societal contribution (unless you follow every strand and find out that we landed on the Moon because of the Yogananda's influence on von Braun). So both the image of the first edition and the nice photo of an older Yogananda holding his book should stay on the page somewhere. The icon image isn't religiously iconic, just a good photogenic capture of Yogananda at age 20. Both stamps still seem fine, they provide an Indian national recognition of Yogananda's influence in their country and abroad. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the additional images soften the blow a bit, and illuminate the text. I'm not convinced we need both stamps in both this article and the Satsanga article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

If nothing else this page and others have had some improvement out of this interesting discussion. Shows that it is possible to arrive questioning the need for four of the same images on the page and potentially leave happy with five. The two stamp placements are on different articles, so they really can't be taken as a unit since many readers will go to one and never read the other. More cowbell. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Randy for your thoughts as well. After careful thought, here is what I have come up with. (1) In regards to the main photo, this one is placed on all of his wikipedia pages including foreign pages and lets people know they have the right Yogananda or Paramahansa. It is also the photo seen when people are searching on the internet. This image needs to be kept in the primary position. (2) In regards to the two stamps, if Yogananda's image on two stamps did not occur, there wouldn't be a problem here. So if you ignore the stamps all is well on this page. It is extremely rare for a person to be placed on one stamp let alone two stamps. If the two stamps were placed together, perhaps it would seem more like one image rather than two? (3) The photograph of Yogananda and his book could be placed on his Autobiography of a Yogi page under the photo of the book and the info chart. Or it can be placed on the Paramahansa Yogananda page in the Autobiography section in place of the book photo. Either place would work. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Also the stamps were done by the Indian govt and the photos should also be on the Yogoda Satsanga of India page. Yogananda first began his teachings with Yogoda Satsange and then brought it to the US. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. In defense of the two images being kept, the first edition of the book is such a major event that by itself is historically important enough to take up much of the lede (which could be expanded with the names of a couple other books and events and a paragraph break or two), so the first edition image gives that notable publication early and important context. The other picture captures Yogananda as an older man, which is shown nowhere else on the page and gives context to the younger Yogananda images (and we still need to photoshop the book into the hands of that six-year old), so it seems an important and good enough image that two editors were willing to make it into the lede image. And there is the legitimate 'one for the thumb' reasoning, because each image is placed appropriately and add to the flow of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

"More cowbell." New to me. Good, though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the perfect place for the photo of the older Yogananda holding his book is on the Autobiography of a Yogi page. Anyone interested in knowing more about the autobiography will click on the link to that page. I don't think both images need to be on the PY page it is over doing it. But I can compromise on that. Wikipedia is a fact based encyclopedia so photoshopping an antique photo is not appropriate. There is no need to change the lead because it is supposed to be short. Wikipedia is not a place to post events. It is a place for facts about the subject. Events need to be on a website separate from Wikipedia. Also there is already a bibliography of all his books, no need to add more to this page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The older Yogananda is also represented on the page, and it is historically important to see him later in life, and so the image would be fine (he wasn't always the young man that his iconic image shows him as). Not as much change the lede but to add to it, and by 'events' I mean his life events and other summary descriptors of what is contained in the text of the article. Photoshopping was an obvious joke about the use of the same image being discussed here, and I'm a fan of removing photoshopped images on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I missed the joke and it was not obvious to me but thank you for clarifying. The photo on this page of Yogananda holding his book is fine. We can also add it to the Autobiography page as well. Would you like to write your suggestions on what you think we should add to the lead? So far the page is much improved. Thank you for your contribution to it. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and you too as always. Will write suggestions at some point (Wikipedia time) and will build on yours or others if someone has an idea or two. Yes, I was wrong, the six-year-old Yogananda was the author of Coloring Book of a Yogi. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverted edits

Fylindfotberserk Oops! So Sorry I meant to only revert only the commonwealth English edits but it seems it might have reverted all of your edits. Is there anything I can do to help? The English should be the English we use in the United States because that is how this page began and he lived in the US from 1920 until his death in 1952 and he had become a citizen.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

In light of this new source added here will it be wise to change the existing Commonwealth spellings to American spellings? Pinging @Doug Weller, Kautilya3, and Shrikanthv:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say yes. First because it began that way, secondly because he was an American citizen. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: That would also mean we have to change the lead sentence from ...was an Indian monk, yogi and guru to something like "Indian-born American" or "Indian-American", isn't it.? Oh and I'd like to clarify that I only ran a script to update the EngVar template that was already present in the article, last updated in 2014.- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: definitely. This isn't a page on my watchlist by the way. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: OK, I'll make the necessary changes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Yogananda had citizenship in both the US & India. I changed the lead sentence to reflect that. Thanks for updating the page to the correct English. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13: Welcome but I've few questions. If he died as an American citizen, then it should be highlighted in the lead sentence as per WP:ETHNICITY. That's why I framed it as "Indian-born American". Secondly in 1949, an Indian citizen domiciled in India was termed as British subjects with Indian citizenship as per Indian nationality law. Since Yogananda was not domiciled in India at that time, it gets confusing. We would need a source to prove that he had "dual citizenship", if not then "Indian born American" seems logical IMO. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

His main book (which he is most notable for) mainly concerns his time and experiences in India. Just because he "was sent" to America by his guru, and may have become a citizen, does not negate his Indian heritage and educational roots so "Indian-born" does not provide an apt descriptor of the subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Agree with what you say, but I wonder "..who lived his last 32 years in America" is a proper way to recognize his American citizenship as per WP:ETHNICTY. Another question, if his Indian-ness is more important, shouldn't we be using Commonwealth/Indian English, which was the main point of this discussion? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Yogananda is automatically a citizen of India because of being born there. When his Guru sent him to America in 1920, he had already begun his organization and teachings in 1917. In the U.S. he traveled and lectured across the US and eventually began his large amount of writings including the Autobiography of a Yogi. He did not become a citizen until 1949 three years before his death. Both citizenships are important. His roots are in India and he spread his teachings to the United States. The lead sentence expresses this. The article needs to be in US English because he became well known spreading the teachings in the U.S. and he left this world here.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13: Hi. Apart from the MOS:DATE format and the English variant, the present lead sentence makes him look less American, that's what I'm saying. Technically most BLPs of people with dual citizenship mention both countries, e.g. "Canadian-American" in this case. Also note that Indians under British raj were British nationals as per Indian nationality law. Do you think that needs to be covered for he sake of neutrality? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Hi, Thank you for your attention to detail. I think it is just fine the way it is. When they read the info box both nationalities are equally there, Indian & American.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Red Rose 13: Hmm.. OK. That's not that big of an issue and since it seems that most of the regular editors of this article want to keep it that way, I'll respect that and the status quo. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Thank you... Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Controversy, Allegations and Litigations

Paramahansa Yogananda and the SRF are pretty controversial, with numerous lawsuits, cult allegations and plagarism claims. I am not an expert on this topic and don't feel qualified to add this in, but the fact that none of this is mentioned in the article is concerning and should be addressed. Everydaycurious (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

death_cause

death_cause = Mahasamadhi is not the encyclopedia term. Heart Failure when it was the medical diagnosis is correct the reference can be better.--Riquix (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is an encyclopedia term and it is in Wikipedia. I am editing and updating that page to bring clarity to wikipedia.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Mahasamadhi is a relgion term not a encyclopedia. Especially in the info box. That is putting the one faith on them. So please correct it.--Riquix (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I refer you to the Mahasamadhi page that thoroughly explains it. Being conscious that you are going to leave this world and when it will happen and then leave here is not religious... it is a fact for some great souls. I think having Mahasamadhi is encyclopedic as it gives the full truth. Yogananda was a spiritual Guru after all. If you want to add heart failure as well that is fine. When one leaves their body, the body dies.Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not doubt that mahasamadhi is a religious term but it is not a medical term used in the hospital or in medicine. And wikipedia is an encyclopedia. In other words, in no lexicon the cause of death will be Mahasamadhi stand.--Riquix (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I know that you give no validity to Mahasamadhi in relation to the body dying. I am working on the that page and will get back to this discussion when I am finished. When a person leaves their body, the body can no longer live and dies immediately and that is where heart failure comes in. The Mahasamadhi is first and then heart failure. For now feel free to add heart failure. I will comment here when I finish the page. It might take me a week or so as I have other things I am doing.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You won't find a death certificate that says Mahasamādhi. It's absurd. I don't have the energy to go war over this but hopefully someone will fix it at some point.72.77.2.244 (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I am returning my comments to this talk page which you removed which is against Wikipedia policy. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments]

Here are my words deleted by 72.77.2.244 - "My comment on reverting your edit should have read "wikipedia is not edited by whim or personal opinion." If you had read my comment, here you would know I am updated the Mahasamadhi page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Editors are not allowed to edit by their own personal opinion. There are 4 reliable references to back up using the word Mahasamadhi. If you want to say he went into Mahasamadhi and then died of heart failure, that could work. I will do that.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding my 2 cents here - usage of word Mahasamadhi is perfectly alright in this case. In the eastern tradition, it's a term commonly associated with the death of saints or people considered to have elevated souls, e.g., Swami Vivekananda's death. To me, an encyclopedia only means an organized body of knowledge, whether it comes from a modern era or an ancient era (e.g., vedic knowledge) is immaterial, as long as it is supported by right kind of references. If the article said "He attained Mahasamadhi .." that would be problematic but if it says "According to his followers he attained Mahasamadhi .." I think it's fine. From this logic, to me usage is fine in the main body but may not be in the info box. Xiantec (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Commas

@Red Rose 13:Honestly, there are important things as commas in view of a spiritual master but they should be properly set. Here is link, for example, on the right in English with point 11 Date: https://www.englisch-hilfen.de/grammar/kommasetzung.htm --Riquix (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Riquix here is a guideline for commas in English [4] that might be helpful. We both want the article to be perfect. Just do what you think is best. Wishing you well. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Have read your website and it seems to be so there is "When you are referencing only a month and year, you don’t need a comma. Correct: The region experienced record rainfall in March 1999." But I'm not sure if it is the independent sentence position. So let and now clarify the matter. Of course, I will change all false data, which takes a few days. And I do not give you unnecessary work. English is not my mother tongue.--Riquix (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that when only using a month and year or just a year, there are no commas. I would like to help on the new page you are creating, is ok with you? Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I have ask advanced user he wrote: The commas she added after "How you can talk with God" and "Narendra Modi" are correct and should be replaced. If you have a comma BEFORE a name or a book title, then you need to have a comma AFTER the name or the book/film/song title as well. The other punctuation items she changed were acceptable before she changed them, so your changing those back was OK I think.--Riquix (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are three examples of contentious commas from Harvard:

• In July 2020, the European Commission (...)

https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=59607

On this one it is about this statement than needs to be surrounded by commas - four years prior to the publication of Clayton Christensen’s highly influential book

• In 1993, four years prior (...)

https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=60244

Same thing here, it is about this statement that needs to be surrounded by commas - four years prior to the publication of Clayton Christensen’s highly influential book,

• In July 2020, Harvard College (...) As of December 2020, 14 international students

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/12/9/study-away-december/ --Riquix (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

As of December 2020 is a phrase.

However above that paragraph they have a comma after In July 2020,

Going to Yogananda's website I found that they use commas after the date so we should do the same on his Wikipedia page, don't you think? [[5]] Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Five examples of commas from SRF:

It was in 1910, (...) Calcutta University in 1915, (...) with the founding, in 1917, of a “how-to-live” (...) One day in 1920, while meditating (...) Reaching Los Angeles in early 1925, he established

Our example is in the article, where only the month before the year is and if you make a comma after the year. I am relatively sure now that we should do it that way. I can insert it you see it, if you agree. Just leave me time. --Riquix (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of POV content

Hi, just a quick word on POV and encyclopedic tone: Changing the (well-sourced) statement that Paramahansa Yogananda died of a heart attack to read that "his body" died of a heart attack is unencyclopedic. The news articles report that he died of a heart attack, and as with every other Wikipedia page on religion and religious figures, altering reported fact in order to suit a set of religious beliefs is not our job as Wikipedians.

Hi. The words from TIME Magazine say it best. "Self-Realization disciples claim that their teacher thus performed mahasamadhi (a yogi's conscious exit from the body). The medical verdict was "acute coronary occlusion," i.e., a heart attack." TIME Mag shows that both are true.

I agree with you on that, the TIME account is accurate and both of those claims are currently in the article. The main point is that TIME says nothing about "his body" dying. --Drevolt (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Question what dies when our body dies?Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Similarly, while the section on incorruptibility can and should report the mortuary director's claims, it should also report information from other reliable sources. Moreover, it should not report religious claims as established fact, because Wikipedia's purpose is to be a neutral source, not to mirror religious texts. This same principle applies throughout the article.

Your words "This observation seems to be incompatible with the claim that Yogananda's body did not undergo any decay." is in error according to the guideline WP:SYNTH.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Per one of the cited sources, the mortuary letter seems to contradict its own claims because it "contains information of a sign of detoriation on the tip of the body's nose, and because much lack of disintegration in an enbalmed body is not all that extraordinary". --Drevolt (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Try reading about the Wikipedia guideline Synth. In your statement, you are coming up with your own conclusion and stating that on the page. We are only supposed to reflect what our reliable sources write.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I plan on removing your conclusions from this paragraph [[6]] in paragraph beginning with Because and here [[7]] However, as is also noted in the notarized letter, Yogananda's body was embalmed approximately 24 hours after his death, meaning that the body had been artificially preserved for most of this time. It is not up to us as editors to evaluate the information and come to our own conclusions but instead bring the words from reliable sources. Read about WP:SYNTH here. This is what you are doing. Not to worry it was just recently pointed out to me as well.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

And one additional edit that I restored: The words "Los Angeles" in "Harry T. Rowe, Los Angeles Mortuary Director of the Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, California" do not make sense there, which is why I removed them. Glendale is not a part of Los Angeles, but even if it was, it would be redundant to include the words "Los Angeles" there. --Drevolt (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes after research I agree with you on this one.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, glad to hear it. --Drevolt (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Major editing without a discussion

Hello Drevolt. Thank you for your good faith edits but usually editors bring their concerns to the talk page for discussion before majorly altering a section. Let's start and go through each edit one at a time.

(1) where he collapsed and died of a heart attack. this was inserted at the beginning of the paragaraph which disrupts the whole flow of the paragraph. Placed at the end when he went into Mahasamadhi and died is sequential.

I agree that it can be mentioned towards the end of the paragraph rather than at the beginning. However, the claim that he went into mahasamadhi is not reflected by any reliable sources (as it couldn't be, because this is not a verifiable claim). Just as, for instance, the pages on Jesus Christ or Buddha report what their respective followers believe happened at their deaths and don't try to present this as verified fact, neutrality requires presenting the purported mahasamadhi as a claim made by Yogananda's followers rather than as fact. --Drevolt (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

(2) changing actual quoted words is against Wikipedia guidelines - "quotations should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources" -I bolded the words you decided to remove from a direct quote. "as he uttered these words, he lifted his eyes to the Kutastha center (the Ajna Chakra or "spiritual eye"), and his body slumped to the floor." I researched this quote and the person who added it included more words to help the reader understand but that too altered the direct quote. What should be kept is this: "as he uttered these words, he lifted his eyes to the Kutastha center, and his body slumped to the floor." Here is a secondary source

Including an ellipsis in order to remove non-essential parts of a quote is standard citational practice. A quote shouldn't be altered without indication, but using ellipses or brackets to indicate that a change was made for the sake of brevity or clarity is very common on Wikipedia. I'm fine with including your shortened version of the quote though; the problem was mainly that introducing a bunch of religious jargon in the middle of an explanation makes it much harder for the reader to understand what's going on. --Drevolt (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

updated the page re: this discussionRed Rose 13 (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

(3) In this section: As reported by the Los Angeles Times and TIME Magazine, the cause of death was a heart attack. His followers have claimed that he entered mahasamadhi. It might be less confusing to use the actual words from TIME magazine which are "Self-Realization disciples claim that their teacher thus performed mahasamadhi (a yogi's conscious exit from the body). The medical verdict was "acute coronary occlusion," i.e., a heart attack."

Per the Los Angeles Times: "Yogananda collapsed and died of a heart attack in 1952 while giving a speech at the Biltmore Hotel". His followers' view of this event should also be reported as their view, but reliable news sources are clear that he did die of a heart attack. --Drevolt (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated the page per this discussion.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

(4) In regards to Los Angeles vs Glendale. I researched it and you are right about that.

Thanks! --Drevolt (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

(5) Your edits in the incorruptibility section are valid but they miss a large amount of what was said in the mortuary letter. I suggest rereading the letter where much is explained by an expert on dead bodies. Then we can discuss it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that the article as written now presents differing points of view neutrally, e.g. it includes a great deal of what the mortuary director said while also presenting the views of those who disagree with his interpretation. If there are problems with how it's currently worded I'm happy to talk about them though! --Drevolt (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop in and say that the current version of the page looks good to me now! Really happy that we could find a balanced way of revising the article. --Drevolt (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed words that brought a conclusion on the part of the editor which is WP:SYNTH and focused on the words from the source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

References