Talk:Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article was nominated for deletion on 20/3/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Articles for Deletion debate 2 Archives 3 Manual of Style states biography should be located at most commonly used name. 4 Removed from Fergusson College's Illustrious Alumni 5 Hamsa Yoga and SRF techniques 6 Proposed Alteration of Text to Avoid Ambiguity and Eliminate 'Citations Needed Tags' 7 Page move and article name 8 New Argument Disputing Present Naming Conventions 9 Sidhoji Rao Shitole 10 Differences with Traditional Views #3 (Presently #1) 11 Rehashed Teachings 12 Protected 13 Agreed upon revision of article 14 WP:MOSBIO 15 Passport Please 16 Sundernath 17 Article name and WP:ATT 18 Claims Section Proposal 19 We've gone through this before... 20 Need for secondary sources

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc ^ask? 11:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

1. /Archive 1 (09:45, 24 March 2006)
2. /Archive 2 (23:26, 27 March 2006)
3. /Archive 3 (19:20, 30 March 2006)
4. /Archive 4

[edit] Manual of Style states biography should be located at most commonly used name.

The WP policy that I have seen states that biographies should be listed under their most commonly used name (Manual of Style), with their birth name in the lead paragraph. This is already done on protected page. This is especially evidence in spiritually-related biographies. You can see examples of this in countless other articles including, but not limited to:

Nostradamus (bn Michel de Nostradame) **featured article

Paramahansa Yogananda (birth name Mukunda Lal Ghosh),

Sri Yukteswar Giri (bn Priya Nath Karar),

Swami Kriyananda (bn J. Donald Walters),

Sri Chinmoy (bn Chinmoy Kumar Ghose),

Swami Vivekananda (bn Narendranath Dutta),

Shri Gurudev Mahendranath (bn Lawrence Miles)

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is the most common name, rather than Sidhoji Rao Shitole, according to google. Thus this is and should be the name of the article. -- Hamsacharya dan 01:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from Fergusson College's Illustrious Alumni

This person's name was removed from the Fergusson College article. The reason given was keeping only notable names. But don't despair, there is still enough room for advertisement. Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath might have, at one point in time, drank Coca Cola. Maybe you wish to include him in the article about Coca Cola. Or how about in an article about a ball game he once played? - Terminator III

Deep within you have many issues to deal with, my friend. A supreme penchant for sarcastic entries - perhaps you should start an article on the art of being a pessimistic pest and the dialectics of western close-mindedism - particularly of the self-righteous american strand. Again we find Wikipedia as a tool for those that want to vent frustrations that stem from unsatisfied desires in the earthly realm. This one thinks that Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath hardly cares about Fergusson College at all, let alone if He is mentioned on their website (which is seems to be now defunct) or their poignant Wikipedia article. If 'advertisement' is what you're after - please look at any 'new age' bookstore catalogue and see what 'shameless self-promotion' is going and by whom. You'll actually find Mahavatar Babaji's painted or sketched face more often in these 'advertisements' than any other yogi. You'll also find the faces of many revered saints - like Sri Yoganandaji, Sri Sathya Sai Baba, HH. Dalai Lama - from every great ancient tradition that are being 'advertised' for sale. Go to the next Kumbha Mela and take a look at all the camps and their 'advertisments' - thousands upon thousands you'll find. What you fail to realise is that all the movements and missions that are considered established and beyond criticism now had their fair share of promotion from the very beginning. Sri Yoganandaji was involved personally with much of the earlier promotion, as was, Swami Vivekananda and Osho. All saints have been attacked in public and in print for being less than what they were. You'd be amazed by how many disciples of Sri Yoganandaji felt impelled to go to see Him, some eventually becoming Kriya Masters in their own right, by just seeing a simple poster on the street or in a bookshop. What you may consider to be vile may take another the extra mile to the Supreme Godhead. It is not about winning a guru race, my friend. It's about world transformation of a 'spiritual' kind - internally and externally, from the individual to the masses.

'Adverstisement', 'brand', 'logo' have always involved scientific research, psychology and esoteric geometric design combined with creative minds. Coca Cola actually have studied ayurvedic texts and ancient Chinese texts on the science of taste to develop their drinks. Sport also has many links with ancient ritual. The world is not as fragmented as you'd like to believe. ALL things are connected!!! May the Light of Lights descend upon your Intellect!!!

This is an encyclopedia. We do not care about your fanatical opinions and your senseless sectarian diatribes. If you people do not care about publicity then what is behind this obsessive drive to insert the name of your cult leader on every Hinduism and Yoga-related article in Wikipedia? Isn't it one of your men who added his name at Fergusson College's roster of illustrious alumni? And, FYI, it wasn't I but the creator of the said article who removed your cul leader's name and labeled it "un-notable." In occasions like this it is best to shut-up and accept the facts. Your silly pontification and personal points of view have no place in an encyclopedia. - Terminator III

Aha, the Terminator is revealed! Such a compassionate tone as well!!! Fanatical opinions? - please name them, kindly sir. This one is not aware of any obsessive drive whatsoever. Again, your reference to 'one of your men' is highly unjustified - for this one has not got any 'men'!!! 'un-notable' to an institution not per say to everybody!!! Points of view seems to be flying with rage from your direction, dear sir - and this is not an encyclopedia, my friend - this is the talk page that is associated with an article!!! May peace be upon You!!!

Your words are immaterial and irrelevant as usual, cultist. And yes this is not an encyclodpedia but an encyclopedia. You are not my friend, I do not make friends with anonymous lunatics. Register or at least sign your name after your posts so that I can talk to you at your Talk page as per Sfacets.

Please use your talkpages to continue this discussion.

Sfacets 14:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultist?...anonymous lunatic?...hmmm...who is slinging the irrelevant stones and irreverent spit? ps. thank you for pointing out this one's spelling mistake. May you find tranquility and Peace, unknown enemy!!!

[edit] Hamsa Yoga and SRF techniques

'Hamsa Yoga' is related to the 'The Hong-Sau Technique' as taught by Sri Yoganandaji and now available by paid subscription to Self-Realization Fellowship Lessons from SRF. Perhaps another section may be added to the article speaking of related practises and traditions.

Please refrain from identifying with and name-dropping real and popular gurus and organizations. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia not a paid advertising arm in sole service of your cult. - Terminator III

Again, your words reveal more of a point of view. This is not 'name-dropping', it is in reference to a yogic techniques that are related. Who is making judgement on what a 'real' guru is, my friend? If you notice there have been no changes to the article by this one - it is a suggestion via the talk page. Where, alas, is this 'advertising arm in sole service of your cult'. In fact, your user name seems more like a 'cult' name than anything else. Your plea for refrainment is also very close-minded and dogmatic. Please give the criterion under which this 'real' and 'popular' gurus may be referenced. Terminate your hatred and you'll see a bit more than tunnel vision allows!!! May you find Peace!!!

Please refrain from pontificating and giving unsolicited advices. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place to practice your Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath style of bogus psychotherapy. Register or at least sign your name after your posts so that I can reply on your talk page as per Sfacets.

So, you want a talk page to take it outside, huh ji? Why not discuss here? Again, this one is impartial - it is not my 'style of bogus psychotherapy' - something you do not seem to be as per your aggressive tone. May the 'real' psychotherapy find you!!!

Hello? Please use user talk pages for your discussion. Sfacets 14:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Alteration of Text to Avoid Ambiguity and Eliminate 'Citations Needed Tags'

The following text in the article:

'He founded Hamsa Yoga Sangh and under his guidance Hamsa Yoga Sangh has expanded worldwide, with over 80 teachers in 11 countries.[citation needed]'

May be altered to:

'He founded Hamsa Yoga Sangh and under his guidance Hamsa Yoga Sangh has expanded worldwide.'

I suggest that it be rendered as He founded Hamsa Yoga Sangh, which has now expanded to some countries outside India. - Terminator III

To avoid the ambiguity and the lack of proper sources the information after the comma may be ommitted. The fact that it has expanded worldwide is evidenced by the source on the Hamsa Yoga Sangh website.

Also, the following text in the article:

'He later attended Fergusson College in Pune, Maharashtra, India.[citation needed]'

Is most likely sourced form the autobiography 'Wings to Freedom' listed in the published works section. If not, then the whole sentence can be removed to avoid ambiguity and thus the need for a 'citation needed' is no longer needed.

I suggest that this part be left untouched. Let us give enough time for the editor who wrote it to cite his source. - Terminator III

Once again, this one is impartial and this is not vandalism but mere suggestions on the discussion page as to make the article better and more credible in wider scheme of things in Wikipedia and beyond.213.106.1.25 09:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You are a member of Hamsa Yoga cult, you are not impartial, you just don't want to make your Guru appear as if he was claiming things that are being questioned by those in the know. The citation needed tags are blows to his credibility, if ever he has any. Please don't take us for fools. By the way, I found out thru Google that this Talk page made it to Sarlo's Guru Ratings website (a fairly popular website) as an anti site for your Guru. Congratulations! You got your advertisement! - Terminator III

Try and find the bias in any of the entries or comments thus far. Validate your claims of 'impartiality'! This one doesn't take you for fools! Don't put false allegations in these fingers! In fact, you are proving your bias in wanting to give 'blows' to any persons credibility! Wikipedia is not an avenue of giving 'blows to credibility' or as a source of Guru ratings. What does this one care in the least about Guru Ratings Websites!!! What a riduculous invention to say the least and a reflection of the insecure western mind! Let it be popular! This one is concerned about the article in question. And you are intentionally trying to create hostility from the moment you entered the discussion tab!

Let it be known that 'citation needed tags' and any tag for that matter in a Wikipedia article does not necessarily reflect on that which the article is concerned but on Wikipedia!!! The keeping of tags only detracts from Wikipedia articles being taken seriously as a credible resource!!! Academically Wikipedia entries are not accepted by most professors and the tags will keep it so!!!

• Let it be known that this one is not part of the Hamsa Yoga cult! Only part of human cult-ure, for now. Doubt you'll find my Gurus on any Guru Ratings Website, either. My Gurus are Sthirattva Maharaj and Prananath Vasudeva!!!

By of ways, your first changing of text is perfectly fine with this one.

Happy Summer Solstice!213.106.1.25 14:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

[edit] Page move and article name

According to WP guidelines, biographical articles have to be titled with the real name of a person and not his alias, honorary title, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case, then Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath should be made a redirect to this page and protected. That will leave the old article's edit history which Hamsadan wants, makes this article which all the editors agree is nPOV into the main article, and satisfy WP guidelines... —Hanuman Das 16:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK to rd Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath to here. No need to protect, unless editwarring persists. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend checking with User:Hamsacharya dan about that as I suspect he won't like this resolution and tends to arbitrarily "fix" what he doesn't like, regardless of concensus or discussion. I suspect it'll have to be protected. I'm also sure he'll provide a dozen long arguments about why he is right about what the article should be named. I only started this move vote because there was no concensus to move in the other direction. :-( —Hanuman Das 17:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Kindly consider a protect in order to facilitate/require discussion of additions and changes to this article. There has been a sorry and time consuming history of edit warring on this subject without discussion of disputed points. The article is now in a good condition. It would be a fine trend if changes were made only due to discussion and consensus.--Chai Walla 18:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not get involved in the dispute. Make the redirect as needed and then we shall see if there is edit warring that will warrant protection. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, you'll have to unprotect Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath for any of us non-admins to be able to do that! Or do we put in a request for unprotection? Should we wait and see if User:Hamsacharya dan will agree to this resolution? —Hanuman Das 19:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Jossi - the WP policy that I have seen states that biographies should be listed under their most commonly used name (Manual of Style), with their birth name in the lead paragraph. This is already done on protected page. You can see examples of this in countless other articles including, but not limited to:

Nostradamus (bn Michel de Nostradame) **featured article

Paramahansa Yogananda (birth name Mukunda Lal Ghosh),

Sri Yukteswar Giri (bn Priya Nath Karar),

Swami Kriyananda (bn J. Donald Walters),

Sri Chinmoy (bn Chinmoy Kumar Ghose),

Swami Vivekananda (bn Narendranath Dutta),

Shri Gurudev Mahendranath (bn Lawrence Miles) --Hamsacharya dan 01:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dan, you are correct that Shri Gurudev Mahendranath was born Lawrence Miles, but the name was given to him by his Guru, Shri Lokanath the Avadhoot of Uttara Kashi, a specific historical personality of the Adi-Nath Sampradaya. His name was also legally changed and the same name found on his British passport. In other words, it was his legal name. A point worth clarifying in context I think.--Chai Walla 01:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the most common name for this person? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Most common name is Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. Evidence of this can be seen on Google Ghits: 2580 versus 20 for Sidhoji Rao Shitole - most of which comes from wikipedia.

Other examples of using the most common name rather than the birth name that would mean more to you Jossi, would be all the individuals under Advait Mat (interesting user page you have there..I didn't expect to find this..) Hamsacharya dan 01:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, The most commonly used name should be used as a title - Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is most commonly used name, and should be the title of the article. Sfacets 22:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the article as discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking to yourself again eh, Sfacets err... Jossi? A minute is all it takes to log-out, change proxy settings, log in again as Sfacets and write this reply. Anyway, before making edits or commenting on this subject you should first be aware that Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is not a name but a bunch of generic religious titles put together and of course would generate more Google hits versus this unnotable person's legal and proper name of Sidhoji Rao Shitole. If Sidhoji Rao Shitole only returns 20 hits then this article should be considered for deletion due to unnotability plus the fact that Mr. Shitole himself asked that this article be deleted per Archive 4. - Terminator III 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You better take that back immediately. What a chutzpah! I know what these generice religious titles are, but that is not the issue at hand. In Wikipedia, we create biographical articles based in the most common name a person is known as. See the examples above. If you want to place the article for a deletion discussion add {{AFD}} to the article anf follow the instructions that will show up in the page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen any published sources which give YGS's name as Sidhoji Rao Shitole... Hamsacharya dan 08:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's not his name, then his parentage, lineage and college education are unsupportable. 24.27.14.192 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually all of the other data about parentage, lineage and college education are in his autobiography, and specific page numbers can be given. However, I have not seen any sections of his book or other source at this time which give his birth name. I am still researching this. Hamsacharya dan 01:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

An autobiography cannot be used, especially for grandiose claims, unless it is backed up with third party source. If Yogiraj wants to abandon his family name, then he cannot also claim lineage to said family or claim a degree certificate with his birth name on it. These become extrordinary claims without the identification which is connected with these things. 24.27.14.192 01:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont see any problem in reconciling that information. All it needs is something like "According to his autobiography, which does not mention his birth name, his parents were ... whoever ... and he was educated at ... wherever' .... etc". The important thing is to make clear what is solely sourced from the autobiography. As to his birth name, if there really is no published source, it should be removed immediately, whatever anyone feels about the implications of the honorific. Tearlach 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

History reveals that the birth name was provided by no other than Hamsacharya dan himself in a temp file created by Hanuman Das and inserted by Fire Star on 05:07, 15 March 2006. Where did Hamsacharya dan got the birth name from then? Deleted section Surya Armor of Light Experience, which was supposed to be lifted from a local tabloid originally written in Hindi also bears the name Sidhoji Rao Shitole, a section that was again supplied by our friend Hamsacharya dan. From where I see it Hamsacharya dan only claimed that the name Sidhoji Rao Shitole does not appear anywhere in order to dissolve the issue and force the editors to refer to the subject as Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath [instead of his lowly birth name] throughout the article. Specially so since he only said this after a plan to alter naming preferences was brought up by ≈ jossi ≈ . I have already ordered the subject's autbiography, I believe it will solve this and many other issues. For the meantime I am completely amenable with your relevant and conscientious edits. Thank you. - Watchtower Sentinel 13:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Argument Disputing Present Naming Conventions

The following is a copy of a message I posted at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath:

Another issue that I am presently focusing on and I believe should be given a closer second look is the use of three spiritual honorofics Yogiraj, Gurunath and Siddhanath instead of the subject's real name, this violates WP standards on biographical articles.

If you will read through Page_move_and_article_name you will realize that Hamsacharya dan was able to convince one admin that Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath should be used instead of the subject's real name by citing seven persons as supposed precedents. But what the good admin failed to realize was that five of those who were cited were duly-ordained monks of world-recognized religious orders. Their names therefore are legitimate spiritual names as real and legal as Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI are real and legal. Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath however is not an ordained monk and the spiritual honorifics (mind you they are spiritual honorifics and not spiritual names) that he uses in place of his name are self-given, which imho makes them bogus or at least unfit to be used again and again in an encyclopedic article (e.g. "Siddhanath is this..." "Siddhanath is that...").

The other two cited were Nostradamus, which is the Latinized version of the actual name of the subject, and Sri Chinmoy, which again is the actual first name of the subject Chinmoy Kumar Ghose preceded by the Sanskrit prefix Sri that simply means Mr. please see Sri. It seems that Hamsacharya dan, the media relations man, has successfully took everyone for a spin. I do not disagree that the article be titled Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath but it should only be mentioned once as an a.k.a. and all proceeding addresses to the subject should be either Sidhoji or Mr. Shitole. This is in accordance with wiki/manual_of_style/biographies/pseudonyms. - Sentinel 13:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sidhoji Rao Shitole

Point 1. Actually it was Hamsacharya dan who supplied Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath's birth name as Sidhoji Rao Shitole, please refer to Archive 1 under subhead Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (Moved from User_talk:Adityanath) and now we read above that he says "I've never seen any published sources which give YGS's name as Sidhoji Rao Shitole." This should not surprise anyone.

From the very beginning (please browse thru article history) Hamsacharya dan has been edit warring with regards to the name that should be used. As a teacher, not an ordinary member mind you, listed and pictured on the official website of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath's cult he considers it disrespectful to address his guru using his legal name. If you look at the article history you will see that he was just forced by circumstance to reveal his guru's true name and that he never included it (as well as his date of birth) in the original WP article he created for him.

If we let him remove Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath's birth name using the reasoning that he gave above (when in fact it was him who supplied that data in the first place, and, being one of the subject's official representative in the USA, his credibility with regards to the identity of his guru can hardly be questioned) then we allowed ourselves to be tricked and made a fool of.

Point 2. Yogiraj, Siddhanath and Gurunath are all titles, they are not Sanskrit spiritual names bestowed by a guru in a legitimate sampradaya (like Sivananda or Muktananda). They are high-falutin titles bestowed by the subject on himself and used to take the place of his true and legal name (the subject's discontent for his birth name, made evident by the fact that though nobody has bestowed on him a Sanskrit spiritual name he concocted one for himself anyway just to avoid using his true and legal name, seems to have been put across quite clearly to his disciples).

Yogiraj means Yogi King, Siddhanath means Nath Adept, and Gurunath means Nath Guru. One cannot be a Nath without a valid Nath lineage. Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanatn does not have a valid Nath lineage, so he cannot be a Nath, more so a Nath Adept. The rule is that there should only be one Guru in a particular Nath Sampradaya. Granting that Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath can present evidence that he descended from Sundernath then still he cannot be Nath Guru within Sundernath sampradaya because that sampradaya exists up to this time complete with its own guru. If he insists on using the title Gurunath (again, this is not a name. The name is, according to Hamsacharya dan, Sidhoji Rao Shitole) then Conflcting Views no. 2 should not have been removed.

Point 3. This is directly related to something that was mentioned in Point 2. The only reason why Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath insists that Mahavatar Babaji is the same as Gorakshanath (I hope that the now deleted Shiv-Gorakshanath Babaji created by Hamsacharya dan is still available so that you can appreciate this point) is to create a legitimate Nath Lineage for himself.

Mahavatar Babaji is a vulnerable character abused by many Kriya Yoga guru wannabes who do not have verifiable or legitimate lineages. Some of them claim to be Mahavatar Babaji themselves (please see Haidakhan Babaji) and some claim to be direct disciples (like SAA Ramaiah, VT Neelakantan, Marshall Govindan, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, the recently deleted Mangeshda, etc. etc.). Anybody who wants to earn money by teaching Kriya Yoga can claim to be a direct disciple of Mahavatar Babaji, it is that easy. Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath wants to hit two birds with one stone: claim to have been initiated directly by Babaji, thereby establishing himself as a bonafide Kriya Yoga guru, while at the same time setting himself up as a Nath adept and guru. Two qualifications (enough to fool gullible westerners) obtained thru a single lie.

Yogiraj doesn't claim to be a direct disciple of Mahavatar Babaji and never has. You are misinformed. He has asserted that in his opinion nobody since Lahiri Mahasaya has been a direct disciple of Mahavatar Babaji. --Hamsacharya dan 23:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please look into these matters deeply. Successful con artists are experts in manipulating people, given all these factors (and many others that I cannot include here because of their irrelevance to immediate issues) I have no doubts that Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is one, and Hamsacharya dan? Well, A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Matthew 7:18

- Hamsacharya duh 02:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences with Traditional Views #3 (Presently #1)

Gorakshanath lived some time between the 8th and 11th century. According to three different sources on Mahavatar Babaji, he was alive in the time of Adi Shankara (6th to 8th century, depending on the source), or earlier, and continues living to this day. According to Bhagawan Nityananda, at Nath Mandir near the Vajreshwari temple about a kilometer from Ganeshpuri, Maharashtra, India.

This does not make sense, there seems to be some omitted words. Kindly review.

- Hamsacharya duh 02:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rehashed Teachings

Another category should be added containing rehashed teachings (actually, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath has no original teachings. All are rehashed, repackaged or "Gurunathified" to appear original). My personal favorite is the Onion Story, an obvious rehash of the banyan seed analogy in the Upanishads.

According to Yogiraj Gurunath, in his meeting with the Nameless Being that he refers to as Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji, Babaji asked him to peel an onion. When he peeled off all the layers, Babaji asked him what did he find in the center. Gurunath noted that there was nothing in the center. Babaji laughed, and replied, "My son, the Truth of Truths is this: That from the Nothingness is the Everything created." (Plese see Archive 1 under subhead Response to response from Adityanath)

Even the Hamsa Yoga Sangh slogan "earth peace through self peace" is nothing but a romantic re-rendering of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's "the collective consciousness of a nation or the world can only be improved through improving individual consciousness." (Source)

- Hamsacharya duh 02:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

This article is now protected to allow for edit warring parties to find some common ground that will allow to move forward. When editors have reached an agreement and want to resume editing, or to contest this page protection, please place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the {{editprotected}} request that was just added -- you don't seem to be requesting an edit, and page unprotection should be requested at WP:RFPP. It appears that this page has been protected to discourage edit warring -- to all involved editors, please take a few moments to familiarize yourself with the dispute resolution process, and work together to reach a consensus about what the page should show. Once you've reached an agreement, there's no need to revert each other. So, discuss. Luna Santin 22:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the protected version is always the "wrong version" for one side of the dispute. If there are problems with sockpuppets that are using different accounts to disrupt the editing process, please place a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser so that this can be investigated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this rationale. Please actually see the diffs to see that this is not the case rather than making snap judgments. In the meantime I will put the checkuser request.

In fact, you will note that none of my recent edits to the page have been edit war reverts. Reverts have been done by admins/bots/mediators only with the exception of the recent revert by Priyanath Hamsacharya dan 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Hamsacharya Dan, there hasn't been an edit war, but rather vandalism by suspected sockpuppet Senior Hamsacharya (who continued this vandalism after his last warning -I was told to take it to Incidents).

It's a shame that an article has to suffer over one user's vandalism Sfacets 22:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see checkuser request and add to it if necessary. Hamsacharya dan 22:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is strong consensus to unprotect, I will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As single purpose accounts doing same revert edits can be considered one account as it relates to 3RR, I am unprotecting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed upon revision of article

Recent discussions between A Ramachandran, Hamsacharya dan, and myself resulted in the revised version of this article which we all agreed upon. If you would like to make any additional changes, let's discuss them here first, so we can reach consensus on any new changes. ॐ Priyanath talk 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question: What steps do we need to take in order to make the current tags on the article unnecessary? I am going to cite references throughout as they relate to information in the article. If there are other changes that need to be made please discuss. If you feel that the tags are presently obviated by the improved state of the article, then please feel free to remove them. Hamsacharya dan 01:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MOSBIO

As per our manual of style for biographies, the full name name of a person needs to be used only once at the beginning of the article. Subsequent instances, need to use only the last name. Also read about the guidelines for honorific prefixes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passport Please

It's nice to see some progress of the this article in lines with discussion and guidelines of WP. I have a few quibbles with some of the content, but more than content to slowly discuss. At the moment, my greatest curiousity is the removal of the subjects legal name from the article in all instances. What is the name on the Indian passport which YGS uses in his travels as an Indian citizen? I am content with the article heading under Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, as this is the name under which he writes and works as a "Sat Guru". However, as far as I know, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is a "nom de plume" of Sidhoji Rao Shitole. This is my current understanding and working assumption. This is also the reason I am making this entry here. If my assumption is in error, I am of course willing to allow the article to stand without mention of Sidhoji Rao Shitole. If Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is simply a "nom de plume", then the legal name of the subject is an important part of an encyclopedic consideration. I intend to independently research this aspect of YGS with the government of India, but would encourage discussion. I'm sure that members of the Hamsa Yoga Sangh must be aware of the correct information as they arrange his travels. It would be fitting that this information be shared here.Chai Walla 07:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added the passport name. A secondary source tying both names to the same person would be a useful addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Although a source isn't available, I think this is fine. Hamsacharya dan 19:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sundernath

YGS is quoted here as writing the following: "I stood in awe, lost in the admiration of this divine yogi of the Gorakshanath lineage. He was recently, in 1924, the Mahant of the Goraknath temple at Gorakpur, and belongs to the DharamNath subsect of Goraknath yogis. Sundernath is the same yogi who entered the body of a South Indian cow-herd and became the Siddha Tirumoolar who wrote the famous treatise on yoga - Tirumantirum. He is still alive in his Sanjeevan body at Alkapuri on the Indo-China border. The Nath established in Svaroop Samadhi, truly the likes of whom saved India's spiritual heritage from the fate that befell ancient Egypt, Babylon, China, Tibet and the Mayan civilization of South America."

Well Yes, Sundernath was the Mahant of the Gorakhnath temple at Gorakhpur in 1924 and did belong to the Dharamnath subsect of Naths. This can be verified in the scholarly work, Gorakhnath and the Kanphata Yogis by G.W. Briggs. What can also be verified in the same work is the death of Sundernath who left the mortal coil without nominating a successor. A battle ensued regarding the appointment of his successor at the temple which resulted in a civil suit tried in the court at Gorakhpur. The matter was resolved in 1928 with the appointment of a new Mahant at the Gorakhnath temple.

Perceptive editors will note that the work by G.W. Briggs is a fine scholarly reference which not only reports the death of Sundernath, but dates his death prior to 1928. Not only is the Sundernath written about by YGS very dead, but there is no possible way that YGS could have met him. Sundernath died years prior to the birth of YGS.

What I find disturbing is that this reference has already been discussed here, entered and removed from the article without discussion. YGS's story of meeting the "immortal" Sundernath; is in light of this reliable source, pure fiction. I will prepare a succinct paragraph with citation and page numbers to be entered into the current article in a couple of days.Chai Walla 09:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Honest mistake Chai - take a look at the edit code and you'll see that it was a technical error rather than intentional. I forgot to code the reference for the quote properly: "< ref name=autobiography>" rather than the proper "< ref name=autobiography/> ". As a result, the next sentence was omitted. Hamsacharya dan 13:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

CW - does G.W. Briggs name who it was that initiated Sundernath? Hamsacharya dan 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding his purported death: Does Briggs demonstrate evidence of any death certificate? Any place of burial? Any cause of death? Or is it just a claim based on an anecdote he heard? Does he say who told him the story? Or does Briggs claim he was there at the time of death? any newspaper reports or other 3rd party accounts? Please be cognizent that per wiki guidelines for biographies of living persons, claims which discredit the subject should be well cited. In this case, the book is a valid academic submission, and thus is encyclopedic. However, there are also two sources herein (Pilot Baba and Siddhanath) which counterpose Briggs claim with independent 1st person accounts. Therefore, it would be well done to take this into account before placing too much credibility on Briggs claim. Other 3rd party accounts would be good to find - newspapers as already suggested, etc.. -- Hamsacharya dan 04:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name and WP:ATT

I want to open up some discussion here on important points related to this article. I have read all of the archives carefully and dug through a number of diffs and edits. I have a copy of Wings To Freedom, an autobiography written by the subject of this article and self published through Alight Publications, a vanity press. http://www.i-alight.com . This is the sole published work used as reference for this article.

The progress of this article has been abused by a WP:COI (conflict of interest) editor, sockpuppets, edit warring and uncivility. Due to the recent exposure of the COI editor and the ban or block of multiple sockpuppets, I'm hopeful that editing on this article might now go ahead in a more straight forward manner.

The name of this article's subject is Sidhoji Rao Shitole. He is the copyright holder and author of Wings to Freedom as clearly noted on the title page of the book. On page 182, a scan from the Gwalior newspaper Swadesh also refers to the subject as Mr. Sidhoji Rao Shitole. Assertions from the COI editor that there is no documentation of the name Sidhoji Rao Shitole related to this article or subject is simply incorrect or fallacious.

The name Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath appears to be a pen name of Mr. Shitole. Much was written and argued about in the archives of this very page regarding the provenence of the titles - Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. There is no mention or evidence anywhere of Mr. Shitole receiving these titles from any Guru, Guru lineage or person other than himself.

WP:ATT - Using Questionable or self-published sources - states in part that such a source may be used as long as the article is not primarily based on such a source.

I propose that the name used for and in the article needs to be discussed and agreed upon first. Due to the lack of qualified sources the entire article could be said to be uncited or original research. I believe that at very least, all exceptional and promotional claims need to be expunged from the article. Discussion as to whether the notability of the subject warrants inclusion in Wikipedia due to a single questionable source or lack of notibility might be discussed also.

The subject's legal name has been determined, though this name is not notable. Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is perhaps notable, but these titles are a pen name created by Mr. Shitole.

I would appreciate some input on the information I have brought forward and the points raised. Given the problems in this article, I am less than certain as to how these issues might best be handled inside the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. -Vritti 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In one respect, the name/pseudonym aspect is show business. For example: Frances Gumm redirects to Judy Garland, Issur Danielovitch Demsky redirects to Kirk Douglas.

I think both names should redirect to the same article, but that alone may not resolve POV disputes between editors who strongly favour one or the other. — Athænara ✉ 07:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: I should have checked before I posted—both names do. — Æ. ✉ 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'm clear about your examples. What I am looking for however is a comment on the distinction, if any in Wikipedia, of pseudonym vs legal name - notable vs unnotable. My understanding is that Judy Garland is the notable and legal name, so the birth name Frances Gumm redirects to Judy Garland. In this article the legal name Sidhoji Rao Shitole redirects to the pseudonym of the more notable Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. Perhaps this is fine, but my question hinges more on what aspect deserves more weight, the legal name of the subject or the notability of the pseudonym? In this article our subject was born Sidhoji Rao Shitole and remains Sidhoji Rao Shitole, but is better known as Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. -Vritti 15:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading some of this debate and I have not seen this page mentioned yet: Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Sorry, if I overlooked something and you're already through with that page. If not, it might offer some advice.--DorisHノート 16:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think a pagemove to Hamsa Yoga Sangh, which currently redirects to this page could solve the naming problem. We have no information for a biography on this person anyway.--DorisHノート 18:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for link as it was what I was looking for. It also lead me to Wikipedia:Naming convention. I edited the article according to my understanding of the tests and guidelines. The lack of a reliable reference is still a problem with the article as a whole. Hamsa Yoga Sangh has little outside reference beyond it website, but may be a solution depending on how its done. At least I'm comfortable with the naming convention at the moment and learned something. Many thanks for the helpful link. -Vritti 21:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is much better now after pruning. If there are no other sources it is probably best to keep the entry short. I am not sure about the formatting of the quotation however, it seems oddly emphasized by this box. I'd like to only put it in Italics. This sentence: "Siddhanath formed the Hamsa Yoga Sangh in order to promulgate his mission to teach "Earth Peace through Self Peace"." For clarity, I would like to reword this to "Siddhanath formed the non-profit-organization Hamsa Yoga Sangh to promulgate his teachings with the aim to bring "Earth Peace through Self Peace"."--DorisHノート 07:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought and more research, I wonder why this organization has a branch in Switzerland (=tax-paradise). Maybe we should leave out 'non-profit'. I am still looking for information that gives a better discription than just 'organization'.--DorisHノート 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hamsa Yoga Sangh appears to be a 501(c)(3) in Mountain Ciew (should be View) California. It is identified as a Christian Church. See here [1] The Gurunath Sanatana Yoga Church of Union city is also interesting. [2] The person behind this church is also an authorized teacher of the Hamsa Yoga Sangh. -Vritti 20:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi DorisHノート I changed the wording as you proposed above. In view of the info I gathered, it does appear to be a non-profit org as claimed. -Vritti 22:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's California branch is without question a non-profit, but how about the other branches including the ones in India and Switzerland as mentioned by DorisHノート? Also, since the real name of the organization registered as a non-profit is Gurunath Sanatana Yoga Church then it should be rendered as Hamsa Yoga Sangh/Gurunath Sanatana Yoga Church. The registration classify Hamsa Yoga Sangh as a Christian church so the Hinduism tagging should be removed. FYI Rudrasen Sitoleh, who is the church care person mentioned at Gurunath Sanatana Yoga Church registration info is no other than the son of the subject. - Sentinel 09:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about centers in other countries, nor how to research them. I'm not sure the centers there are legal entities or if a student/teacher is merely holding the sign. I don't understand why the Hamsa Yoga Sangh is identified as a Christian Church, but it is clear that the Gurunath Sanatana Yoga Church is a seperate entity by law. Of course they are related, but this does not change the view by the IRS that Hamsa Yoga Sangh is a distinct entity.

I noticed you changed the naming convention and your reasons. I don't have a problem with this, but would suggest that self-assumed might be more common in usage than self-given and means the same thing. `Vritti 16:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Watchtower Sentinel. I've reread your assertion about the naming convention and still have a question about it. We have determined that the most widely known name of the subject is the name of the article Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. The determined legal name is Sidhoji Rao Shitole, so it begins the article. I can concede on basis that the names Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath are indeed - self-assumed titles in the sense that they are self assumed and intended to convey a specific "higher than the highest" status among Nath identities. At the same time, the title Siddhanath is not an uncommon Nath given name. In the reference you give wiki/manual_of_style/biographies/pseudonyms it gives the example of Slim Pickens. In this biography the name used in the article is Pickens. This is in line with Wikipedia:Naming conflict which states that, "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name." So in this sense, whether or not YGS is a Nath by initiation or merely self-assumed title is not relevant to the naming convention inside the article. In this way, I believe your changes of Siddhanath to Mr. Shitole is likely incorrect. I think Siddhanath is probably the most correct, with any of the other titles being a close second. Kindly comment. -Vritti 04:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I beg to disagree, look at Boris Karloff the other given example on wiki/manual_of_style/biographies/pseudonyms both legal name and pseudonyms were used alternatively in the article. For a precedent I would like to point you to a more popular yoga guru who in his lifetime also used a self-assumed spiritual pseudonym Shrii Shrii Anandamurti under which he wrote many books, there are also many books written about him and his tachings using the name Anandamurti as part of title (such as The Spiritual Philosophy of Shrii Shrii Anandamurti: A Commentary on Ananda Sutram, by Avadhutika Ananda Mitra Ac.; The Life & Teachings of Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, by Ac. Vijayananda Avt.; Bhagavan Anandamurti, by Narada Muni, etc.) making the name Anandamurti a hundred times more notable than Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath and yet if you refer to the WP article Shrii Shrii Anandamurti you will see that the true and legal name was preferred over the pseudonym. The searchwords "prabhat rainjan sarkar" returns 2,270 hits in Google while "anandamurti" returns 21,300 hits making the latter 9.4 times more notable. - Sentinel 11:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Watchtower Sentinel for sharing the research that supports your edits. I don't really care what naming convention is used as long as the solution is correct, thus not likely to get flipped around with the next quibble, etc. I think the way it is at this moment.., is likely most in line with the majority of articles and editing guidelines. -Vritti 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As a sidebar on the issue of Wikipedia:Naming conflict, it also mentions that criticism of the naming convention is allowed within the article as long as both "sides" of the controversy are represented. Whether better known by the self-assumed title or name, the issue could be explained in the article. -Vritti 04:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims Section Proposal

If there was anything contributory to the org that the COI editor was able to do it was persuading both User:Vritti and myself to purchase a copy of Wings to Freedom. Mine has not yet arrive but I am very excited to finally receive and read it. ThanksVritti for providing the evidence to the naming issue. Now on with this suggestion. Please bear with me.

As we all know the subject and his disciples present many extraordinary and hard-to-prove claims, they include.

• That the subject is a Nath Guru or a Master of the Nath lineage, which is actually what the honorific Gurunath means. According to a certain Rudra Shivananda in p. 4 of his book Solar Healing (aLight Publications):

"The Surya Sadhana that I’m sharing with you was taught to me by a realized Master of yoga – Yogiraj Gurunath, of the ancient Nath lineage. It is his vision that through this practice we will connect with the external Light, in order to realize our internal Light."

From Wings to Freedom excerpts that has been so far quoted in the YGS article I have not seen any evidence to support these Nath Guru and Nath lineage holder claims. On the contrary, the subject's supposed meeting with Raja Sundernath who, according to the book Gorakhnath and the Kanphata Yogis by G.W. Briggs, died long before the subject's birth made the situation hopeless for him. It establishes the fact that the two never really met and therefore Raja Sundernath could not have initiated the subject into the Nath Order. The Nath Order is not just an obscure cult in the Himalayas. It is a prominent and highly visible Hindu sect represented in our time by respected spiritual institutions like Saiva Siddhanta Church, arguably the biggest American Hindu church organization, and the International Nath Order.

• That the subject teaches Mahavatar Babaji's Kriya Yoga. Again, teaching this requires an established lineage. In chapter 26 of Autobiography of a Yogi the author, widely regarded as the Father of Yoga in the West and ranks among the world's foremost authority in Kriya Yoga, clearly states:

"Because of certain ancient yogic injunctions, I cannot give a full explanation of Kriya Yoga in the pages of a book intended for the general public. The actual technique must be learned from a Kriyaban or Kriya Yogi; here a broad reference must suffice."

This is how one learns Kriya Yoga, he learns it from a kriyaban. This is how disciplic succession is established. The technique is taught by one to another, one cannot just look up to the sky, invent a set of practice and call it Mahavatar Babaji's Kriya Yoga. One must be able to trace his lineage back to Mahavatar Babaji and in order to do that he must trace his initiation upwards, from one kriyaban to another, until he gets to Lahiri Mahasaya, who was the only person permitted by Mahavatar Babaji to initiate people into Kriya Yoga:

"'The cries of many bewildered worldly men and women have not fallen unheard on the ears of the Great Ones,' he went on. 'You have been chosen to bring spiritual solace through Kriya Yoga to numerous earnest seekers. The millions who are encumbered by family ties and heavy worldly duties will take new heart from you, a householder like themselves. You must guide them to see that the highest yogic attainments are not barred to the family man. Even in the world, the yogi who faithfully discharges his responsibilities, without personal motive or attachment, treads the sure path of enlightenment... Bestow the Kriya key only on qualified chelas, Babaji said. He who vows to sacrifice all in the quest of the Divine is fit to unravel the final mysteries of life through the science of meditation. (Ibid, ch. 34)

COI editor Hamsacharya dan denies that the subject claims to be a direct disciple of Mahavatar Babaji, thereby losing all argument to justify his supposed authority in teaching Mahavatar Babaji's Kriya Yoga, which is now accessible to the general public thru certain websites divulging the method (e.g. source 1, source 2, among others). The subject could just have easily learned the technique from any of such websites and now claims to teach them by virtue of a supposed "personal experience with Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji." If that is not a claim, though muddled with tricky play of words, to have received the technique of Kriya Yoga directly from Mahavatar Babaji himself then I don't know what is. But the fact remains that the subject's authority to teach is deeply challenge due to lack of traceable lineage.

These past two claims alone speak volumes about the subject's credibility and surely deserves mention in the articlke. Now, since the subject's entire ministry seem to be built on such claims, let me add some more:

• That the subject received a bachelor's degree from Fergusson College but as soon as User:Hamsacharya dan added the subject's name to the said college's list of illustrious alumni it removed by no less than the article's creator himself. What bachelor's degree does the subject hold? It was not mentioned. When did he received the degree? It was not mentioned. Did he even have a degree? If he has then why was his name stricken off from the list of illustrious alumni? Surely such a prominent "guru" with numerous published works, an international following, and notable enough to have his own biography included in Wikipedia would qualify as an illustrious alumni, unless of course his ebing an alumni is disputed.

• That the subject is a siddha (possessor of paranormal abilites, having transmuted [non-physical] bodies, and spiritually perfected) by birth.

• That the subject began meditating at the age of 3, which is, given the above meaning, not even necessary for a "born siddha."

Those who own copies of YGS's and YGS's disciples' books are welcome to add more. Sentinel 12:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I didn't buy a copy of Wings to Freedom, it was given to me a year to two ago by a friend who found the book incredulous, but amusing. It finally came in handy. Rudra Shivananda aka, Runbir Singh is also an authorized teacher of Hamsa Yoga Sangh and appears to be an author and principle of Alight Publications [3] of Union City, CA. The publisher of Wings to Freedom. It is not remarkable that he promotes his teacher. As far as the subjects degree at Fergusson College I suspect the listing in illustrious alumni was removed since Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is a pen name. To clear up whether or not Sidhoji Rao Shitole received a degree there, someone would have to contact the school. I'm not volunteering for the task. I'm more puzzled in context of the degree claim, when it currently states in the article that our subject spent the pre 1967 years in the Himalayas with the Hamsa Naths. This would be through his 23rd year of life. Perhaps he did his schooling after this or merely spent the summers in the Himalayas? He keeps us guessing. Finally, I think the real solution is simply to keep all questionable claims out of the article and then leave it alone.(?) -Vritti 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The questionable claims are all over their website and publications, they are neither secret nor private. If we "leave them alone" then we will be hiding information from the people. - Sentinel 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Going back to Wings of Freedom, it states that our subject "finished his education at Fergusson College in 1967" (pg. 108). This implies a degree. I'll add this date to background section and remove it from the early days section. -Vritti 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We've gone through this before...

Greetings. There has been some controversy on whether some newer editors here are sockpuppets of older, blocked, editors with an axe to grind. The older editors were blocked for making threats and evading the ensuing blocks for those threats. The insistence on the name "Mr. Shitole" was indeed a marker of the blocked editor, and the issue was worked through once already, as you'll see if you look through the talk page archive. I see that marker, but I don't see the abusiveness and threats that characterised the earlier exchanges. This is good. But, as much as we may dislike a person, we can't unbalance things the other way, either. So I've removed the "Mr. Shitole" references because - respectively given the article's editorial needs and history - they are unnecessary and inflammatory. We shouldn't make this a shrine to the guy, or make him out to be deceitful either, IMO. Wikipedia should present verifiable information and let the readers decide. --Fire Star 火星 05:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Fire Star! A suspicion is just that until it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt, and assumed "controversies" has nothing to do with the validity of one's edits. Please do not abuse your Admin privileges by introducing edits that has not been agreed upon by other editors involved in developing the article. I checked and it is clear that you have a rich and lengthy history of siding with the confirmed COI editor not only with the editing but with the voting processes as well. I personally disagree with your present edits, especially with the words "self published", which is complete and utter nonsense when used within the context of the sentence in question. There is nothing "unnecessary" nor "inflammatory" with using "Mr. Shitole" it is a very respectful address and the subject's true and lawful name. What is "unnecessary" and "inflammatory" is the repeated use of the self-assumed titles "Yogiraj Gurunatn Siddhanath" in every single paragpraph. Only an editor with extreme POV will find the use of "Mr. Shitole" "unnecessary" nor "inflammatory". Nevertheless, as a gest of respect for your position in WP (which I hope you will not abuse as in the past or I would have to file a case against you at WP:AC), I am going to leave those parts as is but only revert your clear POV edit of "Self published" to "self-assumed" as per Vritti. - Sentinel 10:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need for secondary sources

An article in Wikipedia cannot be based solely on self-published or primary source material. Unless editors produce secondary sources about the subject, I will place this article in articles for deletion in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I can see that the request for secondary sources has been placed back on January, and that is plenty of time. I am placing the article in AFD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to the nonexistence of reliable secondary sources, the argument for deleting the article is compelling in my opinion. While this is an important consideration, I would like to point out that two prior AfD's on this article have apparently failed. There has never been any reliable secondary sources on our subject. What happened with the other two AfD's? I would feel more comfortable about the possibility of issuing an informed opinion on the official AfD page if there was some discussion on the matter here. Judging from the archives, it appears that the name of our subject was sufficiently notable on Google to warrant a keep.(?) The article is now arguably, moving towards NPOV. What has changed to make the current proposal for AfD succeed and why? Perhaps I should have made this note on the AfD page, but I am not aware that this is the policy. I just don't want to jump into official discussion, ill informed. -Vritti 21:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We cannot have NPOV based solely on self-published or primary sources. If the article failed AfD twice, that in itself is not grounds not to attempt that again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You got it all wrong. What User:Vritti was attempting to ask you is why do you want this article deleted all of a sudden when you were even among those who voted keep on a previous Afd even if the article was based solely on self-published sources. Its being based solely on self-published sources wasn't a problem to you then, why make a big deal of it now? Let's stop this role playing nonsense and give straight answers like normal human beings. You are not dealing with idiots here. Why do you want the article deleted? What is your agenda? - Sentinel 23:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not have an "agenda".Please assume good faith. After the failed AfDs, editors had plenty of time to add material that is not jusy based on self-pulished or primary sources. That has not happened, thus, I have placed the article on AfD again. I do not think that this time it will survive AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk). Perhaps the long standing citation has given greater basis to the assertion that no secondary source is likely to be forthcoming. This seems to be your point, which I agree with. It certainly can't be said that the article wasn't given a chance. I'll head over to the AfD page and comment. -Vritti 16:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)