Talk:Self-Realization Fellowship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weaknesses[edit]

This page needs more work. And really, a lot more content could be added. More photos needed. Jack B108 (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes or no? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-Realization_Fellowship&action=history http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/5961/srf0hc.jpg))

Austerlitz -- 83.236.20.6 (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is biased towards the subject. It contains no criticism of SRF, as if none existed. Academically, this entry is second rate, as most concerning it whitewashes this organization's issues, especially regarding Swami kriyananda.Jack B108 (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a reminder if a Wikipedia editor wants to make correction to an article a third party reference is necessary -
    "WP:THIRDPARTY" redirects here. For to request a third opinion for a talk page discussion, see Wikipedia:Third opinion.
    and the addition also needs to be from a neutral point of view [1]
    "Wikipedia:Point of view" redirects here. For the essay on how to describe points of view, see Wikipedia:Describing points of view.
    Wikipedia is not a place to promote personal views. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic that Red Rose 13 would state that WP is not the place to promote personal views. If that editor actually practiced that dictum and stopped meddling in posts like this one, several articles would look better. Jack B108 (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jack B108 comments were not intended as a personal statement towards you just a reminder of the Wikipedia policies. Also speaking of guidelines. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by anyone. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." [2] Let's keep this discussion about content.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE :"RECEPTION" The last paragraph of that section is laughable, as it's not really a reception, but SRF's view of what happened when it sued Ananda using one of the largest law firms in California. This conveniently omits the fact that among other things, Ananda gained the right to freely reproduce the 1946 version of the Autobiography of a Yogi by Yogananda, which the court ruled had no valid copyright by SRF at that time. This conveniently omits the tremendous David and Goliath battle in which the much larger and more powerful SRF tried to destroy an entire church in California. The case's federal judge at that time, Judge Garcia, said as much in court to SRF that it looked like they were trying to destroy Ananda. That would be an actual reception. Jack B108 (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in case any Wikipedia editor is interested in SRF v. Ananda. This a ruling from the 9th circuit court on the case, which contains wins and losses for both parties. This is NOT REFLECTED IN THIS WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, indicating blatant bias for SRF's POV. (1995). https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1224987.html

Fellowship Critique Section[edit]

NPV Neutral Point of View - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view - which explains posting with a neutral point of view on Wikipedia

Identifying Reliable Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this paragraph - SRF is a religion with a kind of hybrid theology, Its claims to be perfectly in line with the teachings of Jesus, are untrue. For example, Jesus says the soul may be destroyed (Matthew 10:28, see also Luke 12:4-6; Matthew 5:29) whereas Yogananda teaches it cannot be destroyed. [14] Compare SRF's publicly held Aims and Ideals). Kriya yogis from the same line of teachings are either in two minds about how SRF teaches kriya yoga or scorn it. Because Wikipedia is not a place for ones opinions or interpretations about scripture. I read the Bible references and I don't interpret the same as you do. It all comes down to interpretation.

SRF promotes a kind of New Age Hinduism in Christian garb, says Elliot Miller. - (1) I read the whole article and did not see this quote anywhere. Can you tell me which paragraph it is in? (2) what is CRI and who is Elliot Miller. If we are going to quote something from this article we need this information, can you provide this? I found a similar quote - "In keeping with its mission to bring yoga to the “Christian” West, SRF is in outward appearance, a unique Hindu-Christian hybrid."

I will continue to look over all of your additions and bring them here for discussion.Red Rose 13 (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look over your additions - there are many to websites and Wikipedia does not encourage the use of citations that take you off the Wikipedia site. Also, third party references are required.Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this sentence because again - it is opinion - this kind of post is meant for a forum outside Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place to add ones own view - *The voices of single individuals who speak up against it, may get drowned, no matter how pertinent and substantial their topics may be. For example, the SRF attitude toward sex may not be fored until one is enrolled. And then marriages can break because one of the family gets controlled by SRF guidelines. The are, simply said, "no to sexual outlets for the unmarried and sex perhaps once a month (or year) for the married (!). Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this one because the citation is not reliable - Yogananda, the founder of SRF, seems at least at one time to have regretted founding it. In a letter he think it was a great blunder to start the organisation. Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed another opinion - *The discussion forum of former SRF monastics contains huge amounts of criticism, some fit and some unfair. Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removed another opinion - Kriya yogis from the same line of teachings are either in two minds about how SRF teaches kriya yoga or scorn it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removed this post because the sources were not reliable and includes spamming to outside website - SRF's ways of mass propagation violate old injunctions as to how kriya yoga is to be administered, shows Swami Satyeswarananda of the Sanskrit Classics in San Diego.

There have been numerous controversies concerning SRF over the years and many of these sources have been removed or perhaps forcibly removed from the internet. Any decent Wikipedia article would have a 'Controversies' section; we wonder why this one hasn't. Moreover Red Rose 13 has the habit of removing any statements that doesn't favor her simply because the "sources were not reliable" when in fact they are very much so. Wikipedia must make note of such dubious authors and ban them from editing articles any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.76.129 (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to someone with no signature. If you think I removed information that has a secondary reliable source, please show the information and your rationale. Attacking fellow editors is discouraged on Wikipedia but a healthy discussion is encouraged. I am open to hearing what you have to say. Btw I didn't create this page but am currently trying to improve the page and am listening to what fellow editors have to say. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. SRF is wealthy and powerful and tried to destroy the Ananda church, also in California, years ago, using legal intimidation. You would think this might merit a sentence or two, as it generated millions in legal fees for California law firms. But nary a word for the reader on a landmark federal case heard by Judge Garcia, who made several important rulings in favor of Ananda. Jack B108 (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion started below called "Legal battle between SRF vs Kriyananda". We as editors are not allowed to interpret court rulings or court documents but instead need to use secondary reliable sources that discuss the subject. Here is the link [3]. Please join the discussion below.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Self-Realization Fellowship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Membership size?[edit]

Anyone know of careful work on how many members SRF has? Can it be put in the article?Moabalan (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of pending NPOV tag[edit]

This is notice of a pending Neutral Point of View [NPOV] violation tag. The "Reception" section is blatantly biased to omit legal cases and rulings not favorable to SRF. Completely missing is mention of Ananda's partial success in federal appeals court against SRF regarding multiple trademark and copyright claims. E.g., 9th Circuit ruling of 1995, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1224987.html.

Wikipedia conveniently neglects to mention that SRF lost a federal appeal and then appealed for writ of cert to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear SRF's argument... This article makes it look like in total, Ananda committed copyright infringement and lost every point in a simple jury of trial in the 2000s. That is simply false and misleading, in a dispute that went on for years and involve multiple points of argument, with both sides losing and gaining in the courts. Ananda members over the years spent millions of dollars simply defending their right to practice religious freedom in the United States of America under the attack by the extremely well-endowed Self-Realization Fellowship, which hired Gibson Dunn & Crutcher to crush the smaller church. Interesting how Wikipedia does not state Ananda's 'reception' to this landmark legal and moral fight. This is gross NPOV violation Jack B108 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree would add several other points to the neutrality of this article. These include;
taken from Primary care page Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." I have recently found numerous secondary sources for the material on this page. A small amount of information one this page is now coming only from a primary source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promotional language against WP:NPV, WP:MoS and WP:ADS
  • Whatever the 'Reception' section is intending to achieve (I should be renamed the celebrity endorsement and praise section)
Also I addressed that section and renamed it to Reception, views and controversiesRed Rose 13 (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failure to include any controversy including;
    • the conspiracy to move Yogananda's body to Mount Washington [4]
SRF Expansion proposal. Nowhere in the articles did is say this was a conspiracy but controversy did result. I found 3 LA Times articles to pull from and placed it under Reception, views and controversies.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The DNA paternity case persued by the church [5]
Found the article in LA Times and inserted the information on the page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any mention of Sri Nerode
    • Nerode sueing the organisation and winning - actually he sued but lost
    • Nerodes claims of Yogananda's sexual impropriety [6]
(1) Yoganandaharmony is a primary source because for one reason, Kriyananda created this website.[7] In the case of Kriyananda, he was not only accused of sexual impropriety but was sued and taken to court, where 7 women testified. He lost. (2) Just because a person accuses someone of sexual impropriety it doesn't mean it happened. Wikipedia is not a gossip column so adding Nerode's claim doesn't make it real. I have not seen it written in a reliable secondary source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that until at least most of these issues have been addressed we should remove the NPV warning. Jo Jc JoTalk💬Edits📝 23:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on finding Reliable secondary sources WP:RS to replace primary sources. Jo Jc Jo I agreed with most of your edits... There was promotional language and seems to have been written by someone who didn't understand how to write in an encyclopedic manner.
In regards to including controversies I think it is a good idea but as we all know the sources have to be from Reliable WP:RS Secondary sources and not opinion based and done with a neutral point of view. WP:NPOV If either of you have information from a reliable secondary source, please add it and we can review it. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will give it a couple of months and if no information is added with reliable secondary sources WP:RS then I will remove the tag, assuming that none exist.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove the tag until all information not verified by reliable and independent sources is removed, or clearly does not violate content policies, especially NOT and POV. --Hipal (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree with you on the first tag. But this discussion relates to the second tag and that is what my comment is aboutRed Rose 13 (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. I specifically addressed the NPOV tag. --Hipal (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try again. I am referring to the above discussion about the other editors who want certain things to be added to this page which is fine with me as long as they use reliable secondary sources. One editor is saying that the tag will be left on the page until these issues are dealt with. I am saying if they want these issues to be dealt with, they will need to provide reliable secondary sources to achieve that. I won't be researching these subjects for them and I am not willing to wait for a long period of time for this to be accomplished. This is why I gave it a time limit for them to find these RS sources. The page cannot be held hostage with a tag until they find the sources and add the information. If they can let us know how long it will take them, we can set a deadline after which we can assume there are no reliable secondary sources for their subjects. I think two months is plenty of time. What do you think?Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider redacting your comment per WP:TALK.
I reviewed the article and think the tags should stay per the reasons I gave.
I agree with Jo Jc Jo's first two points. --Hipal (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree with Jo Jc Jo's first two points as well and am not suggesting we remove the tags now. Your thoughts on Jo Jc Jo's other comments regarding certain controversy's? Not sure who he thinks is going to research and add these. Also, not sure why you are recommending I redact my comment even after I read TALK.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The page cannot be held hostage..."
Do you see any problems with our using either of the two LA Times articles Jo Jc Jo mentions? --Hipal (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times is a reliable secondary source and can be used. However, the article Debate Rises Over Plans for Religious Leader’s Shrine never mentions that the plans SRF had to move Yogananda's body to Mount Washington was a conspiracy as suggested above. WP:POV Which by the way falls under WP:Talk (Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.) I will become a team player and support this by researching in LA Times for the article that covers the end of the controversy. Give me 24 hours to respond.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. Mount Washington Church Drops Expansion Bid BY GEORGE RAMOS JULY 12, 2001 [8] Forgot to sign Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion rather than Edit warring[edit]

@Jo Jc Jo:In regards to the lead section, the general sentence about what Yogananda taught explains to the reader the very core of his SRF teachings. I propose we restructure the lead something like this. I am trying to improve the page... let me know your thoughts on the lead. Also it seems we need a new section called Teachings.

Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) is a worldwide spiritual organization founded by Paramahansa Yogananda in 1920 and legally incorporated in the United States as a non-profit religious organization in 1935.[3][4][5][6] Before coming to the United States, Yogananda began his spiritual work in India in 1917 and named it Yogoda Satsanga Society of India (YSS).[11] He then founded SRF in 1920 which became the international headquarters for the SRF and YSS, located on Mount Washington in Los Angeles, California.[12]

Yogananda's teachings include yoga techniques and a form of meditation that promotes awareness of ones soul and expands ones consciousness. Yogananda wrote in God Talks With Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita that the science of Kriya Yoga[7] was given to Manu, the original Adam, and through him to Janaka and other royal sages.[8]

Self-Realization Fellowship disseminates and publishes his teachings guided by his Aims and Ideals.[4][9] SRF publishes his home-study lessons, writings including his autobiography, lectures, and recorded talks; oversees temples, retreats, meditation centers, and monastic communities bearing the name Self-Realization Order. It also coordinates the Worldwide Prayer Circle, which it describes as a network of groups and individuals who pray for those in need of physical, mental, or spiritual aid, and who also pray for world peace and harmony. Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I restructured and brought clarity to this section. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ongoing project for me and I will be working on this page as I can being a volunteer with another life as we all are.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legal battle between SRF vs Kriyananda[edit]

@Jack B108: Dear Jack B108, I have seen your many posts stating that not enough is said regarding the long legal battle between SRF & Kriyananda et al. I have searched high and low for reliable secondary sources that discuss this legal battle. We cannot use Ananda writers, Kriyanandas lawyers writings nor SRF lawyers, or SRF associated writers etc... nor websites writing by Ananda members nor SRF members, etc. Nor can we use actual legal documents themselves but only a writer that discusses it in a reliable medium. In a controversial subject as this, we need to only use secondary, reliable source preferably scholarly sources. I would be happy to add information from one of these neutral sources if I knew where it was. Do you have access or have you found one of these sources: reliable secondary sources preferably scholarly sources? I have only found info in a secondary reliable source like the LA Times article and the local Nevada City newspaper. If you cannot find a source and neither can I, then we can't write anything more. Let me know.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary[edit]

Are there any references that indicate how the documentary is relevant to the organization? Otherwise, I don't know why it deserves a section. --Hipal (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please... it is better etiquette on Wikipedia to discuss something here before you delete it.

Also, if you had read about the documentary, you would have realized that SRF paid for the production including the hiring of the directors. And I quote: "Funded by SRF, the documentary Awake: The Life of Yogananda was co-directed by Paola Di Florio and Lisa Leeman." In other words SRF paid for it and hired the directors... it is SRF's film. I am going to put it back but it doesn't matter for the article if it has its own section or is under The Teachings. Which is your preference.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without better sources, I can't see how anything other than minimal content is due, without being promotional. Please don't revert it into its own section again. --Hipal (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the LA Times and San Francisco Chronicle as reliable secondary sources, do you? Those are the references that I found and placed in the last addition. I will place it under the Teaching section. Thank you for your feedback. Let me know what you think. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are movie reviews. --Hipal (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but I found a movie review that wrote about facts regarding the documentary and added this info. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the organization, not the movie, not the person. If we don't have any references demonstrating the historical importance of this documentary as related to the organization, I don't see why such details belong. These movie reviews written at the time do not demonstrate such importance, nor provide other context relevant to the subject of this article. --Hipal (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title of the documentary makes it clear what it's about. --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-Realization_Fellowship&oldid=1210302206"