Talk:Satyananda Saraswati

Copyright concerns

In January 2010, this article was tagged, here, for its resemblance to [1]. While there is undoubtedly resemblance, the external source was published on December 6, 2009. The duplicated material in the article predates that. Additionally, there is evidence of natural evolution of the material in the article. For instance, when the article was created in 2005, it included the following text:

Swami Satyananda Saraswati, an important yoga teacher in both his native India and the West, was born in the small Himalayan of Almora in 1923. At the age of nineteen he met his spiritual master, Swami Sivananda, in Rishikesh and lived in his circle for following twelve years. For the next eight years he wandered through India, Afghanistan, Nepal, Burma and Ceylon, extending his knowledge of spiritual practices.

The seeds are here for the 2009 publication:

Swami Satyananda Saraswati was born in Almora, in the Himalayan foothills. His parents were large landowners. As a young child he experienced spontaneous spiritual experiences. In 1943 at nineteen, Swami Satyananda came to live and take sannyasa from Swami Sivananda at Sivananda Ashram in Rishikesh. There he served in different departments at the Ashram for over 12 years. He edited the ashram’s Hindi journal, wrote various articles and composed poems in both Hindi and Sanskrit. He wrote a translation and commentary in the English language of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad by Swami Sivananda. Upon leaving the ashram, he wandered through India, Afghanistan, Nepal, Burma and Ceylon for the next 8 years, extending his knowledge of spiritual practices.

However, parts of this are missing. The statement about his parents being landowners and his spontaneous spiritual experiences came in May 2009. Other significant text entered in March 2007. It seems in this case we are looking at a reverse infringement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.yogamag.net/yogas/synop.shtml. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed text

The past few days, a lot of back-and-forth undoing has been going on. The contested info is about the birthdate, details of his life and attribution of those details, and charges of sexual misconduct. For the birthdate, WP:RS should be available. For the details, sources should be provided, or otherwise {{source?}}-tags can be used. Attributing is acceptable, I think, but here too source-tags could be used. For the charges of sexual misconduct, WP:RS is indispendable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Swami Satyananda

There are numerous issues I have with this page. Firstly, there are a couple of discrepancies on the page - it has 2 different dates for Satyananda starting the International Yoga Fellowship (1956 and 1963) - this organisation does nothing that I am aware of, so why is it there anyway - Secondly is the Bihar School of Yoga - was it 1963 or 1964 when it started? Thirdly, most of the statements on the page are sourced from Satyananda's own books about himself and there is no-one alive to prove or disprove them. Members of his Ashram support his statements and continually re-publish them. Reports of several members of Sivananda's Divine Life Society who knew Satyananda there (not published) say other things.

The material on sexual assault can be divided into 2. That of Swami Akhandananda in Australia went through the courts so there will be records. Allegations against Sw Satyananda and others remains statements by individuals that has not been before courts or been published.

What should be left in and what removed? Sanatan Saraswati 203.171.95.168 (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the dates, these are minor. If there are no reliable sources, well, so be it. I could try to take a critical look at the IYF, but that's also minor. The use of Satyananda's books as a souce is a major issue, though less relevant when it's not about controversial issues. The allegations of sexual misconduct are serious issues, and they really need to be sourced. It would it be wise to first discuss the sources you can find on this isse here at the talk page. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Are Satyananda's books acceptable as main sources for this article? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as his teachings on yoga and tantra, they are well regarded and useful. As far as what is said about himself, there seems to be a strong tendency to be incredibly flexible with the truth. Probably advisable to not use. 203.171.95.168 (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Birth date

26 August 1923 or 26 July or 25 December 1923? Proposal by 203:

"The date of his birth is contentious. While in Rishikesh at Sivananda Ashram it was given as 26th August While in his own ashram it was given as, and always celebrated on, 26th July . It was only in the last few years of his life that he claimed it to be on Christmas day."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Two must be wrong. Swami Satyananda stood to gain by the latter two. After setting up his own Ashram, Satyananda celebrated it as 26th July for 40 years. This meant that it was always close to Guru Poornima and would occasionally coincide. This was as it was published in Yoga Magazine and in promotional material. As he approached death he changed it to the 25th December. I leave this up to you to decide why.

Sanatan Saraswati 203.171.95.168 (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Rikhyapeet's webpage states that the birth of Swami Satyananda took place on Purnima, the full moon night, of the month of Margashirsha in 1923. This date is also celebrated as Dattatreya Jayanti (commemorating the birth day celebration of the first guru of the avadhutas, Dattatreya). If we accept this source as historically valid then according to the fool moon calendar Satyananda's birthday will be on December 23rd, 1923. No testimony for placing his birth day on Christmas (25 December) has been given and therefore the written date should be deleted or corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassiliades (talk • contribs) 17:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Inititation

Proposal:

"Sivananda gave him the name Satyananda Saraswati and (according to Satyananda) initiated him as a Paramahamsa sannyasin of the Dashnama sannyasa order, on the banks of the river Ganges on 12 September 1947. Reports from sannyasins within Sivananda Ashram disputed whether this is true. Sivananda described him as a 'versatile genius' who 'did the work of four people' (although who those four people were is unknown).

JJ: add source-tags; search for sources for the disputed info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no disputing Satyananda was initiated into sannyasa by Sivananda. The date is mostly irrelevant except that, it would be very, very unlikely for him to be initiated immediately as Paramahansa and after only 4 years in the ashram. If it were true then Sivananda would undoubtedly have made him his successor. Sanatan Saraswati 203.171.95.168 (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

1956-1963

Proposal by 203:

"In 1956, after dreaming he had received the instruction from his Guru to spread yoga from door to door and shore to shore, Satyananda left Sivananda Ashram. The Divine Life Society (set up by Sivananda) said he left to set up his own ashram. He wandered throughout India as a mendicant parivrajaka. According to Satyananda he travelled through Afghanistan, Nepal, Burma and Ceylon for the next 7 years, extending his knowledge of spiritual practices.

JJ: find sources for "dreaming"; add source-tags for disputed info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

International Yoga Fellowship

1956 or 1963? Is the mention of this organisation relevant to this article? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

1956, accroding to Melton and Baumann. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Bihar school of yoga

Bihar School of Yoga - was it 1963 or 1964 when it started? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Akhandananda

Proposal:

"and saying that he was finished with disciples. Coincidentally, this was at the time his chief and extremely devoted disciple in Australia, Sw Akhandananda, was charged with sexually molesting a number of the young teenage female disciples. He was sentenced to 18 months but his higher court appeal was upheld and he was released after 9 months."

JJ: "coincidentally", that's suggestive, and WP:OR. And unsourced. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The conviction of Akhananda was overturned in 1991, and this is the legal standing of the issue. Satyananda was never convicted. Viruswitch (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Once the court has overturned the Sw Akhandananda case, no point to include the episode here and create confusion. Sw Satyananda and Sw Niranjananada were never called by court and hence can not be induldged into the controversy. Hpjaiswal (talk)23 December 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. Neutrality requires us to state the conviction [of Akhandananda] as well as the overturn. We also state indictments, let alone convictions. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Satyananda

Proposal:

"Claims of sexual assault were also made against Sw Satyananda and other sannyasins in the Ashram."

JJ: sources!?! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Forefront

Proposal:

"Satyananda brought the yogic side of tantra to the forefront, to the public. However, this was not always at the forefront within the Ashram."

JJ: sources? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: Dear Admins: As it can be seen no one has come forward to prove that the results from an official enquiry cannot be included. Totocol (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for inclusion:

The Royal Commission in Australia

In the Opening Statement of Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission they stated: "The main focus of the hearing is on the response of the Satyananda Yoga Ashram at Mangrove Mountain (the Ashram) to complaints of sexual abuse made against its former spiritual leader, Swami Akhandananda Saraswati (Akhandananda), in the mid to late 1980s. I anticipate that the hearing will also canvas allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated by the organisation’s founder and spiritual head, Guru Swami Satyananda Saraswati (Satyananda) and issues relating to how he and his spiritual successor, Swami Niranjananda Saraswati (Niranjan) dealt with the allegations when they first came to light. " 203.171.95.168 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

- source

-User talk:Sanatan 6:47, 23 December 2014 (local) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.95.168 (talk)

CONTROVERSY

It is wrong to include a section on something that has not been concluded nor proven into an official biography. The sexual allegations have not been proven and the links provided by the people who do them are tabloids or self-published material. This article is the target of slander and the section on controversy does not abide by the wikipedia principles.

The conviction of Akhananda was overturned in 1991, and this is the legal standing of the issue. Swami Satyananda was never convicted and in this case, the paragraph of controversy is considered slander.

I REQUEST from ADMINS to PROTECT this article from becoming the target of malicious attempts at defaming Satyananda Yoga and Yoga in general. As I don't know how to do this, I hope some moderator can. Viruswitch (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing the slightest bit wrong with publishing information about an ongoing inquiry. There is absolutely no "principle" that requires waiting until the inquiry is completed before writing about it: that's just false. As long as the reports about the inquiry are from published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, this material presents no problem. The sources in this case are the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Associated Press, which easily qualify as reliable sources. There is nothing that resembles "tabloids or self-published material", and a Wikipedia article is not an "official biography". -- Rrburke (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not just information on an ongoing inquiry. This is slander. To make false and damaging accusations about someone is a crime and I hope you and wikipedia (that allows this to go unnoticed) are prepared to deal with it. Viruswitch (talk)

→It is recommended that you stick to the facts from the ongoing inquiry and that is what has been added to the page. The accusations that are part of a public inquiry. All from reputable sources including official records from the hearings. Entry will be updated as the inquiry continues its course Totocol (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It is important to include the official case that is being discussed by the Royal Commission into the Institutional Response to Child Abuse. It is an official source and the articles that have been included as reference are all referring to that official source. As listed in this page, the sources included are acceptable while used with caution. Caution has been taken when adding those references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.99.103.235 (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

There are many ways to include something official. And the way it is included here is not only non objective but slanderous. The text is being manipulated into passing an opinion to the public instead of merely listing the facts. It is obvious that the intent behind this text is to harm the reputation of Swami Satyananda. Also, if you read carefully the linked articles, they are: 1. Merely reproducing the allegations 2. The allegations are not limited to the alleged sexual abuse, but they are attacking the philosophy of yoga in general. Karma Yoga and Bhakti Yoga are practiced in many ashrams, in many traditions. And Yoga is well respected in Indian and other countries. It is clear that there is a broader intent and a specific agenda behind these attacks.

If we wish to stick to the facts, the facts are these: 1. 2 persons have filed allegations on sexual abuse 40 years after they allegedly happened → These are case studies which means that a couple of persons have been selected from a larger group of people that have come forward to testify similar accounts. These issues have already been also confirmed by the past and current admin as can be seen on their Facebook page. This page contains links to sources describing what is included and one of the witnesses was the wife of one of the persons mentioned in this article. 2. The conviction of Swami Akhandananda was overturned in 1991. -> His wife is one of the new witnesses that are now testifying together with a number of witnesses including several victims and residents that witnesses some of what the survivors are alleging. 3. The allegations have not been proven and Swami Satyananda Saraswati has never been convicted. --> A deceased person cannot be convicted which does not mean that they could has committed a crime during their lifetime

Does any of the person that have been deleting the additions have any real fact to refuse adding the ongoing official findings of the inquest that includes allegations of sexual abuse towards children including Satayananda? Administrators can check that these are real proceedings from an official royal commission on the page mentioned. If you can demonstrate that these types of facts (recorded allegations as part of a case study run by a royal commission) cannot be included in Wikimedia please include information about it in this talk page as described by the administrator. Otherwise we will just go back to where things are now. Let's discuss this as reasonable individuals. The page did not include anything saying that he did or not do anything but mere facts about allegations being made including official records. Thus included high range officials within the congregation.

This is the suggested text: Full transcripts and videos of the persons that decided to come forward to unveil the situations can be found at the website of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse. It includes detailed descriptions of some of the acts of abuse committed towards children by members of the group including Satyananda.

Please come forward to explain why you think that this[2] cannot be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totocol (talk • contribs) 11:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please everyone, stick to the facts, if references are provided including royal commission public records then they are facts. There is not point in trying to hide things that are available in the public domain. Only facts based on the allegations are being included

---

As long as Wikipedia wishes to retain its objectivity, it will stick to the facts and will not promote a smear campaign. 2A02:580:51B9:A200:DCC8:1188:B496:4611 (talk) - - - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:580:51B9:A200:DCC8:1188:B496:4611 (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely something has got to be done about this article. There is a revert war going on. Someone must help. Enigmafay (talk)

It is important to wait until the hearings and the process has concluded. Otherwise this is a cheap attempt at influencing the outcome. Thank you. Enigmafay (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Three witnesses in during the hearings have mentioned Satyananda as taking part on some of the acts. I believe that should be added on the page. Totocol (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A request has been added to the third party opinion project Totocol (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, stop deleting content that has trustworthy references. Let's have an open conversation. Why is the link to the Royal Commission not valid to you? Have you read the actual transcriptions to the testimonials from the victims of the sexual abuse by the different leaders including Satyananda? Please let's stick to what the testimonials are saying. If you haven't, the transcripts from the Royal Commission are here: Totocol (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Editors, why can we have a conversation here instead of trying to delete the content that is coming from the Royal Commission testimonials? Totocol (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Why we have to propagate some new allegations that have to do nothing with his career and biography? Don't forget that we had similar reports about many other people much after their death. Are you sure that we are going to believe on a former member of his center? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Because the new findings are very relevant to what he was trying to teach. I invite you to read this article which has a good summary of the findings and has a good discussion on why it might be important to include those allegations as part of his biography. In case you haven't read the transcripts or how the Royal Commission works, so far there are 3 witnesses but they have just been selected from what could be a bigger number. The outcome of these hearings can be used as input for criminal proceedings. In case you want to read the transcripts they can be found at the Royal Commission's website. I think the evidence is pretty clear and strong but the law should decide on that. The hearings will continue in March.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.7.201.34 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You maybe correct about mentioning it somewhere, but having a separate section for that is undue. We can actually write about this where we have written about his career and death. Along with this controversy, we can also add some other events(apart from these allegations). It will work too. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did you fully delete it as opposed to changing it to a sub-section as you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totocol (talk • contribs)

Read Wikipedia:NOTGOSSIP, just because some minors have now alleged him of sexual abuse and nothing has been proven, it requires no mention. Investigations seems to have been calmed down and you are a lone editor edit warring over these changes. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to full talk section. Definitely not the only editor that has been trying to add sections related to the outcomes from the royal commission. I highly encourage you to refer to the texts from the royal commission. The investigations have not calmed down, they have simply moved to the next step where the organisation can respond to the initial findings and then the hearings will start again in March. Please do not accuse other editors without reviewing the information added properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totocol (talk • contribs) 02:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a extremely random case, with no evidence if he can be charged or not. Although it is not even possible since he is dead and these random reports had no effect on his career. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to proceedings from royal commission, you are expressing an opinion, not the fact that there are some allegations and an ongoing enquiry Totocol (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean random allegations that lack any evidence? How they effect his career? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to the official communications from the organisation itself recognising their wrongdoings. Initial report including findings that you call random allegations. Ongoing process will continue in March. Please present a new reasonable argument rather than continuing to revert my addition Totocol (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The reasons marshalled for excluding this material are without foundation. To begin with, the allegations that the material amounts to slander are baseless: as a matter of law, in most jurisidictions you cannot slander the dead.

Next, the claims that we must wait until the outcome of the inquiry or for the allegations to be "proven" are likewise baseless. There is no such requirement. What is required is for the matter to have been previously published in reliable sources. As I mentioned earlier, the sources in this case are the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Associated Press, which easily qualify as reliable sources. Links to the inquiry itself are admissible; however, sole reliance on primary sources is not desirable because it is easy to misuse them in ways that amount to original research. The main sources should be the press reports.

Similarly, there is no requirement that we must first demonstrate that the issue had an effect on his career or biography, whatever that might mean. The topic is a controversy involving his biography and so is obviously relevant. Additionally, there is no question of WP:GOSSIP where the material is drawn from reliable news sources. These are not "random allegations" but evidence given under oath in a public inquiry and reported in reliable sources; we can include whatever these sources publish.

However, simply because we can include such material does not mean that we must. Bladesmulti rightly raises the issue of weight. I think this material requires its own subsection because it is a separate topic not related to anything else in the article. However, because this is a relatively short biographical article, the section should also be fairly (i.e. proportionately) brief. It should not be allowed to balloon and dominate the article. The material that has been repeatedly removed occupies exactly two lines in a thirty-two line article. This seems to me perfectly reasonable and proportional. In my opinion, it could be (but doesn't have to be) expanded to double its current size without becoming disproportionate.

Finally, while I assume good faith, I am puzzled by the ongoing attempt to suppress this material for reasons that are wholly without foundation, and can't help but wonder if the obstinacy is rooted in a simple opposition to including negative information about someone whom some editors admire. This is not a reason to exclude: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its biographies are not hagiographies, but aim to be balanced and neutral accounts of a people's lives, both the good and the controversial. Because I think that continuing to exclude this material is damaging to the article and without it the article is incomplete, I plan to restore the section in an altered format after giving other editors a chance to respond and comment. In my opinion, the section should stick closely to press reports, and not rely solely on links to primary sources for reasons set out in WP:PRIMARY.

I am happy to engage with other editors in order to find a way to include this material, but I will continue to oppose its suppression, and am prepared to escalate the issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard should no resolution be found through negotiation. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to engage in those discusions too. Totocol (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The truth is that the initial short reference to the allegations was expanded with the intention to shadow the rest of the article. The manner in which it was written also denotes the motives behind those edits. Anyone can claim anything in any court, but are we going to document any kind and all allegations? This just does not make any sense. As long as there is a section on allegations, the people promoting the slander war and the attack on this article, are going to be using it to expand it. You have to see through the motives and the reasons these people are attacking Swami Satyananda and this page. Why after 40 years of the alleged crimes, has now come a "witness" forth? Why now, when Swami Satyananda is dead? I have read all the material and the allegations. The way these are circulated through the internet is clearly to attack Yoga in general. They do not limit themselves to the allegations but they go forth to describe life in an ashram as that of compulsory labour. Karma yoga is reduced to compulsory labour. Bhakti yoga is made to look like a lower form of fanatical religion. This whole campaign at attacking Swami Satyananda and his Yoga, has one and only aim. And any thinking person may find that out. We should stick to the spirit and the motives surrounding these attacks. We should stick to the truth. And we should stick to the aim and purpose of this article, which is to inform people about the life and achievements of Swami Satyananda in the sphere of Yoga. Enigmafay (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your speculations about the motives behind the story are beside the point, and offer no basis for the continued suppression of this topic. Efforts to include this material are not "attacking" the article. The topic has been widely-covered in reliable sources, and merits inclusion in the article. Here is just a sampling of the coverage: [3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11].

With this level of coverage, the ongoing attempts to suppress this topic should be abandoned and effort now directed to how best to summarize and integrate material from the press stories into the article. I agree that the section should not be permitted to overwhelm the article. The section need not dwell on every salacious detail and become the main focus, but should fairly and accurately summarize what has been published in reliable sources, with due regard to proportion. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the matter of sexual abuse of children should not be mentioned in this article at least for now. I would agree if it was the Mangrove Ashram article, all the physical and sexual abuse to be mentioned that even they acknowledged. Most of what has been mentioned in the Royal Comission hearings has been about the Mangrove Ashram that is a seperate legal entity. The fact that they were inspired by Satyananda or that they teach Satyananda Yoga techniques, I believe has no direct connection with Satyananda as a person or his life. Now, concerning the allegations that include Satyananda, even if they are true, I have only seen one from a woman who was 17 at the time and another from an adult. None of them constitute being a child at that time in India nor Australia so a mention of "sexual abuse of children", I believe, is wrong and it paints the wrong picture. I also believe that the matter of abuse by Satyananda is blurry in these allegations. I'm not sure the allegations against him even register as sexual abuse in a criminal sense. Until an official organisation acknowledges the allegations against Satyananda (and due process is being done currently) or other allegations are produced, in my respectful opinion, we should wait before such an inclusion is made in this article. ArisPs (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

the discussion here is not about whether some editors' opinion is if they believe the allegations are true or not. The main discussion is that there are already appropriate sources that include allegations that are relevant to this article and that so far the editors that continue deleting other editors' inclusions in this area seem to be doing it with arguments that are not in line with that wikipedia is aiming to do. The additions can still be kept as allegations but need to be included if this article is to remain objective. There are at least 3 accusations that have been made and if you read the way the Royal Commission is doing its work, the allegations that have been made public are just a representation of the testimonies they have received. A full report is going to be made available in January but there are so far a number of sources that are relevant and would add to the objectivity and relevance of this article. 181.54.53.178 (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Of course, this is not about whether anyone believes in the allegations or not. This is about whether there exists any acceptable evidence or court decision regarding the allegations. Anyone is free to accuse anyone of anything. But such accusations or subjective allegations should not be included in this article.

2. The hidden agenda (which is actually obvious) and the motives behind these edits are certainly relevant. It is clear that the purpose of the people who attack this page is spread unverified rumors and cast a shadow on Yoga and one of its greatest representatives. The links that you provide are no evidence to the reality of the allegations. They just picture the accusations in a very colorful manner. As I pointed out earlier, the intention behind these articles are to harm the yogic tradition in general. This is obvious by the tone of these articles. The websites that publish them are interested solely on "selling something spicy" and what more spicy that sexual allegations of a spiritual leader. We should take into account the general atmosphere behind this internet campaign, and the fact that linking to allegations does NOT mean that you are linking to proof nor to evidence.

3. If one goes through the history of this article and reads the way the sexual accusations were expanded and written, they were taking up more than half of the rest of the biography. Then one will realize what is going on in here. Enigmafay (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course this is not a matter of opinion and whether anyone believes this or not. I meant something entirely different when I said that it is blurry but perhaps that was indeed an opinion and I withdraw that from this conversation. I won't elaborate, as it has nothing to do with Wikipedia and I apologise if I gave the wrong impression. I've watched the Comission hearings and I only heard about two allegations by people and they were not minors. If there is a third one by a child, that is a different matter. If someone could bring it to my attention, I would review my stand on this issue. To the matter of other testimonies that have not been made public, I respectfully don't think they should be a factor in deciding whether to mention abuse in this article. They have not been made public yet and we do not know if they mention Satyananda at all. If a mention about sexual abuse by Satyananda is to be added on this article, I believe that it should reflect only what he specifically is accused of and the sources should reflect that as well. If a link is provided to news articles that mention this, it should be about Satyananda and not mixed together with what other people have done or alleged to have done. I believe this serves objectivity. Does anyone have a suggestion on what should be mentioned on this article? As I said before I believe this should not reflect the actions of others and it should not mention abuse of children as I am not aware of any. Another point I would like to make is this. If, as someone mentioned, a full report is coming out on January, wouldn't it be wise for us to wait for a month? This matter about Satyananda hasn't been known for three or four decades, I don't think this should be an issue. We would all be much more informed. Lastly, I would like to say that if an addition is to be made titled "Controversy" it should reflect both sides of the argument. Shouldn't we wait to see if anyone from Satyananda's side have anything to say about the allegations against him? That is what controversy implies. ArisPs (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Enigmafay:Let me address your points in reverse order. I agree that any section on this topic should summarize the issue concisely and accurately. I also agree that the size of the section in previous versions had grown too large.

However, I reject the idea that there is some "hidden agenda" behind the addition of this material or that the article is being "attacked". It is a cardinal principle of Wikipedia to assume good faith on the part of other editors with whom we may disagree. What this means is that we all assume that each editor is advocating changes for no other reason than he or she believes those changes will improve the article. Please note that improving the article does not mean protecting the reputation of the article's subject, but rather ensuring the article's integrity and completeness.

Finally, this dispute is emphatically not "about whether there exists any acceptable evidence or court decision regarding the allegations". That is simply wrong. Wikipedia is not in the business of evaluating what is "acceptable evidence" but rather what are acceptable sources and whether a topic has received adequate coverage in them. When a topic has received ample coverage in reliable sources as this one has, there is simply no basis for suppressing it. Wikipedia does not wait for the outcomes of court cases or commissions of inquiry in order to add material about a topic; Wikipedia waits until a topic has received adequate coverage in reliable sources. There are plenty of articles discussing current court cases and public inquiries, and all manner of charges, testimony, allegations and accusations are reported. Such material is reported as just that: testimony, charges, evidence: "So-and-so testified...", "the prosecution alleged...", "the court was shown...", etc. As more evidence accumulates, the article is updated to reflect new information. There is absolutely no requirement to wait for the completion of any proceeding before including information about it in a Wikipedia article.

As evidenced by the nine sources I cited above, which are only a sampling, this topic has received more than adequate coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion. It has even received international coverage in India, the UK and the United States. There is no question that it should be included. At this point we should be trying to come to an agreement about what and how much to include. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Outside opinion

I am starting a new subsection here because the above discussion is quite garbled and I can't tell who is saying what. (You should use : symbols for indentation and sign your name at the end by putting ~~~~.)

There is some deep misunderstanding here because people are talking about "facts". Wikipedia is not about reporting "facts." We are not a news agency or a detective agency. We merely summarise information found in reliable sources. So, click on that link, understand what reliable sources are, and report what you find there. Mainstream newspapers are fine. The Royal Commission hearings are primary sources. They can't be cited, but you can put them in external links. The only requirement is that you should write material in a neutral voice, without directly accusing anybody. The material that is included here [12] is perfectly fine as far as I can see. If it is being challenged, please specify on what grounds it is being challenged. You can't say that you want it to go away merely because you don't like it. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Kautilya3. I by and large agree with you, although I think that in a relatively short biography like this the section on the abuse allegations shouldn't be permitted to balloon and dominate the article. In some earlier versions of the article it had grown too large. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Would it help to suggest a short text to add again and see if any of the editors that believe the text was not accurate could suggest any edits before is added again? I believe as others here that this should be added to make the article more complete and objective Totocol (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A new section like controversies would be better, it should include a few non-child abuse matters as well that occurred during his career and after that. It may also include criticism by others. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fair. What other controversial things do you think should be added? Totocol (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure we need other controversies, but we do need a discussion in the main body of the world-wide network of his ashrams. Otherwise, Australia would jump out without any context in the Controversies section. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

We require studies about his ashrams.. Liked this idea. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing

Not sure how relevant this is but I found a reference to a post in a facebook group asking people to create Wikipedia accounts to try and keep the new information suppressed. Totocol (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There is canvassing from both sides. The post you linked is also a form of canvassing the anti group. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not true. There is nowhere in the post stated that "new information must be suppressed". Why are you making this up? The post merely invites people to comment in the discussion page "why the paragraph on the allegations should not be included in the article". It is your personal opinion that the allegations are "new information". While the objective fact is that the allegations have no legal standing. See paragraph "Separating Fact from Fiction". Enigmafay (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

please Enigmafay I am really acting in good faith here but the way you refer to me when you mention me begins to feel as if you are taking this personally. It is really unpleasant to try and contribute to this article when I feel attacked by you. My only intention here is to add some information which I believe needs to be added to make the article more objective. It's one of my few contributions to Wikipedia and have been amazed at the amount of things done editors to ensure that information is not added. The information is widely public in many sources so I'm quite puzzled at why such big opposition to something people will find anyway. When you google Satyananda, most of the first page results refer to these allegations. I'm really just trying to reach agreement in an amicably way. It seems like admins and experienced editors feel the same way and feel that the information a couple of editors want to add would be fair to be added. The point is not whether it is fact, fiction or anything else but rather a controversy that is widely documented which is pointless to try to supress Totocol (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

this is the original post which is indeed asking people to come to this page to write comments on why the allegations should not be included I have taken screenshots in case it is deleted. This is the original text so you can make your own conclusions

"" Totocol (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC) cc: Rrburke Philg88 Kautilya3

this is the facebook post where some editors are also discussing how to keep this article "clean" Screenshots have also been taken in case they are deleted Totocol (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Enigmafay: Please spare us your lectures. You have created your account on the 5 December, and you have only edited or participated in this page. It is clear that you are not here to develop Wikipedia, but to push your point of view. You have done several reverts of reasonable edits of this page (I count more than 3 on the 5th December) and, as such, you had grounds to be blocked. There are no conceivable reasons "why the paragraph on the allegations should not be included in the article." Wikipedia is not a court of law, and "legal" has no meaning here. We report what is present in reliable sources. You are welcome to familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia operates and make useful contributions to it. If your agenda is to block information from appearing here, you will not succeed. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, me and a bunch of other users who have been involved in the revert war. The allegations paragraph had to be removed because the edits we were doing on it, to keep it objective, were being deleted. Instead the paragraph was growing in size bigger than the original article and they were dominating it. The writing was also improper and clearly aimed at damaging the reputation of Swami Satyananda, and not on solely reporting allegations. And this is the truth of the matter and the true chronicle of this article. The agenda of the people who added this paragraph is to slander, which is actually illegal. Furthermore, additions to any article should be relevant and useful to it. In which case, they are neither factual, nor relevant, nor useful. That is why, there should be no paragraph on Allegations. Enigmafay (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

as expected, all of the comments on the second facebook post I provided as reference were deleted but I have kept screenshots of the full discusion is needed. In that discussion people were given instructions on how easily it was to create accounts to continue deleting the new information added as One of The comments say "together we have to stay strong for the sake of our faith, in our guru,tradition and yoga.No one,like these rumour mongers,haters,and greedy people can change that." - this post was started in Dec 4 which coincides with the account creation date of Enigmafay

Please do not delete information from the talk page 181.54.53.178 (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

References

There is nothing wrong with our discussions, no matter how much you try to picture them in a negative way. Our discussions take place between our members, informing them about the war you have started here, and how they can contribute to Wikipedia on a matter that seriously concerns them. On the contrary, there is everything wrong with what you and your employer have been doing for the past month. You and your employer invaded our groups, harassed us, tried to proselytize people into your own ideas by posting offensive remarks along the links to the allegations. You and your employer have been posting in our groups repeatedly insulting us. The administrators of multiple groups had to ban you and your employer from further disturbing our pages. I would suggest you to keep your ideas to yourself and to the people who choose to join your groups. Oh, but you can no longer disturb our groups because you have been banned. Too bad.

i have never tried to join any of your groups. Not that that has any influence here. If your discussions had nothing wrong then why did you delete a lot of the comments instructing people how to influence the content of this page? Totocol (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh and another thing. It looks like you have been lurking on the talk pages of the administrators trying to influence them in your favor. No further comments. Enigmafay (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

no idea what you mean. You really need to become more familiar with Wikipedia before posting such comments and please do not undo content additions to the talk page. We're abstaining from adding to the article page as we are trying to reach concensus on the new content that will eventually be added given your unfounded reasons to remove it. Totocol (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Editors are reminded the purpose of this page is discussing improvements to the article, not lobbing accusations and impugning motives. We all assume that other editors are here, like ourselves, to improve the article. Please focus comments on content, not contributors. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You can tell that to the editor who started the accusations and who initiated this paragraph. Enigmafay (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Separating Fact from Fiction

The Royal Commission - Swami Satyananda refuting sexual abuse allegations

It is worth noting that the Royal Commission is not a court of law and does not exercise judicial power, although its powers may be coercive, denying the basic legal rights afforded ordinarily in a court of law http://www.smh.com.au/comment/extraordinary-powers-come-with-weapon-in-pms-armoury-20140210-32cpw.htm .

Testimonies in a Royal Commission and the opinion of a commissioner do not carry any direct legal consequences. As is stated in the High Court of Victoria, Australia

If (a) Commissioner were to report that he is of the opinion or that he finds that a person has contravened a law, the report would carry no legal consequence; (Victoria v ABCE & BLF 1982 152 CLR 25 (Brennan J at 154))

On the other hand, in an ordinary court of law the standards for the rules of evidence, and one’s protection against self-incrimination apply. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-31/royal-commission-questions-gillards-professional-conduct/5858466

The testimonies from witnesses heard in case study 21, Satyananda Yoga Ashram - Mangrove Mountain Ashram at the recent Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse should not be relied upon as facts to support unproven allegations of sexual abuse against Swami Satyananda.

They are individual testimonies given to the Royal Commission as one’s personal account of events as they allegedly happened 30 years ago, and therefore should be treated with caution.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/julia-gillard-tackles-union-royal-commission-witnesses/story-fn59noo3-1227110275976

It has been noted, that in the past, the legitimacy of different Royal Commission recommendations have been brought into question http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s4152609.htm

Reporting unproven allegations as fact carries severe damage to an organisation such as the case study involving the Salvation Army after it was investigated by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (case study 5). http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-22/salvation-army-reputation-declines-after-child-sex-abuse-inquiry/5983508

Confusing individual testimonies* as factual accounts which have not been proven in a court of law may inadvertently create more untruths: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-01/berg-shining-a-light-on-the-dangers-of-royal-commissions/5562354

There are times when the legitimacy of the Royal Commission findings has been placed in doubt. http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s4152609.htm

Where real reform from Royal Commissions reports has failed to be implemented http://www.acu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/241019/Prasser_and_Aroney_Fitzgerald_Inquiry_Griffith_Law_Review.pdf

There have been times when the Royal Commission reports have been completely rejected and the credibility of the Royal Commission questioned http://www.smh.com.au/national/failure-to-deal-with-kathy-jackson-undermines-credibility-of-royal-commission-20141219-12aof9.html http://www.afr.com/p/national/cfmeu_rejects_royal_commission_findings_1NhksjinxuMrjFXarOpMPJ

In addition, there are instances where the findings from Royal Commissions have been ignored by governments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission

Finally, a clear distinction needs to be made between what Royal Commission testimonies are and their legal standing and what testimonies submitted and proven to be factual in a court of law are, to avoid the serious damage and repercussions that unproven allegations, accusations and speculation that may arise during a Royal Commission case study, may cause for the organisation involved.

• Testimony based on another’s account as is seen in APR’s statement, “It was only in listening to the statement of Bhakti Manning yesterday that…….I have a non-distinct memory of my initiation” Royal Commission witness APR(106:11094)http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/bc75afe3-4a12-41be-983d-f9db256f6260/case-study-21,-december-2014,-sydney

Enigmafay (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

the point here is really not to decide if anything is fact or fiction but rather if there is any valid reason to continue stopping editors from adding a well referenced and widely documented information Totocol (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. Otherwise the readers of Wikipedia would be misled. Why would you want to write a misleading article? Let us define "widely documented information". Firstly, allegations are just... allegations. They are not information. Secondly, the Royal Commission is not a court of law and does not exercise judicial power, although its powers may be coercive, denying the basic legal rights afforded ordinarily in a court of law. Furthermore, the links that have been provided do not constitute in any sense widely documented information. Anyone who is familiar with the internet knows how easy it is to get "information" published. Even well known news-servers have been known to circulate articles that are nothing more than hoaxes. Also, it has come to my attention that you did not discuss any of the points risen in the "Separating Fact from Fiction" paragraph. Along with your response, that clearly implies that the allegations are fictional, it looks like a trick of sophistry from your part, to attempt to publish allegations in the name of "widely documented information", even if you believe that it is not fact. Even though we listed for your satisfaction the valid reasons on why we continue to stop editors from adding these texts, it is actually you who has to prove if there is any reason to continue attempting at adding fiction that harms the reputation of a widely respected representative of Yoga. I don't have to prove that I am not an Elephant. Enigmafay (talk) 12:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

after reading the facebook posts from you and the others that are trying to omit that information I believe there isn't much point on discussing with you so I think it might be better to scalate the issue. Totocol (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I see, you have no further arguments on the issues I raised :). Enigmafay (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There is only one issue, and it is simple: the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The issue is not whether the allegations are true, but whether they have been widely-reported in reliable sources. Allegations are indeed just allegations: Wikipedia reports them as allegations. Wikipedia does not evaluate the credibility of testimony, the credibility of the royal commission, or the credibility of royal commissions in general. Wikipedia does not care whether the commission is a court of law, or what the differences between it and a court of law are. Wikipedia is not at all interested in "separating fact from fiction" in the way you have described. All of this is completely beside the point. Wikipedia cares solely whether the proceedings of the royal commission have been reported in reliable sources. They have. They have been so widely-reported that there can be no rationale for suppressing them. If the topic is has been carried on ABC and Sky News, in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Times of India, and many more besides, that is more than sufficient for it to be included in Wikipedia. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability, means accuracy of the information. Not accurately reporting inaccurate and without evidence allegations. As an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia primarily is, it should include relevant and useful information. If you were writing a short biography on Swami Satyananda for a well known printed encyclopedia, would you include the allegations? Enigmafay (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:VERIFIABILITY means "that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". Wikipedia editors evaluate the degree of coverage in reliable sources, not the "accuracy of the information," which they have no means to evaluate. This topic is widely reported in and suppressing it places the reputation of the subject above the integrity and completeness of the article. In a short biography, I would include a short section; in a longer biography, I would include a longer section. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This is sophistry. You are trying to use the guidelines of Wikipedia without using common sense. These guidelines do not forbid anyone from using their logic regarding the importance and necessity of the information included in an article. You have to understand that stating unproven and false allegations is DEFAMATION, a civil wrong and in many countries a crime. Surely a paper encyclopedia would never commit such a crime. By agreeing to include defamation on Wikipedia we are actively damaging the reputation of such a large and influential organization. In that case, I would not be surprised if charges would be filed against Wikipedia. Enigmafay (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Enigmafay:Call it whatever you please, this is how Wikipedia works, how it has always worked and how it will to continue to work. And as I said earlier, as a matter of law in most jurisdictions you cannot defame the dead. But that is beside the point: Wikipedia publishes allegations qua allegations and testimony qua testimony all the time. Why do you think an exception should be made for this article? The testimony before the commission has been widely reported in reliable sources and there have been no lawsuits, principally because there is no basis for any. It can and should be published here as well; there is no problem. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia works. You can defame an organization and that is what is going on here. I ve proven you that the sources are not reliable, that there is no evidence and no court decision. It is defamation and it is illegal. I am waiting for you to disprove the arguments I have raised in my initial long post, but nobody seems to be able to. And strangely nobody is discussing about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmafay (talk • contribs) 13:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• "This is not how Wikipedia works"

This is precisely how Wikipedia works in hundreds upon thousands of articles.

• "I ve proven you that the sources are not reliable"

You've done nothing of the kind.

• "there is no evidence and no court decision"

Testimony is evidence and no "decision" is required.

• "I am waiting for you to disprove the arguments I have raised in my initial long post, but nobody seems to be able to. And strangely nobody is discussing about them."

No one is discussing them because they are irrelevant. The policy in play is Wikipedia:Verifiability: the topic has received wide coverage in reliable sources and so merits inclusion. I'm afraid this discussion has become sterile. I see no purpose in repeating this elementary point over and over any more. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you recommend would be the best next step given tha we are unlikely to reach concensus? Totocol (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Totocol: Consensus is not the same as unanimity. So, on the contrary, in my opinion a consensus has begun to emerge. At the moment there is one lone holdout who believes the topic should be suppressed in its entirety. Shortly we should move to discussing what and how much to include. I have limited time the contribute over the holidays, but if no one else proposes some text to negotiate around, I'll do so when I have some time. In my opinion the topic should be in a separate subsection and, should accurately and completely but concisely summarize what has been published in mainstream news sources. I know another editor, Kautilya3, has a different view about this, if I understand him or her correctly; Bladesmulti, on the other hand, appears to be in favour of a separate section. Have I represented others' views accurately? -- Rrburke (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Well when you discussed this with the administrator on his talk page he did not seem to agree with you Rrburke. Quoting " [...] In view of that, I haven't blocked Totocol for edit-warring and have asked the editors involved on several occasions to reach a consensus on what should and should not be included. My view on how the matter moves forward is that those involved should step back and seek dispute resolution. Pending a consensus for its inclusion, the abuse allegation material should stay out of the article. In the mean time, edit warring and disruptive editing will be dealt with accordingly. Cheers, Philg88 " Enigmafay (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

No one participating in this discussion has attempted to re-add the section. No one is edit-warring and there is no disruption taking place. As there is no deadline, I am content to wait for the outcome of this discussion.

Moreover, what Phil said is that the abuse allegations should remain out pending consensus for its conclusion. In my opinion, such a consensus has begun to emerge, and I plan to take its temperature in a straw poll. As far as I can tell, you are the only editor remaining arguing for this topic's complete suppression, and your reasons are specious. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

A separate section on Controversies is perfectly fine. That is the right way to do it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no issue for a controversies section as this will be considered defamation. Enigmafay (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy with a separate section too and would be happy to start with a modified version of where it was before the last edit war: "During open hearings as part of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Australia a Satyananda Yoga Ashram was investigated in relation to their response to past allegations of sexual abuse. During these hearings, three witnesses alleged that Satyananda had sexually abused them with two of them being minors during the alleged situations. . A full record of the testimonies that were brought forward by the commission for the public hearings can be found on the Royal Commission's Website.. The Royal Commission will continue the hearings around this case in March 2015." But I'd be more than happy for more experienced editors to modify it too.

The hearing will examine the response of Satyananda Yoga Ashram to allegations of child sexual abuse by the Ashram’s former spiritual leader in the 1970s and 1980s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totocol (talk • contribs) 22:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

I have placed full protection on this page for 48 hours. This is an admin action in light of the apparant edit war. It is not an indication that the current version of the article is endorsed by me, or anyone else for that matter, just how it happened to be when protection was applied. I suggest everyone discusses the controversy section on this talk page rather than constant reversion of the article itself. Nthep (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I've extended the full protection for one week pending the outcome of the RFC. To reiterate Nthep's comment above: the current version implies no endorsement of the content–the measure has been applied to prevent continued disruption.  Philg88 ^♦talk 10:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Gallery

Select a picture from the gallery and insert it into the body text. Remove the rest. Having so many images of one place looks like WP:PROMO. It isn't difficult to link to a Comons cat. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 December 2014

We should capitalize the l of the section list of publications. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)  Done  Philg88 ^♦talk 13:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll on "Controversy" section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose we take a straw poll as a way to determine what degree of consensus exists, with the following caveats: straw polls have no weight and are not binding because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Straw polls are not a substitute for discussion. The sole purpose of this straw poll is to see whether a consensus to include a "Controversy" section exists: what and how much to include will be decided by discussion, with the possibility of a follow-up poll about content if one is necessary. We are free to ignore the result of this straw poll if we choose, and if the result is inconclusive or runs counter to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, we should ignore it.

Please indicate your opposition or support by typing Oppose or Support below, followed by a short comment if you choose, and then your signature, ~~~~ 16:56, 26 December 2014‎ Rrburke

Straw Poll

The article should, in principle, include a "Controversy" or "Controversies" section that summarizes material like that contained in these (or similar) sources: [13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21]

Support

• Support. The topic is widely-covered in reliable sources, and there is no basis for its exclusion from this article. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Fully agreewith the nominator. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I don't see how this should be denied, I can suggest that it should be kept neutral and any sort of advocacy against these allegations must be included. I am not saying that it required because not everything requires to be neutral, but it is just recommended. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support No WP:CENSOR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support agree with nominator Totocol (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support, although I'm not a fan of having dedicated controversy sections and would prefer to see the criticisms etc integrated within the article if/where possible. DLS articles are prone to pov issues due to the zealotry of adherents. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support The topic is covered in reliable sources world wide, is verifiable and thus no basis for its exclusion from this article. Ziji (talk email) 21:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• Qualified oppose I am opposed to the existance of controversy/criticism sections in principle, because they act as POV magnets and due weight is difficult. The material in the sources presented above should be included, as per the nom and the support votes above; it's just that, in my opinion, these should be integrated into the rest of the article. I have attempted to do this in articles that I have rewritten, and I believe it would be an improvement. That said, if the only way to get this information in is to have a dedicated section, then go ahead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• That is kind of my position, but I said it in the Support section. Anyways, I've just got a potential hook in there for Australia and will be expanding on it, so it seems likely that we can avoid the dedicated section. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment:. This was my error for framing the question this way: I should just have asked whether we should include the sexual/abuse allegations. However, the poll is what it is and there's no changing it while it's in progress.

• ↑ What Vanamonde & Sitush said. (To be clear: even though my comment is in the "oppose" section, I am supporting inclusion of the content.) Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose because including sexual allegations without court conviction is no only illegal (Slander) and unethical, but it also does not concern the article of Swami Satyananda. For more information see section "Separating Fact from Fiction" Enigmafay (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to discuss it here much because this is a poll but I will note that (a) you cannot libel or slander the dead in any jurisdiction and (b) widely-reported, reliably sourced allegations are not libellous if repeated here, if they are noted as allegations. In many jurisdictions, an organisation cannot be libelled whether it is extant or otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Swami Satyananda may have left his body but his yoga lives on and so do his disciples. The allegations are slanderous to his tradition and to his disciples around the world. Creating multiple spam pages online is very easy to do and does not make the information more reliable nor proven. We have seen hoaxes on yahoo news and other widely accepted media. We have a duty towards the truth. The only thing we know for fact is that nothing has been proven. For all we know, this is an elaborate attempt at damaging the Satyananda institutions and organizations. Finally, including false and negative information leads to misinformation and does not serve the article nor its readers. Only true and proven information serves the readers of Wikipedia. Enigmafay (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose because the information is not reliable and proved. It's slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayankpjn (talk • contribs) 16:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: So, these allegations themselves are a WP:HOAX? There are no allegations? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant. What is relevant is whether it is helpful to the reader to read unproven and false information. We have a duty to the truth, not to reporting existent but false slander. Enigmafay (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That's up to the judges to judge, not to his supporters. Its true that he's being alleged; no WP:CENSORSHIP. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if something has not been proven, it is instantly false. Innocent until proven guilty. We do not have to prove the innocence of Swami Satyananda. The judges, and neither of the here gathered opponents of Swami Satyananda, should prove if he is guilty. Just remember that there is no conviction and therefore, he is innocent. The Royal Commission is not a court of law. Why would you want to include unproven allegations in an article, unless you wanted to defame and damage the reputation of the organization? We all saw in what spirit the controversy paragraph was written. It was written in the spirit to defame and not to report. Because if the report was made in the correct way, the subject is irrelevant to the article, it instantly nullifies itself and is not worthy reporting. We have a duty to the truth and to including relevant and helpful information in these articles. It's common sense. Enigmafay (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a straw poll. You are merely repeating the (often erroneous) arguments that you have already made above. There is no need for it. NB: whoever closes this poll is unlikely to pay much attention to the opinions of any newly-registered accounts that might turn up. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Straw Poll Criticism

Closing the poll without warning is unacceptable. You did not include a deadline in the poll and most people are away on holidays and have not even seen the poll. I only saw it today by chance. I request that you reopen it and set a period of time that it will be open. Enigmafay (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no deadline. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The Straw Poll was without any warning and many of us are on Holidays. Would request reopening this Protocol108 (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not the right place and you seem to be protesting. You can ask the admin who closed the discussion. If he refuses, then go to administrators noticeboard and request there, you have prove that how closing the discussion was incorrect. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll is closed without any alert. Can you please open it again.

Next steps

As Philg88 mentioned in closing the straw poll, there is a consensus for a controversy/controversies section that incorporates the material in the cited sources. However, a significant minority preferred to integrate this material into the article without creating a separate section. Are there editors who would like to make the case for either side before we move forward, or should we just go ahead on the basis of the apparent consensus for a separate section? -- Rrburke (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 has also suggested that without mentioning about his other Ashrams, this controversy may seem irrelevant, as soon as we can gather other details about the Ashrams, we can also write about this recent controversy. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should continue to pursue neutrality and objectivity. Wikipedia is considered an authentic source of information by millions and Wiki Editors should try to maintain that. There seems to be a rush to somehow publish some links or controversy section. As discussed in tonnes of material in paragraphs above. Addition of Controversy section in a rush is not a correct approach.I think the best approach should be to try to extend page protection for few more days and Sort the issues out first.Protocol108 (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Time to check for meatpuppets here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a pool of meat puppets here and it is concerning too. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A call to vote "oppose" in the above straw poll was issued here. Unfortunately the pole was closed by the time the army arrived. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC) (The post is now deleted, but I have got a screen shot in case anyone need.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC))

Unless "criticism" refers to a literary work's reception among literary critics, a "Criticism" or "Controversies" section is almost always a bad idea: it lends undue weight to the criticism or controversies, regardless of what they are. Have you ever seen such a thing in a print encyclopedia? In this setting, bits of criticism and controversy are far better put within other sections where they are relevant. As a complete outsider, I'm not completely sure what criticism-or-controversy stuff you're looking to include, but I can say that the "Controversy around child sexual abuse" section of this revision would maybe do better as part of the Biography section, once a date's added so that we know when the abuses allegedly happened and/or when the open hearings were first held. Nyttend (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Allegation of sexual abuse - still better suggestion. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good point Nyttend. It would perhaps be better to avoid creation of a new section and instead include a properly weighted and referenced mention of the "controversy" in the Biography section. I too have no dog in this hunt, I'm just keen to see resolution of what is at heart a content dispute.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)3 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal Implication of Adding Controversy/Controversies section

Adding a new legal section. In case the Controversy section is opened in a rush there are legal implications — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit2014hsshrma (talk • contribs) 05:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So now you guys are stooping to legal threats, after your attempts to censor content appear to have failed? --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

please lets use better language when discussing. The defamation cases and legal angle I have read on the facebook page of which you can see there are few fellow contributors are members.In fact they mention legal implications and also are rushing to include controvery section.[22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protocol108 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal Defamation : http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloaryan (talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So, you guys are saying that the Australian law should be used to sue the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, plus all the major Australian Newspapers who report on those hearings? Get real. I've posted a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threats at Satyananda Saraswati. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

In this case: you want to say that Shishy wa snot heard by the Commission; that she did not make those statements; that there were no allegations in the 1980's; that those newspapers did not report on those hearings? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

hi Joshua,The comment was certainly not a threat to anyone and certainly not to the Royal co mission or the news papers as you have mentioned.(at least speaking of myself) but more for the wikipedia contributors to be mindful of sensitivity of the Royal Commission currently going on.The interim report is not yet out. Adding a Controversy section and parts of that could be quoted by any party on both the sides to go after each other. Infact by adding new section we are making life difficult for both the parties( Parties mean the Australian Yoga center and the group of people who are aggrieved.)This is very emotional time for both sides.May good sense prevail and my only comment would be that Wikipedia Contributor and editors can also be little sympathetic to both the parties in the Royal Commission hearings. Atleast let the interim report out which should be in next few days.Protocol108 (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Protocol108 (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

sfn versus web-sources

Hi Sitush. I'd rather use the <ref group=web> notation, because it immediately gives the name of the writer and the newspaper; this may be more convincing rigth-away only a short note. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It was overcomplicating things. For starters, see WP:CITEVAR - stick to one style. You were also overciting (using citations more often than needed) and providing less detail than is ideal (eg: accessdates for web content). Further, I really don't see the need to split a bibliography between printed and web sources. If people can't be bothered to read the citation detail properly then they shouldn't be changing the content: there really is no need to be "more convincing". - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Page protection - again

Now the page is fully edit protected for 4 days in light of the continual cycle of reversions going on concerning the allegations paragraph. Nthep (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep:I fear that there is a group of editors who will not accept this material being included in any form, and will find fault with any version and will find excuses to defy any consensus. Doubtless there will now follow complaints that you protected the wrong version. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This is 3rd time that the page has been fully protected in 1 month. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rrburke: I would repeat what I said on the previous occasion I applied protection to this article - I don't endorse any version of this article, I applied protecton when I saw an edit war escalating (again!) with no likelihood of any other method stopping it. I would urge everyone with an opinion to discuss, rationally, on this page to reach some sort of consensus. This might be difficult in view of some of the views I have read previously but I would remind all of Five pillars especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Nthep (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)