Talk:Swami Maheshwarananda

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

Rename?

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

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

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

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

Summary of factual accuracy dispute

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

Misspelled honorific in title?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move?

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

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

---

Swami Maheshwarananda → Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda —

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

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

Sexual Harassment Allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lakata - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Maheshwarananda

Dear anyone, the section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Maheshwarananda#Media_Reports_on_Sexual_Abuse) is removed, because still there are no real facts that support these published allegations. Otherwise it is only spreading of slander. Lakata (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)