Talk:World Brotherhood Colonies

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated Page

Added information to make the page well rounded including more independent communities started by disciples of Yogananda. Also, added in more researched information about Yogananda's wishes for the colonies. Took out duplicate information and references. Moved external links in the text to the External Links section.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, took a hacksaw to it.

A half hour ago, this was choked with weasel words, irrelevancies, fan perspective POV, brochure-speak, and pie-in-the-sky: we just didn't need multiple sections devoted to wishful thinking by Yogananda that never actually came to anything, and someone fell into the common popular error of thinking the definition of "unique" being "unusual." There's also a lot that needs to be cited, however unsightly the new batch of citation tags is. Ravenswing 00:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding new LDIC subsection

@Eywhat, for this subsection, you only provided LDIC as the source. Wikipedia is based on reliable, independent sources, not on what organizations say about themselves, for the most part. Can you find such a source to base the section on? If not, I'm afraid it is undue. Perception312 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to clarify the purpose and sourcing of the recently added subsection. The topic relates to a project by a non-profit organization[1]; the sole goal is to make devotees aware of this initiative and its resources, not for business or promotional reasons. No sales, advertising, or for-profit intent is involved.

Regarding sourcing:

Currently, available references are primarily from the organization or closely related sources. This is due to a lack of significant independent, secondary coverage. I’m aware that Wikipedia’s policies (see [WP:INDEPENDENT], [WP:ONE_SOURCE]) strongly prefer independent sources to ensure neutrality, verifiability, and notability. Content based only on affiliated sources is not strictly forbidden—especially for factual, non-promotional material—but is discouraged and ideally should be improved over time with independent references if/when they become available.

For now, I propose to keep the subsection online, tag it as needed (e.g.,

), and openly acknowledge sourcing limitations. My approach aligns with the spirit of collaborative editing: notability and neutrality remain priorities, and I invite other editors to help seek additional sources. If independent coverage ever surfaces or if the subsection’s suitability is questioned, I will happily revisit its inclusion or revision.

Key policy points referenced:

[WP:INDEPENDENT]: “Articles should not be built using only vested-interest sources… This requirement helps us determine whether the topic can be written about without bias.”

[WP:ONE_SOURCE]: “Articles or sections with only one or very few sources should be improved by adding more sources where possible.”

In summary:

My sole intent is neutral, factual coverage for informational and encyclopedic purposes, aware of limitations, and always open to constructive input from the community. Thank you for your understanding and collaboration!

----

Notes:

[1] Yogananda Seva is a California nonprofit religious corporation, formed in 2019 by long-time SRF/YSS lay disciples at the request and with the blessing of the SRF/YSS president, serving as a global virtual community that plans, coordinates, and operates programs to aid and connect Paramahansa Yogananda’s devotees worldwide—especially Lay Disciple Intentional Communities, Young Adult and Elder Forums—while being legally and organizationally independent from Self-Realization Fellowship and Yogoda Satsanga Society of India, though all directors are required to be loyal SRF members and its programs are developed in spiritual attunement with Yogananda’s teachings. Eywhat (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

"the sole goal is to make devotees aware of this initiative" – That is promotion (WP:Advocacy), i.e. generating awareness of something, whether it's a product sold for money or a religious initiative. That's not what Wikipedia is for.

Fixing problems (especially newly created ones) is preferable to tagging them. If an independent source cannot be found for the section, it is undue, so the solution is to remove it. If an independent source is found to base the section on, the non-independent source can be used to fill in basic factual details, not statements like, "The initiative reflects ongoing efforts to implement spiritual principles in lay community life." Perception312 (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you for raising the concern about WP:Advocacy. I’d like to clarify why simply stating that “the sole goal is to make devotees aware of this initiative” does not necessarily constitute promotion under Wikipedia’s policies, if presented and sourced properly.

1. Encyclopedic Documentation vs. Advocacy

Wikipedia’s primary aim is to offer verifiable information about notable subjects. Documenting that a particular initiative exists—and that it is aimed at making certain groups of people aware of specific resources or projects—is not, in itself, promotion, provided the text is neutral and is not encouraging participation, support, or endorsement.

• Reporting that “an organization launched an initiative to inform devotees about X and Y” is factual documentation—IF it is presented without persuasive or evaluative language and is based on reliable, preferably independent, sources.

2. Promotion Involves Advocacy or Endorsement

Promotion, as defined in WP:Advocacy, occurs when material advocates for, endorses, or seeks to persuade the reader to support or join a cause, group, or product.

• Stating the explanatory, objective function of a non-profit project (such as “the initiative was aimed at making X group aware of available resources”) is not an act of persuasion or endorsement.
• The policy defines promotion as language or edits that “urge action, make uncritical praise, or attempt to market or publicize”—none of which are present when neutrally describing the purpose or operations of a verifiable project.

3. Neutral Reporting is Essential

It matters how the information is presented:

• A neutrally-worded sentence, supported by reliable sources, that merely states the scope and target of a project is fully compatible with Wikipedia’s aims.
• What is not compliant is any language implying that readers should get involved, support, or value the initiative, or any attempt to arouse positive feelings rather than simply inform.

4. Wikipedia Contains Countless Examples

Encyclopedic articles often include statements such as, “The association aims to educate the public about X,” or “The campaign focused on raising awareness of Y,” as long as these are sourced and placed in the context of documenting, not amplifying the initiative. The presence of these statements alone does not make the material promotional.

The statement “If an independent source cannot be found for the section, it is undue, so the solution is to remove it” is too absolute for several reasons:

• Wikipedia discourages, but does not strictly forbid, the use of affiliated or non-independent sources when independent coverage is absent—especially if the information is factual, neutral, and non-promotional. Instead, the best practice is to improve such sections once independent sources appear.
• Content should not be deleted solely because it lacks independent sources. It can be tagged appropriately, with its limitations noted, per WP:ONESOURCE and WP:INDY. These policies recommend improvement tags rather than immediate removal.
• Notable, verifiable facts—even if only documented in affiliated sources—may merit inclusion, provided the content is balanced, neutral, and non-promotional. Removal is appropriate when the material is unverifiable, non-notable, or promotional—not simply for lack of independence.
• Precedent shows that many articles on emerging, niche, or religious topics initially rely on affiliated sources and are later improved as secondary coverage develops. Immediate removal risks discarding valid factual content and unfairly penalizing subjects that face sourcing limitations due to coverage gaps or language barriers.

Additionally, I’d like to point out that the same article mentions projects by Ananda—such as Ananda Village and its global branches—which are products of Kriyananda’s discipleship and the Ananda movement. Much of the coverage about Ananda’s colonies also relies on sources closely linked to the organization or its leaders, yet their inclusion is not considered undue or inherently promotional as long as the material is neutrally phrased and based on available, verifiable facts.

If the standard is that simply documenting the stated goals or activities of spiritual communities constitutes promotion or violates WP:Advocacy, then there would be an inconsistency, given the numerous references to Ananda’s own initiatives. The key is how the information is presented—if it’s neutral, factual, and not urging support or participation, it serves an encyclopedic, informative function even when secondary sources are limited. Eywhat (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you using an LLM to generate such lengthy comments? I'm happy to explain our policies to you as I understand them, but I don't want to debate an AI. Remember that most AIs are conditioned to agree with the user rather than telling them what they don't want to hear.

These policies recommend improvement tags rather than immediate removal. Those aren't policies, they are explanatory essays, and I think they recommend removal when the needed sources cannot be found. See also WP:ONUS.

Much of the coverage about Ananda’s colonies also relies on sources closely linked to the organization or its leaders[.] In this article? Which source(s) are linked to Ananda? Perception312 (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

My intent here is to participate in good faith and in a collaborative spirit, with careful attention to Wikipedia’s pillars and content policies. Every point I raise is grounded in established policies and guidelines, regardless of the length or manner of my comments. I am a real person dedicated to fostering deeper understanding and the elevation of human consciousness, and I believe the concept of World Brotherhood Colonies offers valuable insight into alternative ways of living that deserve fair, well-sourced encyclopedia coverage.

The LDIC is a non-profit initiative devoted to providing free resources and education to anyone interested in building communities inspired by the principles of Paramahansa Yogananda. It is created without ulterior motives, guided by the single aim of serving humanity openly and with sincerity.

Regarding your statement:

"I think they recommend removal when the needed sources cannot be found”—

It’s important to distinguish between unverifiable content (which can and should be removed per [WP:V] and [WP:BURDEN]) and content that is verifiable but only with non-independent or affiliated sources. In the latter case, policies and commonly cited essays such as [WP:FRINGE] and [WP:RSUSE] generally recommend attribution and improvement tags, rather than immediate deletion. Per [WP:PRESERVE] and [WP:IMPROVE], editors are encouraged to fix issues and “preserve appropriate content” wherever possible.

Immediate removal is recommended only if:

• The content cannot be supported by any reliable source (not just independent ones); or
• It is demonstrably promotional, non-notable, or fails another content policy like [WP:NPOV].

Otherwise, if information is cited to a source (even if that source is affiliated), the standard and the spirit of collaboration is to tag, discuss, and seek improvements before deletion—especially in niche or emerging topics where independent coverage may be limited but the facts themselves aren’t disputed.

Regarding the application of WP:ONUS:

[WP:ONUS] indeed states that “the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material,” especially for contentious or challenged content. In the context of religious and emerging topics, however, consensus and precedent recognize temporary reliance on dependent sources for non-promotional details, provided the limitations are transparently tagged and flagged for future improvement, and subject to further review.

Regarding the sources linked to Ananda

You can currently find a clear example in the External Links section: the last entry, “Yogananda on World Brotherhood Colonies” is an excerpt from a book authored by Kriyananda, who was a direct disciple of Yogananda and one of the founders of the Ananda community. This source is directly affiliated with Ananda, as Kriyananda played a leading role within the movement and the website hosting the excerpt is also closely tied to the community. Eywhat (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The external links are not used as sources for the article. See the References section for those.

I believe the concept of World Brotherhood Colonies offers valuable insight into alternative ways of living that deserve fair, well-sourced encyclopedia coverage. I also want this encyclopedia article to be well-sourced. That is why it concerns me when someone adds material that fails Wikipedia's sourcing standards. Encyclopedic articles and sections are mainly based upon reliable, independent, secondary sources. Affiliated or primary sources may be used cautiously for incidental details, but independent secondary coverage is generally what makes something notable or due for inclusion on Wikipedia.

In addition to lacking an independent source, the section you added reads more like a PR piece than a neutral summary. A non-neutral wording would be easy to solve if we had an independent source to summarize instead, so in the spirit of collaboration, I left the content alone (after you re-added it) while I pinged you and gave you an opportunity to provide such a source. I also looked for one on my own, but neither of us found one. In the meantime your comments have convinced me that you have an agenda and that the section was added with the intention of promoting or publicizing an organization. This means that I can remove it as spam per WP:3RRNO.

If you wish to contribute to the encyclopedia, I suggest learning about our policies and guidelines and gaining experience by making small edits to articles you have no vested interest in. If you are only here to publicize an organization or a philosophy, then please find a more appropriate venue. Best wishes, Perception312 (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Perception312,

I acknowledge and respect your vigilance in upholding Wikipedia’s standards of verifiability, neutrality, and the use of independent, reliable sources. At the same time, I’d like to address how your approach in this discussion can be reasonably perceived as overly controlling and subjective, in ways that depart from the collaborative ethos Wikipedia depends upon.

Your repeated insistence on outright removal rather than using improvement templates or inviting further sourcing reflects a form of editorial despotism—where your personal interpretation of policy is applied as final, rather than seeking the broader consensus of the editing community. Wikipedia explicitly emphasizes WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPROVE, which encourage us to retain verifiable content, tag it when sources are less than ideal, and wait for improvements when possible, instead of removing it prematurely. Abandoning this collaborative balance risks narrowing the encyclopedia to only what one editor deems acceptable in the moment.

Equally concerning is the subjectivism in your reasoning. You framed my intent—as expressed in neutral language and with acknowledgment of limitations—as “promotion” and “PR,” which is a projection of motive rather than an assessment of the words on the page. The difference between neutral documentation and advocacy is well defined in policy, and describing an organization’s goal in factual terms is not equivalent to persuasive endorsement if worded neutrally. By assuming that “making devotees aware” equals promotion, you risk conflating mere factual reporting with advertising, which sets a problematic precedent.

You also dismissed the solution of tagging with

or similar improvement templates, despite these being accepted methods within policy guidance. This shows a lack of willingness to let the article evolve organically through community contribution. Your repeated emphasis on deletion—through arguments of promotion, undue weight, lack of independent sources, and later even “spam” and WP:3RRNO justification—reads less like policy-based editing and more like a concerted attempt to take down the subsection. To summarize, you attempted to justify removal based on: alleged absence of independent sourcing (WP:INDY), undue weight (WP:UNDUE), accusations of promotion/advocacy (WP:ADVOCACY), dismissal of improvement tags, invoking of WP:ONUS as an absolute, escalation to calling the material “spam,” and accusing me of having an “agenda.” These tactics compound into a pattern that undermines the principle of collaboration in favor of personal control.

Furthermore, suggesting that my comments might be AI-generated or asserting that I am here with an agenda to “publicize” a philosophy amounts to an ad hominem detour that deflects from evaluating the content itself. That sort of subjectivism erodes good-faith engagement and discourages editors who are trying to contribute thoughtfully.

I would encourage us to return to the balanced interpretation of policy that editing thrives upon: verifiable information can be tagged and clearly marked for improvement, rather than deleted at the first sign of sourcing limitations. Many niche, religious, or emerging topics begin with affiliated sources until broader coverage emerges. Dismissing these immediately erects unfair barriers and risks silencing whole areas of legitimate encyclopedic information.

As I see it, the spirit of collaboration means:

Preserve what is verifiable, even if imperfectly sourced.

Use neutrality and attribution to avoid promotional tone.

Acknowledge limitations transparently through tags.

Invite the community to improve the material over time.

That pathway respects both Wikipedia’s policies and its cooperative foundation, while avoiding personal subjectivism or unilateral removal actions.

I feel confident we can work together under these principles to improve the article, rather than framing one another’s contributions as self-serving or dismissible. Thank you for considering this perspective. Eywhat (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

First off, start by responding in your own words, not in AI-generated slop. The links that Perception312 posted are not attempts to smother collaboration, but involve policies and guidelines that you are required to follow. Ravenswing 15:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)