Talk:Gurunath/Archive 2

NPOV Dispute

1. That Mahendranath coined the term is disputed. lack of evidence for this, and plenty of evidence to the opposite.

Hamsacharya dan 15:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

But the article now says simply that Mahendranath wrote that he had coined the term. And this is true and it is documented. What's the problem? The rest is simply a diatribe written by someone else and is in the archives and should stay there. Nobody is stopping anyone from adding cited information to the article. —Hanuman Das 04:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Kindly see

Kindly see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bhadani#Gurunath Thank you. --Bhadani 09:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

POINTS raised against "OTHER MEANINGS" section

Answer to claim that the word Gurunath was coined in 1986 by Mahendranath:

The word Gurunath was used in 1967 when [Yogiraj Gurunath] wrote this poem, part of which is given below, in honor of all Gurus and especially Gorakshanath Babaji. This word was also in use and existed thousands of years before. In India, people have been giving this name to their children for a long time, singing it in bhajans, and in honor of this ancient word Gurunath, they give their homes and businesses this very name. The temperment of India Yogis is free and flowing, and it is only from the West that this coining and trademarking has come into being. It's an ego trip to claim ancient words like Siddha, Yoga, Kundalini, and Gurunath as one's personal property. It's just like the white man coming to America and dividing the lands and rivers which the Native American Indians rightly believed to be a free and flowing gift of God, and the common property of all. With divisions, grabbing, and coining began all the headaches and problems of humankind. Surely a greedy and insecure way to go about things, and certainly does not promote unity and harmony in humanity.

Allakh Niranjan, Sri Gurunath

Tum yogijan jivan prabhat

Kripa nidan de do vardan

Harpran tumhara anusandhan

Tum swayambhu jivan jwala ho

Raj hans ka urtha ujala ho

Hrydaya Nath prano pranam

Tum jan ke jivan jwala ho

Hamsacharya dan 15:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• The 'coining' of a term that is already in existence and attempting to divorce the word from the etymological and linguistic context completely seems a strange attempt at putting forth a new world-view and doctrine. 'Gurunath' has been in use in India for many centuries. Devotees have chanted the refrain 'Bolo Sri Sat Gurunath Maharaj ki JAI!!!' since time immemorial. One only need to actually go to a temple or satsang (devotional gathering) almost anywhere in India to hear it. Practically all orders, missions, sects and sub-sects use this term.

"So I have coined a word—Gurunath ... This word can be the Western term for the same thing as Gurudev and it circumvents any religious or Eastern connections."

One must ask themselves - is it possible to take a term from Sanskrit - a language that has existed in India since ancient times (even by modern academic scholarly standards), and proposition its new usage to 'circumvent' Eastern connections. Furthermore, Sanskrit as a language cannot be divorced from a religio~philosophical context. The very existence of the language hinges on everything that would be deemed 'religious' by the West. Even further still, let us give Mahendranath (born Lawrence Miles) the benefit of the doubt...still the Western term for 'Gurudev' still puts the term 'Gurunath' back in the realm of religiousity and its Eastern connection for it means the same as 'Gurudev'. How does this 'newly coined' term 'Gurunath' actually work in practice? The article in Wikipedia completely glosses over it and merely states it as a patch to cover a potentially dangerous hole in a new sectarian lineage of house-holder yogi lay people who reside or are from the exclusivity of the West. So who exactly bestows a Guru-status on his shishyas (devotees)? For a according to those who belong the same order believe a Guru must pass away for one to get Guru-status. Or is this something exclusively for Westerners who feel when the time is right they may spontaneously bloom into 'Guru status'? Indeed, 'Gurunath' was his solution. So, newly coined terms may confer solutions to such dilemmas. Very interesting indeed. How did he know he had reached 'Guru Status' himself? The fact is that sometimes the devotees (or those that find a person and their ideals appealing) confer this status more than any other individual. Look at Marxism...Marx's distain for all things religious would be a bit incongruous with the fact that many revere his picture as if he were some religious figure and just peer into the fanatical, authoritarian dictators of whatever denomination to see that 'religious' reverence is more than evident in the core power structure.

Getting back to the term 'Gurunath' from within the Indian (and Eastern) tradition. We find that it is not used exclusively for householder yogis or sannyasins...but rather the term has been used to refer to persons of both pedigrees...it is also a term that addresses the Supreme Guru - the Lord Himself/Herself. The word 'Nath' is found in all major religions and within 'Hinduism' is found to inrelation to practically every God or Goddess...for the Gods and Goddesses of India have many epithets. One must only take a Char Dam pilgrimage in the Himalayas to find that even the mountains themselves are considered to be living, breathing yogis...they are Naths too - Kedar Nath, Badri Nath, Amar Nath...

The Aghoris, Siddhas, Tantriks, Kaulas and Kapilas (to name a few of the more esoteric branches of 'Hinduism' and 'Buddhism') all have very close links to the Nath tradition. There has been and is still a lot of cross fertilisation going on. Many have taken initiation into a number of these traditions - sometimes both 'Hindu' and 'Buddhist'. So, as the practictioner progresses what exactly is their fold? It often becomes subordinate to the transendental quest and advanced practioners eventually become Masters that freely take from whatever tradition to get a specific teaching across to particular groups of people.

The term 'Gurudev' also is not solely reserved for the person that has foresaken family life. In India, it is extremely common for this term to be used to refer to one whom is very well respected in any given field. For example, one may call Pt. (Pundit) Ravi Shankar 'Gurudev' if he were your sitar teacher/guru. Rabinranath Tagore is often refered to with the title 'Gurudev'.

The term 'Swami'(male) 'Swamini' (female), however, is generally used to refer to one has foresaken their family and who often lives in an ashram or temple, and often wearing the ochre robes.

Currently, there seems nothing wrong with creating and promoting ones own synthesis of tantric teachings for a particular audience, but to claim one 'coins' a new term from a term that has already been minted in numerous currencies seems a bit too far. Perhaps, it would be better to say 'I have put a new gloss on this term'. For that is what the Buddha Sakyamuni did. The Buddha took the term 'brahmin' and gave it a new meaning - much to the consternation of the dogmatic priestly class...the Buddha even refered to himself as a brahmin. In fact, if one were to read the Sutras, one will find that the Buddha was referred to not as 'the Buddha' when he spoke but 'Bhagavan'...as in 'SriBhagavan uvaca' which is often translated as 'the Blessed Lord/One Spoke/Said'...anyone who knows Sanskrit and has read the Bhagavad Gita will notice that Sri Krishna is referred to in the same way...and indeed certain verses may easily be said by either.

May you all find what you seek...be true to yourself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.229.248 (talk • contribs)

Repeatedly moving this here is pointless. It's a lecture, not a discussion. And it's archived. If you have citable facts to add to the article, add them. If not, enter into discussions. No one takes these lectures seriously. TL;DR:GF. —Hanuman Das 17:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it may be boring...but someone is finding it serious enough to address it...argue what you may whether it is a 'lecture' or 'discussion' the points raised should be ample enough debate/discussion food. Again, look closer and you'll see. The initial article on 'Gurunath' actually took the tone of lecture and promoted the ideology of one individual within a context of a topic that clearly did not hinge on one individuals mind-set. However, the past is past and the fact remains it has been changed and new editors are contributing and that is great. The current revised version is much better until other sources can be injected. All apologies if it all may seem like a 'lecture'...but what is 'boring' to one person is enlightening for another.

Ram, Ram, Ram

You misunderstand. It wasn't being addressed by me because I am not the one with the sources of the information you present. You cannot expect other people to do the work for you. If you think something is missing, it is your (or someone else with access to references) responsibility to provide it. It is completely unreasonable to make a complaint that information is missing from an article and expect someone else to do something about it. In any case, the information has still not been cited with academic references. If that is still the case in a few days, the new infomation added to the article will have to be removed. It is the responsiblilty of the person adding the information to add references for where the information can be independently verified. WP:CITE -Hanuman Das 02:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand, my friend. It is being addressed by you and it's a 'fact', but it is also being considered valid as a point of discussion by others who bring it back into this section and by others who have taken time to read it, as is evidenced by the following comment:

"Of interest is the fact that the word "Gurunath" does not even appear on the Shri Gurudev Mahendranath page, which certainly does not help the argument that the Gurunath article should be about the word coinage claim. The page will be kept, but primarily to mention the use as an Indian name. The other section should be removed, or put at the bottom of the page *after* it is at least mentioned (and referenced) on the Shri Gurudev Mahendranath page."

'Discussions' need not be confined to scantily clad sentences - The numerous points raised in the 'lecture' still haven't been totally addressed. You seem to think it is too long to read and sift through. My contribution to this is to make editors understand - whatever their POV or nPOV - that certain particulars need to be addressed in order to make it an encyclopediac entry or acceptable for the clearest representation of the subject/object in question. I do expect you to do the work if you are bothered otherwise you are just presenting only what you feel inclined to reference and research for your own presentation of 'facts' and that is definitely not nPOV. Are journals (or even further personal correspondance) considered academic references in the totality of themselves alone? Again, if you would only read more carefully you'll see that the 'lecture' wasn't a complaint about missing information, but rather the whole approach to the article in question. The information previously presented was/is not the only one universally accepted on the subject - and clearly not the widely held view from the context of the culture from which the term/word belongs. So, it is also my 'responsibility' to address the methodology in which editiors approach a subject/object. Beyond references and facts there is an approach that gives references a certain texture - they don't exist in isolation. In the 'lecture' you'll note that there were points for both your contributions and points against and you have made efforts to change the wording - so the 'lecture' is having some sort of minuscule impact.

Ram, Ram, Ram!

Updates

The page requires a lot of fresh inputs, and updates. I shall do the same very shortly. --Bhadani 08:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Names given in the article are first names or middle names, and not family names. That shows the lack of concern for accuracy. --Bhadani 08:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Bhadani, please to meet you. It doesn't take much Google searching to find that it is also a family name. It is simply the case that the individuals found are not (currently) notable, and thus there is no reason to list them. Here are some examples: R. Gurunath, Mohan Gurunath, Pramod Gurunath, V. Gurunath and Sons!, etc. Also, your introduction is very inventive, I grant that it might even be true; but per Wikipedia standards, it can only be included if you can provide a citation per WP:CITE. As I am sure you know, the burden of finding a citation remains with the one who wishes to add the information. Since I'm sure you know this policy, I'll give you a few days to cite your sources. Otherwise, any editor may remove the information as uncited. Thanks for your additions! —Hanuman Das 13:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Uncited assertions

The section below has been removed due to lack of verifiability. Please do not return it to the article until references can be provided. Per WP:VERIFY - Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor, and The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. —Hanuman Das 03:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Gurunath, a term used in the Hindu tradition for last several centuries as a shortened from of Guru Gorakhanath, and the term finds wide reference in the tradition of the Naths. The term emerged as a generic term to describe the yogis who practiced the tenet of Guru Gorakhanath and his guru Matsyendranath.

Use of Gurunath as a name

Over a period of time, the term also found currency as a name.

BEHAVIOR Dispute

I am asking you once again to follow Wikipedia policy. I removed uncited material and moved it to the talk page per WP:VERIFY. You restored that material to the article without citing references. That is violation of policy number 1. You also retaliated by removing cited material that is completely in line with WP policy. That is violation #2, a violation of WP:POINT. I have had enough of your arbitrary edits, refusal to discuss, and incessant retaliation. You are disrupting Wikipedia, and if you persist, you are likely to end up permanently banned. Are you going to make a good faith effort to discuss? If not, a formal complaint about your behavior will be filed. —Hanuman Das 04:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hanuman Das. The International Nath Order is an organization started and run for years by the author of the cited quote in the other meanings section according to his wikipedia page Shri Gurudev Mahendranath. The cited quote does not meet the standards of verifiability set by WP:V to be published on a page other than the page about the author. It certainly does not merit to be half the size of the article when there are 52,000 Ghits for Gurunath, and only 2 Ghits for the quote by Shri Gurudev Mahendranath. Hamsacharya dan 05:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I beleive it is adequately cited, as did the admin who denied your AfD. Please stop interfering with valid cited material. Why not use you time more wisely and find citations for the material you want to include? It is not my responsibilty to help you do that. I want the material included as much as you do, but you have to provide citations. The first sentence reeks of what is called "popular etymology" and is probably not true. That is why WP has WP:VERIFY as a policy. If you want to include more information, please simply cite it and stop edit warring. This has gone on long enough and there will be a User RfC on it soon. You could easily end up blocked or banned. So please find another way of interacting than like a 3 year old, okay? —Hanuman Das 05:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I already put it up for RfC. If you don't like it, then you should come up with a strong source rather than a weak self-reference. Quit playing games and pushing your Guru's agenda. Let's let the RfC decide. For now, leave controversial material off of the page. The admin Bhadani agrees that your reference is weak and WP:V is very clear on this issue. You're edit warring as much as anyone else - and you can also be blocked or banned. Hamsacharya dan 06:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

SOCKPUPPETING OF HANUMAN DAS AND BABA LOUIS REVEALED

Sockpuppeting confirmed [1] Hanuman Das is the altered username of user Adityanath [2]

YGS name as title

Hanuman Das - why do you keep editing Yogiraj Gurunath's entry? If you can't respect boundaries than you should not be writing me up for an RfC. You are showing your hypocrisy here. He was born Sidhoji Rao Shitole - the spiritual title he took is highly symbolic - each word Yogiraj, Gurunath, and Siddhanath have specific symbolic meanings. Your edits are highly POV, and its obvious that you are doing this in order to bolster your POV that Mahendranath was the proprieter of the word Gurunath as a title. Admin Bhadani, User Shaninath, and myself have all independently contradicted this, not to mention the fact that you are using a self-reference which doesn't belong on a page other than that of the author - namely Shri Gurudev Mahendranath. Please stop editing Yogiraj Gurunath's entry, as you know nothing about him, and have no authority on the subject. Why don't you stick to your own topics of knowledge and authority? Why do you always have to interfere with the work of others who have nothing to do with you and want nothing to do with you? Hamsacharya dan 07:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

See below, please assume good faith. I am attempting to do what I think best for Wikipedia. This is not always what you think is best for your Guru. The former is the goal of Wikipedia, not the latter. Nearly everything I have done I discuss on the talk page, but you simply revert without discussing. Please stop using edit comments as a way to avoid discussion. Also, please note that you are not the final arbiter of WP rules. Do not take stuff out "until conflict is resolved." Leave it in and use formal WP processes such as RfC to get additional input. Okay? The default behaviour should be to leave things in, not take them out. If you will stop simply removing stuff because you personally don't like it, you will stop annoying multiple other editors to the point that they sign onto an RfC about your offensive conduct. Discuss, don't revert. Got it? —Hanuman Das 15:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A request - to User:Bhadani

I have made the following two requests:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Baba_Louis#Please_do_not_revert
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hanuman_Das#Gurunath

In case, I do not find improvements in the edits, and the edits fail to conform to wiki-policies, I as an administrator of wikipedia, and the attendant responsibility enjoined upon me, shall be contrained to protect the page. This should be treated as a notice to that effect. --Bhadani 08:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:VERIFY, uncited material may be removed by any editor. Forcing editors to accept your uncited material would appear to be an abuse of admin privileges and will be reported accordingly. You are welcome to restore your material after you have found references for it. —Hanuman Das 12:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Bhadani, respectfully, you are wrong to keep reinserting the material without a citation. It is my right to remove it per WP:VERIFY and my right to insist that you provide a reference before reinserting it. Please do not abuse your admin status again by insisting on inserting without a citation. If you read WP:VERIFY, you will see that I am correct. —Hanuman Das 20:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

Is any part of this apparent name a name? Clearly Yogiraj is a title. It was my understanding that the rest, Gurunath Siddhanath was a name. Is this incorrect? Is Gurunath being used as a title? Is Siddhanath a name? If not, this would indicate that the article should actually be located under the subject's legal name, with Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath being a redirect. I will put in a move request if it turns out that no part of the string 'Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath' is a name. —Hanuman Das 12:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This was already previously disputed when, I think it was NoToFrauds (talk · contribs) who wanted the same action done. NoToFrauds, if you don't recall, was the individual who was subsequently blocked indefinitely for his disruptive behavior on wikipedia. The admin's decision was that since almost all Ghits are for Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, that the article should remain there. Hamsacharya dan 18:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall any such discussion. Please answer my questions directly. In Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, is Gurunath a title or a name? is Siddhanath a title or a name? WP has a policy against titling an article exclusively by a person's titles. If they are actually names, there is no problem. If not, the article needs to be moved. —Hanuman Das 18:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Let us now turn to Sri Gurudev Mahendranath. What part of this phrasing is not a title? Should the article on this individual be under Lawrence Miles and then referenced to the above title? The fact remains, that he is most recognised in the world by Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath and that is what the article should maintain. Once, again you seem to be putting extra stress on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath when there are thousands of Gurus in the world that go by titles. Some have no lineage, some do...but what is important is to acknowledge the fact that they have followers or the public at large know them as a form with a certain name. Look at yourself, who gave you this title of Hanuman Das. Would Hanuman, Himself, be pleased with finding faults with others Gurus? 213.106.1.25 08:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

Right. It is my belief, perhaps wrong, that "Yogiraj" is a title, and "Gurunath Siddhanath" a name. This only has to do with how his entry on this page should be written. I believe he should be listed as "Gurunath Siddhanath" with a reference that his name is usually preceded by the title "Yogiraj" - that seems reasonable in a article about names...I think. I was the one who actually added his name to the article. Hamsacharya dan removed it at least once and I restored it. Now he objects to how I have phrased it. He needs to take a wikibreak, IMO. I am putting it back as I think it should be. Then people should discuss what exactly is wrong with it before changing it. —Hanuman Das 19:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I am in no way finding fault with anybody. You will find no direct criticism of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath in my edits. Nor will there be. Please try not to take things so personally and read in criticisms where not are intended. —Hanuman Das 19:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally, back to Shri Gurudev Mahendranath - he legally changed his name to this and used it on all legal documents subsequent to the change. It is also registered as the name under which all his works should be published with the U.S. Copyright Office. This is a totally different matter and the article is properly titled. But thanks for your interest. —Hanuman Das 22:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your response is duly noted. Yes, you are correct in your deductions. 'Yogiraj' is a title and so is 'Gurunath', as is 'Siddhanath'. All three titles given by a Nath hierarchy in the Himalayas. Hence, your wording seems apt and acceptable - because you are drawing attention to the fact that it is the same person, irrespective of names or titles. As for 'Sri Gurudev Mahendranath' being his legal registered name, I find slightly odd since the title 'Shri' is usually something that others give respectfully. Just as 'Baba' is a title that is given traditionally by people offering respect for someone who usually need some sort of name to be referred to, but them usually not being bothered about names (ie. Neem Karoli Baba, Sai Baba, Pilot Baba). However, as you say it is a different matter. I agree with your sentiments in keeping this away from rajasic words and intent to more sattwic ideals. I pray that any harsh criticism of anyones Guru is kept to a minimum Ram, Ram, Ram! 213.106.1.25 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

Thank you for your very reasonable response. It is a welcome relief after mostly dealing with User:Hamsacharya dan who does not seem to be able to acknowledge any validity whatsoever in anyone else's point of view. I despair of making any progress since he feels he must immediately change things with or without discussion and regardless of consensus. Are you also a teacher of Hamsa Yoga Sangh? If so, could you have a word offline with him. His actions do not make a good advertisement for being a yogi in that school; I mean, as everyone who has done even a little yoga knows, a few minutes of pranayama will calm the most furious anger and frustration. Why would he be editing Wikipedia while angry if he actually practices what he teaches? I really do not understand why he act so rashly. —Hanuman Das 00:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a cause for despair when words and intent seem to clash. No, this one is not a teacher of Hamsa Yoga Sangh. But this shouldn't be about advertisements and even so, hopefully people will find the strength to make up their own minds regardless. Hamsacharya Dan is a special person, who is quite firm in his practice and has great love for his Guru and even pranayama may not help when one feels that their Guru is being cast in an unsightly light - so I do understand how one may act in such a way to ensure that the teachings of the Guru is properly presented. Also, not every yogi is the same and ample evidence is there in the living myths/traditions of India that demonstrate that even the greatest of yogis may succumb to the strange and subtle workings of maya/karma. Some consider Naths to be extremely close to Aghoris, and they can be known for their temper. Some sanitised new age yogis will get the shock of their life if they were to spend a few nights in a cremation ground with some Naths or Aghoris. Some curse profusely and act like they are totally mad ('Pagal') - but the true ones have the most intense and profound compassion.213.106.1.25 23:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

Ha ha, yes I am sure that would be quite a shock for many. One aghori who is a friend of the International Nath Order is Robert Svoboda whose guru Vimalananda did take him to the cremation grounds, I understand. And Shri Mahendranath's Kaula guru was known simply as Pagala Baba - claimed to have forgotten his own name... But anyway, there is no reason to misunderstand; no one wants to cast YGS in an unsightly light, but simply within a broader context. In the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath article, the "differing views" section was originally a direct comparison; there is no reason for that and I rewrote it to be neutral - the intent is to present the facts without the intention to bias the reader to take them as positive or negative.

One interpretation is simply that traditions and teachings are changing in modern times. That is the intent of WP nPOV policy, so if Hamsadan then goes in and tries to bias them toward the subject, that is not good either. It would be better to discuss objections to specific wording rather than to simply keep removing things. That can lead to a compromise, where removing can only lead to a revert war... Still, everything would be much better with a few more facts; for each new fact that explains something that seems a little strange, some other fact is no longer needed to be explained and could be removed. I know it seems pointlessly logical and analytical to you, but perhaps it is simply a different form of madness than you are used to; it is also intended to be compassionate, to those who read the article who have never been exposed to the traditions that an Indian would take for granted, to understand that there may be many ways of being and considering the role of guru and lineage. You must admit that even in India, there are those who would want to know the details, and the fact that some are missing is a bit frustrating... —Hanuman Das 01:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I heard through crows that Robbie had presided over quite a big fire ceremony not too long ago. Robbie is definitely a friend of the world and he does so much to effect positive change in the world at large - a true gem! I think one reason he avoids using the word 'Guru' is precisely the reasons that are raised in these discussions...as a result he publicly prefers the title '(Spiritual) Mentor'. The peerless Aghori Vimalanandaji's is a great source of inspiration to many and Robbie is truly blessed to have had such an intimate and otherworldly relationship with Him. Shri Vimalandaji's words are quite profound: 'When asked his creed he would reply, "None! I believe in sampradaha (incineration), not sampradaya (sect). All sects have limitations, and what is really necessary is to cremate all your limitations, to burn down everything that stands in the way of your perception of Reality" A man of action who cared little for the opinions of others on what Aghora might or might not be, Vimalananda resisted all attempts to paint him as a 'classical' aghori. He ignored all recognized Aghora sects as assiduously as he disdained all organized religion.' (Quoted from Dr. Robert Svoboda's article 'Divine Fury: Recollections of a Renegade Guru'). Was Robert Svoboda in contact with Sri Gurudev Mahendranath? Yes, one can only imagine the talks/experiences SGM and Pagala Baba had together - must have been quite profound. Apparently, there are some Hamsacharyas that are friends with some of the International Nath Order.

Anyways, as your latest sentiments show if for compassionate grounds and for the betterment of the overall picture of what may be an alien tradition and culture for some it would be more user friendly to include as many 'facts' and the like. Compromise and understanding is vital in presenting articles on Wikipedia. So, hopefully we'll all work together to chisel something that is acceptable to us and the public. One thing about Wikipedia is that the discussions are part of the article presented.217.34.121.233 16:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

Constant removal or corruption of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

Hanuman Das - please refrain from machiavellian tactics to get your way on wikipedia. You've once again removed YGS [3] as a retaliatory tactic. You've also reverted another admins contention with your weak source - which you fail to acknowledge [4]. This doesn't bode well for the RfC against me that you're attempting to argue. Hamsacharya dan 18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please answer the above question. It makes a difference whether Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is a name or a title. If it is a title, it should not be put in the list of names. Please answer the question so discussion can continue as to how to include it. Please assume good faith. —Hanuman Das 18:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, the RfC is not about the content dispute. It is about the way you behave, your conduct. —Hanuman Das 18:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, as mentioned above...whether it is a 'name' or 'title' is irrelevant in the context, because that is the 'name' by which he is known.213.106.1.25 08:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

It makes a difference in the form the listing should take on this article. It is not meant as a slight or an attack. The name should be listed without the title if it is a name, since this section of the article is about names. If it is a title, it should be listed in a different section of the article under other meanings with a different explanation. That is all that is going on here, is determining where the listing should go and how to phrase it. Which can't be done if you'all are going to be evasive about whether "Gurunath" is a name or a title in "Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath"... —Hanuman Das 20:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Individually Yogiraj, Gurunath, and Siddhanath are all titles. Together they constitute his spiritual name. Do you understand clearly now? Hamsacharya dan 21:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please move discussion of this individual into the Other Uses section. —Hanuman Das 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? Hamsacharya dan 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Because "Gurunath" is not being used as a name in "Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath", but rather as a title, which is the subject of the second section. Putting him in the names section is not appropriate unless "Gurunath" is being used as a name. It's not accurate. But don't worry about it, I've moved it myself. —Hanuman Das 03:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to put an individual in an other meanings section. It can go in a titles section. Technically it should go into both as: His name is Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. He is a Yogiraj (master of yoga, he is a Gurunath (a Nath Guru), and he is a Siddhanath (Nath Siddha). Technically he should go in both sections - one as a name and another as a title. Also, there is no information whether the title was given to him. Hamsacharya dan 06:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't keep unilaterally moving it the way you want it, Dan. There other other editors opinions to take into account, something you regularly ignore. Have a little patience, hmm. —Hanuman Das 11:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Same to you. I think the placement and wording of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath looks fine in your latest edit, the current version - 12:09 May 2006. Thank you. Hamsacharya dan 19:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And I think your change in the heading is also an improvement. —Hanuman Das 19:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate that very much. Hamsacharya dan 17:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)