Talk:Nath
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance for this Project's importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Archives
[edit] Assumptions about this article
This is a general article about the Naths and the Nath Sampradaya. Details which are specific to one panth or one teacher should go into a separate article about that panth or teacher. Historical facts and beliefs and practices which are common to all panths and teachers are what belongs in this article. If you disagree, please discuss here. —Adityanath 15:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requirements for listing a Nath guru on this page
Clearly, we cannot list every Nath in existance. We can only list Nath Gurus. And to be sure that they are Gurus, we need to have the name of their initiator, their panth or sub-sect, and some reason to believe their received parampara or succession. Self-proclaimed "Naths" need to provide some reason that they should be considered Nath Gurus. —Hanuman Das 02:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Verifiable citations required
Other anon. editors should be aware that all information added must be verifiable by a citation to a book, journal, or reliable website. Thanks for any properly cited additions to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.41.150.146 (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] This article contains serious problems
It has been extensively edited by the devotees of a fake nath Guru - an Englishman by the name of Miles - who went to India in the 1950s and re-invented himself as a Hindu spiritual teacher. There is no evidence that he was ever initiated into any branch of the Nath Sampradaya, and this page is largely under the control of a small group of westerners who have very little or no contact with the Indian forms of the tradition. They have a good deal of academic understanding of certain of the historical realities of the tradition, but they regularly edit the page to fool people into thinking that their non-initiated non-nath lineage is equivalent to the Indian forms.
At least one or two of the the people involved in the edit wars on this article as wikipedia admins are members of that sect, the "Interntional Nath Order."
I have removed the offending and highly controversial and unsubstantiated material - for example, a "guru" of the lineage being identified as such only by references to the works of his followers, or even his own works, leaving the article significantly more informative and objective. I believe that if you check the people who actually come along and re-insert the Mahendranath fake-nath materials into this article, you will discover several of them are INO members, who are attempting to propagate the cult of their particular un-official psuedo-nath fan club.
At the very least, these claims made are not verifiable because they cite self-published and self-referential sources. There is no objective evidence made for the status of the Mahendranath group as naths, other than references to the writing and claims of Mahendranath himself. Compare Da Free John's claims.
It's important that the conflict of interest issues in this edit war are noted, and a reference to the history of the page will indicate the severity of the administrative abuses that have been required to maintain this page in its uninformative, misleading and broken condition.
Please inspect the page history to understand the issues further. --83.82.115.34 (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- This doesn't appear to be an accurate assessment of the article and shows a misunderstanding of what verifiability means in the Wikipedia context. I note with humor the assertion that "wikipedia admins are members of that sect". And the Illuminati too, I am sure :) Sivanath (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Notes on the removal of the Mahendranath material
Note that, in accordance with the policy that "gurus" on these pages should be listed on the basis of their own claims or those of their followers. Clearly this contravenes several Wikipedia policies. As for the issue of Wikipedia admins being members of the International Nath Order sect - NAME DELETED FOR PRIVACY REASONS is a wikipedia admin and has clearly had quite some interest in the status of this page over the years.
Finally, as I noted before, Lobsang Rampa should be listed as a Tibetan Lama if our standard for placing an individual in a spiritual lineage's web page is their own writings.
Think it through. I think we can all clearly see that Mahendranath's inclusion on this page is inappropriate, given that there is no reference to his status as a Nath, never mind a nath Guru with a Parampara, other than his own writings.
We need to be consistent here, not allow one sect to insist that their guru be included when there is simply no reference to his status as a Guru, or as a Nath, other than his own writings and those of his followers.
I would note that this argument was deleted from the previous version of this talk page. I will continue to re-insert it as long as is necessary until it is answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.115.34 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Protected
I've currently fully protected this page for three days, due to recent edit warring. Some users have called some changes vandalism; I don't know if I can go that far, but it's clearly disruptive, hence the page protection. I notice that 83.82.115.34 (talk · contribs) in particular is sinking in quite a few reverts and seems to hold a controversial position. Let's talk things over, hm? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is vandalism. Instead of disscussing the issues on this page, 83.82.115.34 (talk · contribs) just went and consistently deleated the parts the he/she disagreed with. By Wikipedia's standards, this is vandalism.Mjr162006 (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
