Talk:Swami Kriyananda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Swami Kriyananda article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	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. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Archives

1

Points from Biographies of Living Persons that are relevant to some of the edit disputes here:

• Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies:
  • Verifiability
  • Neutral point of view
  • No original research
• We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.
• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
• The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
• Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion and without regard to the three-revert rule.
• Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject. ॐ Priyanath 18:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any material in the article that should not be there? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this comment - I originally put that WP:BLP excerpt there because the article was in much worse shape at that time (2006), and vandals were making frequent additions that violated WP:BLP. ~ priyanath talk 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I read through some of the sources provided in the Controversies section, and would argue that the material there needs to be re-written to provide a more factual and neutral representation of these sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources to back up Ananda's self-published claims about the relationships between Bertolucci's lawyers and the SRF? If so, we should be using them as the current sources are questionable. --Simon D M (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ananda's website would be a reliable source for this, since the claims in this article are prefaced by "According to a letter from Ananda's leaders,....". ~ priyanath talk 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that self-published sources cannot be used yo make claims about third-parties... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, so the explanation of the bankruptcy filing is ok, but the explanation of involvement by Self-Realization fellowship isn't? If so, then the latter should be removed and the former left in place. ~ priyanath talk 23:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Another question, Jossi, since you seem to have an understanding of sources and policy: The SF Weekly is a tabloid (in format and spirit) weekly that arguably doesn't meet WP:BLP: "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page" and "Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

<<< As I said above, the "Controversy" section is poorly written, with much editorializing and with sources from both sides of the dispute to be doubtful as it relates to WP:V, and WP:BLP. For example, court cases being primary sources, should not be used unless described in reputable secondary sources. The story seems significant enough to surely have such sources available. OTOH, if there are no such sources, then the issue of notability comes to play. Wikipedia is not a place to publish information that has not been published before. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It would help, and be appreciated, if you could be more specific - or better yet edit the controversy section yourself (if you have time and inclination) - since you are a neutral party, admin, and knowledgeable about sources. I removed the part about the letter from Ananda leaders, per your feedback. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 03:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I will need to decline.... I would be better assisting by searching for some good sources, and post my findings here. You can then attempt to work these in the text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked all the databases I have access to, and found nothing besides this article Famed yogi visits Malibu. Retrieved on 2008-01-22., which covers some of these aspects in a neutral manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider the SFWeekly to be a neutral article and/or reliable source per WP:BLP? Should it be replaced with this source? I'm just trying to get an understanding of sourcing for BLP articles. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see goes beyond assessing the SF Weekly as a source. The concern is that it seems to be an isolated source. If the subject is notable, it surely would have attracted more coverage than an oped in that weekly magazine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than Malibu Times and SF Weekly, Google News shows that the story was dealt with in several other local newspapers. --Simon D M (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)