Talk:Lakshmanananda Saraswati

Untitled
"He was killed in a dastardly evening attack by a christian mob[6] at his kanyashram (Girls school) at Tumudibandh, about 100 km from Phulbani, the district headquarters of Kandhmal district."

Nowhere does the article references say that he was killed by a Christian mob. The article only says that police arrested two Christians in connection with this murder. The article at this point should also state, that Maoists claim responsibility of the murder. The official stand of the Orissa police is that the Maoists carried out the murder with support from the local Christian community. Vkanade (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The article does not mention the "christian mob" reference. Also, police's claims of maoists being involved are mentioned. Hence, removing the 'dispute' tag. No active discussion is going on on the dispute. --Deshabhakta (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Swami Lakshmanananda Murder Solved- Murder Attribution Exclusively to Maoists
(Copyright violations removed from talk page and from article.) --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you kindly provide a reference for this claim? I have come across several news articles that claim quite the opposite, and hence my curiosity over the source of your insight.24.188.207.242 (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/saat-khoon-maaf-7-highprofile-unsolved-murders/140797-3.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijukrishna (talk • contribs) 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is this page a part of a series on Hinduism?
Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati was a prominent and extremely well-respected figure in Orissa, especially among the tribal communities. His page should be treated as a biography, and formatted such. He had a wife and a son before he left his family life for social welfare work. There is no mention of his personal life on this page. If his page is a part of the Hiduism series, well, then so should be the page on M K Gandhi, and many other prominent Indian men and women! Please remove this article from the Hiduism series so that a man's entire life and his work is not tagged by religion up-front.Banerjee.ritwik (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The title of this page should be "Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati"
The title of this page should be "Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati" rather than "Swami Lakshmanananda". Please look at the wikipedia article on Dashanami Sampradaya to know why "Saraswati" should be added to his name. It is sometimes disrespectful to refer to him as just Swami Lakshmanananda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviKartheek (talk • contribs) 05:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. No opposition to the proposal, and good reasoning grounded in WP policy. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati → Lakshmanananda Saraswati – per WP:HONORIFIC styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, "Swami" is a honorific title. This case does not qualify for the exception as the name is easily found in English reliable sources without "Swami" as seen here, here and here Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 01:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per nominator. This individual is indeed easily identifiable, and often identified (from what I know of the Indian press) by the name without the honorific. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Bladesmulti (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support However, the Swami prefix should be noted in the name, in the lead. News reports about his murder variously call him "Swami Lakshmanananda", "Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati", "Lakshmanananda Saraswati" as well as simply "Lakshmanananda". Also, Lakshmanananda may be spelt as "Laxmanananda" in the names. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:28, 11 January 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lakshmanananda Saraswati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081010004351/http://www.newstodaynet.com:80/printer.php?id=3557 to http://www.newstodaynet.com/printer.php?id=3557

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 05:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lakshmanananda Saraswati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080901014445/http://www.orissatimes.net/2008/08/swami-laxmanananda-saraswati-man-with.html to http://www.orissatimes.net/2008/08/swami-laxmanananda-saraswati-man-with.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lakshmanananda Saraswati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402160728/http://www.niticentral.com/2014/08/23/swami-lakshmanananda-murder-six-years-gone-inquiry-on-no-justice-236448.html to http://www.niticentral.com/2014/08/23/swami-lakshmanananda-murder-six-years-gone-inquiry-on-no-justice-236448.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Article clean up and concerns about evangelist bias
This article is in poor shape and does not adhere to the wikipedia conventions and format. To improve the article, I have attempted the following edits.

1. Sections added as per wikipedia convention e.g. "early life" and his work, etc. Sections have been made "self-descriptive" to enhance the TOC quicker readability and navigability.

2. I have used only the pre-existing sources. Only 2 exceptions are the use of 1 pre-existing source from the related Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda and a second source First Post which is owned by Network18 Group (which also owns CNN-News18 and CNBC-TV18, thus a reputed/reliable enough source).

3. I have specific concerns that this article is not sufficiently watched. If it is watched then I concern it might be watched by editors who wish to retain pro-Christian evangelists bias, by diluting the facts of the murder by the Christians convicts. My suspicion is based on the fact that poor sources which do not highlight the conviction of Christians have been retained in the articles by the watchers. Anything which correctly portrays the role of Christians in Swami's murder as a consequence of Swami's anti-conversion activities of Christian evangelists are likely countered by the "potentially" biased watcher(s) of the article. A quick glance at the editorial contribution by watchers and their talk page can give away their evangelists orientation. Just to mitigate the risk of reverts to my edits, use of filmsy ploys and "selective" inconsistent application of wikipedia rules by any potentially biased watchers/editors, I have stuck to using the pre-existing sources. If suddenly those sources are found to be not reliable by watchers, then we really have to question the bias of those watchers of these two articles (Lakshmanananda Saraswati and Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda) as to why they retained those sources so far? Is there an attitude of "even poor source are good sources as long as they dont go against my POV, but instead of doing an incremental edit I will use the ploy of some poor sources to throw out/revert even the good sources to preserve my POV?" There might be a WP:GAMING ploy to retain poor sources as long as those are harmless to evangelical hegemony, but there might be tendency to bamboozle the editorsif they try to expose that truth uncomfortable to the evangelists. Bamboozle in this context means that instead of trying to engage in friendly discussion, bombard the editors at first instance itself with multiple warnings to silence them, specially the IPs as they are often presumed to be inexperienced soft targets who are just-passing-through.

4. Summary of edits: sections added as per wikipedia convention, brief descriptive text added to the "see also" entries to enhance their glance through readability, headings are self-descriptive and supported by the sources in the article which makes the article and its TOC more encyclopedic.

5. After mitigating/confronting the risk highlighted in point 2 and 3, I might add new sources to these articles in future iterations.

6. After cleaning this article, I will similarly clean up the Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda article.

7. Please list below all other cases, articles, reliable sources where there is evidence of extremist nexus between Christian evangelists and Maoists/separatists especially in case of persecution of Hindus in India. Those need to be documented and interlinked/piped in the relevant articles.

58.182.176.169 (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixing vandalism by sockpuppet under investigation
I am making fixes to negate the reverts/vandalism by the vandal user BFDIBebble, who is currently also under investigation for being a suspected sockpuppet as reported by some other editor unrelated to me. Check his talkpage, he has been reported by others as sockpuppet in the past as well. I have also left a warning on his talk page here as well on the sockpuppet investigation noticeboard. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Poorly sourced content removed
1. WP:PRIMARY content removed from the self published primary source "Justice, Peace and Development Commission (Bhubaneswar, India)". See edit 1.

2. Removed As per WP:RELIABLE guidelines, opinion pieces are NOT acceptable as reliable sources specially for the controversial topics and more so when the content is contested. Hence this content has been removed. See edit 2.

3. If there is criticism, then as pwr wikipedia guidelines it comes at the bottom of the section and not at the top. Seems the editor had tried to add the content in item 1 and 2 above right on the top of section to as a deliberate bias while simultaneously diluting the self descriptive heading to a vague heading. See edit 3.

4. To improve readability, heading made self explanatory as per wiki guidelines. Stop diluting headings to vague weasel word. See edit 4.

58.182.176.169 (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Suspected gaming of the system
In continuation to the previous.

5. WP:GAMING suspected: I had left these concerns on editor "Suneye1" page few days ago,he is a watcher of this article. Instead of making attempt to communicate to me or address my concerns, he instead silently reverted my post on his talkpage.

6. After that I edited this article few days ago, I am the one who cleaned it up. User "Suneye1" continued editing this article, and I have more concerns about biases as highlighted in the item 1 to 4 above. I have left another message on his talkpage for WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior.

58.182.176.169 (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)