Talk:Shankarananda (Shiva Yoga)/Archive 1

Two People Argue Over Neutrality, Needs Clean Up
I dispute the neutrality of this article. It's just a commercial for this Swami. It plugs his books, magazine articles, ashram, resume etc like an infomercial. There is nothing objective or negative here and with this guy there could be. His last attempt at being a Wikipedia star was deleted for blatant hucksterism and total lack of sources other than his own promotional material. This time his PR people did a heroic job cobbling together just enough sources and just enough votes to put him over the line. But there's no neutrality here. It's an advertisement, not an encyclopedia piece. This is Wikipedia Spam. Truthdude 20:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, and I'm not associated with this individual or his organization. You sound biased. IPSOS (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey unbiased IPSOS, I just hate being lied to. So you're not associated with Shankarananada, eh? Don't split hairs. I just looked up the list of glowing articles by you on all Shankarananda's friends Muktanananda, Nityananda, Shanti Mandir, etc, etc. Why can't you people ever do anything the honest way, with integrity? Truthdude 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a lie. Just because I work on article doesn't mean I am associated with an organization. And you've just broken the rule against personal attacks. IPSOS 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Chief, I will accept your logic and resolve to never attack you personally again. My disputation of the neutrality of this Shankarananda advertisement remains. Truthdude 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I simply use the sources that I have to hand or find on the Internet, which appear to be reliable. I am sure that if there are controversies, they will be added by editors familiar with them. Unfortunately, most "anti-so-and-so" websites are not reliable and can't be used (they don't give references and are clearly polemic). Most usable controversial material appears in printed matter. If I don't have it, I can't add it... IPSOS (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is not enough varied information out there to make a neutral article, then the article should be deleted. In this case, there is plenty of critical information out there. I can spot a number of misstatements of fact myself. If there's no "usable" controversial material available, that's the time to exclude the subject, not carry on with a canonization piece. Anyone like Shankarananda could use Wikipedia as an online brochure for his products and services. This is not biography, it's advertising pure and simple. This article must be deleted based on total absence of neutrality. Truthdude 22:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Not neutral" is simply not one of the valid criteria for deletion, see WP:DELETE. The article has gone through AfD, and that represents the community consensus on the matter. That consensus was that the current article meets Wikipedia standards and should be kept. IPSOS (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If lack of neutrality is not an acceptable reason for deletion, then I change my request for deletion to: 1. Content not suitable to an encyclopedia and 2. Advertising or other spam. Either criteria should be enough to delete this piece of spam. Truthdude 22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not how you request deletion, and it's already been through review recently. What you are asking is not an option. Since you claim to be aware of critical material, it is also not appropriate for you to ask for deletion. You should add to the article, taking into account all the following policies: verifiablility, reliable sources, and additional criteria for biographies of living people. IPSOS (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2007

What is not appropriate for me to do is not your call. Everything is an option. With great love and respect, I intend to ignore your advice here completely. When I get a minute, I will request deletion the other way and get it deleted. Truthdude 00:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever you say. However, your comments on this page show that your deletion request is made in bad faith. You are a single purpose account and not an established editor, and it is unlikely that your request will be accepted, regardless of how you make it. Sorry. IPSOS (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But, as you say, either way it's no skin off your nose since you are "not associated with this individual or his organization." Truthdude 03:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't format it correctly. But even if you do, any editor is entitled to remove it if they disagree with it. You are not allowed to return it once that happens. And I am associated with Wikipedia and support the consensus arrived at in the last Articles for deletion discussion, which was pretty overwhelmingly keep. I will not stand by while a single-purpose account tries to override the consensus of established editors (7 to 1). That is simply not right. IPSOS (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the laugh is on you guys. Truthdude 03:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't get the joke. IPSOS (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article
The history of this website mimics that of S. N. Goenka, in that it is a supposed 'biographical' info-site which really should be addressing the organisation that Mr. Kruckman (Swami Shankarananda) operates under in Melbourne, which is Siva Yoga. This has led to numerous individuals attempting to upload information regarding the past-life of Mr Kruckman and activities of such a person within such organisations. Any attempt whatsoever to upload neutral, ie. both sides of the debate, are being ignored. Wikipedia seriously needs to address this either by creating a new website addressing the 'Siva Yoga' organisation in Melbourne, or by an administrator locking the website down to ensure both sides of the debate are presented. It also true that the tone of the website is not academically neutral and has largely taken on an informal implicitly favourable approach to Mr Kruckman. Please feel free to contact me about setting up a website regarding the Siva Yoga organisation. --Apmab1 08:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)