Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kundalini syndrome


 * None of those citations are in any way reliable. They're just books by true believers claiming Kundalini "energy" is a real thing.You need independent analysis of the subject. Capeo (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Published by a reliable author and more specifically the publisher makes it reliable. None of them seems to be true believer either. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you really claiming that Bonnie Greenwell, Master Stephen Co, Eric B. Robins, John Maxwell Taylor, Mantak Chia, and John E. Nelson are not true believers in kundalini? Wow, have I got a bridge to Brooklyn to sell to you! (Though you may be stuck deep in a river in Egypt.) jps (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously they are not, have you got any evidence? You must be pretending that you have read a thing about them when you don't even know what is BEFORE. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Are we talking past each other? Google the people named. It's pretty obvious what their agendas are. jps (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't know until you link each as there are many with same name. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? That's your argument? That I'm somehow confusing these authors with others with the same name that believe in kundalini when the authors you cite do not? jps (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You forgot to describe that how they are true believer, it sounds nothing more than a abnormal term for PRIMARY, still not making any sense. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is because you have no idea about RS, at least when you are claiming these scholarly publications by Motilal Banarsidass, Simon & Schuster, Inner Traditions – Bear & Company and more as unreliable. I am also surprised by your 236 edits in 8 years. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly I'm sorry I didn't have more time to edit over those years until fairly recently due to other commitments, as if that has any bearing on your argument. Secondly, none of those publishers are "scholarly" in any way shape or form and your citations are all new-age woo that lack any academic value.  The most they prove is that people believe in this stuff. Capeo (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They do fulfill the requirement for an academic. Your comments have been nonsensical so far that's why there's hardly a need for me to teach you about what constitutes RS. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So it's your assertion that Your Hands Can Heal You: Pranic Healing Energy Remedies to Boost Vitality and Speed Recovery from Common Health Problems is an academic book? Really? I'll leave the first paragraph of the description here and let others decide: What if one of the most effective tools you have to restore your health is not surgery or medications, but your own hands? Incredibly, your hands can heal you -- with the "energy medicine" of Pranic Healing. A powerful system that is rapidly increasing in popularity, Pranic Healing works with your own natural, vital energy -- which is also called prana -- to accelerate your body's innate self-healing ability. Capeo (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We go by author, publisher and relevance, not by the title. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This will be my last post here as this is getting silly. You are claiming these are scholarly or academic works. By your criteria we have authors: Master Stephen Co and Eric B. Robins.  Zero Google Scholar hits.  Two published books both on Pranic Healing.  Only other info is Stephen Co's own webiste, pranic healing websites and Facebook.  Nothing remotely academic.  Publisher: Simon & Schuster.  Publishes everything.  Novels. New Age.  Anything they think will sell.  What they aren't is an academic publisher.  These are academic publishers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academic_publishing_companies  Lastly, relevance.  I'm not disputing the book mentions Kundalini.  Of course it does... in a completely credulous and true believer form.  It is not a scholarly analysis of anything.  And all the other books above are the same.  They're popular new age, alt med, self help books not academic sources that examine the belief system. Capeo (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tangentially picking information is largely unhelpful, at least when you cannot even understand what is scholarly publication. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a classic case of WP:KETTLE to me, though in this case there is one member of the conversation who hasn't been blackened by smoke. jps (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not, anyone who believes that those publishers are not scholarly has defective idea about what really constitutes RS. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There certainly is someone in this conversation with a defective baloney detector when it comes to reliable sources, and that someone is you. jps (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirecting my words on me is not going to be helpful, you have just typed some more irrelevant nonsense. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)