Talk:Swami X

This article was nominated for deletion on September 26, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

California: Los Angeles

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

Protected Free Speech Site

Please do not remove this article. There is more than one Swami X in the world, and whoever has been repeatedly deleting this article out of some misplaced assumption that this article is a joke or a hoax is violating the basic precepts of Wikipedia and committing vandalism himself. Elcajonfarms 14:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted my previous irrelevant comment ALTON .ıl 07:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott Mac 23:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are NOT reliable sources:

Feel free to restore material if it has reliable sources.--Scott Mac 23:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is in a footnote does not make is a source. Have you looked at the Youtube videos? They are documentaries. What is the problem with linking to a photo of the subject on Flikr? Will Beback talk 23:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they weren't sources then what were the references you were supplying. We generally don't link to youtube, nor to unattested images on flikr. One of the sources you restored was a quotefarm, that's certainly not reliable. Can I suggest you rebuild the article from the LAtimes, which is the one certain solid source,--Scott Mac 23:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube isn't a source anymore than the Internet is a source. YouTube hosts videos. The individual videos need to be judged on their own merits. Will Beback talk 23:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of a prohibition on YouTube or Flikr in either WP:V or WP:IRS. Will Beback talk 23:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a documentary that consists mainly of footage of Swami X himself, then we might treat it as a primary source. If it's a documentary in the sense that it consists of others discussing him, then perhaps it will depend on the reputability of those making the documentary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what is wrong with this source? (ref this edit) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most widely quoted line I've seen. Collections of quotations often exhibit poor accuracy. If we have a better source, which we do, we should avoid it. However I hope that editors won't keep being so quick to delete material. None of this is really contentious. The guy got up on a bench and told jokes, in a loud clear voice, about how much he enjoyed sex and drugs. He did so often enough that he became a cultural figure. In that regard, the only way you could defame Swami X would be by saying he wasn't outrageous. Will Beback talk 11:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Recent Bowdlerization of the Article

I don't have time to waste on this article anymore. However, those of you who have seen fit to delete the quotations and descriptions of Swami X's public performances in real life have committed a desecration. This is exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia--foolish nonsense from "published" sources is ok to quote but real life direct observations are "not encyclopedic". This results in the perpetuation of utter garbage that happens to be in print and the failure to advance the course of truth when it's not in print. In this case, every single one of the quotations from Swami X were real life, actual quotes that were heard and remembered by at least two generations of college students at UCLA and UC Berkeley, as was the description of how he performed, who accompanied him in his performances, and how he interacted with his audience. Again, I have no more time to waste on this endeavor, but I sincerely suggest that one of you who has been wily-nily deleting things from this article and wholly bowdlerizing it should put some of it back in the way it was!!Elcajonfarms (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support restoring at least some of them, and I have suggested above that videos of him ought to be treated as primary sources -- which are indeed allowed here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]