Talk:The Secret Art of Seamm Jasani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 Nov 2006. The result of the discussion was redirect to Boabom.

[edit] POV

(Once again-the previous pov note has been deleted by a redirect) This is an advertisement of a book, not an article on a book. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 23:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

But then again, what is the difference between this article and, let's say... the "Cujo" article for Stephen King's novel-based movie? The advertising? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nauma (talk • contribs) 05:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't give the details of why I think the article is not neutral because: 1. I hoped it was clear from the beginning; and 2. I had the impression that the author of this article was simply not going to take any other action on this article. Fortunately, It seems I may be wrong on the second point, at least. Here is the complete explanation. The Cujo articles does not say:

Cujo is a frightening story that will scare you to death! Read this exceptional new story by the master Steven King, who will drive you in this realm of pure horror...

I perfectly know that the article can be rewritten with a neutral point of view. I indeed would like you to make an effort for doing so. I point out what I think are the problems of this specific article:

1. teaches us ... if this is neutral, then the Cujo paragraph as rewritten by me is neutral as well; this should be explains; I think that the Yoga article can be a good example of the style to follow
2. is now revealed for the first time in this practical and dynamic guidebook; yes, an Cujo is a frightning story that will scare you to death; that is presented for the first time is ok, but practical and dynamic is kind of ad
3. the internal potentialities as the ultimate force of self-healing to extend one's lifetime; I hope you agree that some may cast some doubt on this fact;
4. movements that improve; this can be left as is, if you want, but I think that "movements that aim at improving" are probably better

Some sentences can be simplified: for example, an ancient Tibetan movement system; this is not a problem with POV, just that "movement system" seems unncessarily complicated.

I hope you understand I want this article to be improved. I can do it myself, of course, but a person with a direct knowledge of the topic is clearly more suited. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 13:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, it has been changed. -Nauma

Thank you. I have removed the POV tag (I do not dispute the neutrality of the article any more). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)