Trichome

Content deleted Content added
Line 102: Line 102:
::::In Wikipedia, as in life, it is always important to stay open to the possibility of irony. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] ([[User talk:Rumiton|talk]]) 10:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::::In Wikipedia, as in life, it is always important to stay open to the possibility of irony. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] ([[User talk:Rumiton|talk]]) 10:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::When it happens, then's the time to deal with things. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup></span> 02:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::When it happens, then's the time to deal with things. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup></span> 02:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::I meant...oh, never mind. [[User:Rumiton|Rumiton]] ([[User talk:Rumiton|talk]]) 15:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:53, 10 April 2014

Former featured article candidateSathya Sai Baba is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 1, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
May 14, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 3, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

<-- Please keep this comment and the ref section at the end of the article -->


References

Criticism and Controversy

I think this part needs to be looked at:

"Abraham Kovoor took on Sai Baba's famous claim that he had "materialised" a Seiko watch, the only specimen of which was in a Tokyo vault, before the Japanese head of the company. Kovoor wrote to Seiko and found that no one from the company has contacted Sai Baba and no such specimen watch was present there; there was no response from Sai Baba or his supporters."

It has bias (placing the word materialised in quotes and uses terms like "took on"), and says this is a famous claim but I can't any reliable sources for this (if anyone can please list). At best its an alleged claim by one or more parties. Also is the source for this reliable? Its from an pseduo eulogy from a friend of Kavoor. 75.124.71.226 (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, as per WP:EDITORIALIZING such scare quotes are not recommended and I've removed it. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the current source, though it may be written by his friend, it is still published in India Today. The para has been mentioned in some other sources which I've come across but I don't see the need to putting more, since this one does the job. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I also think the sentence could be reworded. Eg "famous" (of all the claims listed this one seems to be a bit more obscure)? Also is there any reliable source that this was a claim by Sai Baba and not claims of his devotees? I'd propose a rewording to: "Abraham Kovoor looked into claims that Sai Baba's had materialised a Seiko watch, the only specimen of which was in a Tokyo vault, before the Japanese head of the company" 75.124.71.226 (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/is_v01/1-11-1.htm: "In Dr. Dale Beyerstein's letter of 7-3-1988 to Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson, he mentioned about the Seiko watch materialization as researched by Sam Dalal, Magician, Calcutta. Dr. Haraldsson in his letter dated 21-10-1988 said that the story is only a hearsay and there seem to be many editions of it and one cannot use these unverified second hand stories as argument for anything until they have been verified." 75.124.71.226 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can fix it, that sentence does look shabby. The Crit section looks decently sourced since it tends to be strictly monitored and discussed over (few instances of WP:CITEKILL, happens whenever there are conflicts, people think more the number of sources, the better chance the content should stay), but overall looks better formatted than the rest. Looking at your interest in this topic, remember that there is a mammoth task of cleaning up the rest of the article and any help is much appreciated. There are many poorly sourced sections, excessively long paras which stray away off-topic (some of these issues are mentioned above) which need to be done up. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptical sources (e.g. Indian skeptic/Basava Premanand, Piet Vroon, Dale Beyerstein) were rejected in a mediation as reliable sources for this article. This mediation happened years ago and I was one of the parties to it. Of course skeptical sources can be used indirectly if they have been used by a reliable source e.g. India Today, BBC or Mick Brown. Andries (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do keep this article from being vandalized from supporters from the Sai Baba group. I have been researching Swaminaryan sect of Hinduism and when any thing regarding criticism is posted, my friends and I were attacked by a swarm of bees (members of the group). Do you have any advise?

Bluespeakers (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone merge the two separate controversy/criticism sections together?

Bluespeakers (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are one section now? Rumiton (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot can be done by intelligent copyediting. Many times the sick-making promotionality is caused by group speak. If you take out words like "discourse" when all someone did was speak, "reside" when they just lived somewhere, and all the breathless devotional phrasing, you are making a good start. But you have to be very even handed. If you also take out the snide references to "cults" (which don't really mean anything except "I don't like these people") and be careful with "allegedly" and "claimed," you could end up with a very good Wikipedia article. Rumiton (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A Man Called God" line - this doesn't seem to be a noteworthy source. Should this reference be taken out? Can't find a lot of info about this on any sources as well apart from the self promotion. 75.124.71.226 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What if he returns?

It is claimed that he will return rejuvenated, to resume and complete his mission, living 7 years more, after a period of 2 or 3 years from his "death". Details here: http://www.saikingdom.com/

In this case, should we delete the "Died" row from the Infobox? Or should we append a "Return" row?

177.106.186.219 (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it's a tricky one. The best course of action might be to just wait until he comes back. Rumiton (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're an encyclopedia, and, as such, claims such as that are dealt with in the text, with appropriate qualifications, not stated as fact. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia, as in life, it is always important to stay open to the possibility of irony. Rumiton (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When it happens, then's the time to deal with things. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant...oh, never mind. Rumiton (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply