![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 3 November 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The statements here are all sourced to reliable sources, and there's nothing here that is particularly negative and only a brief mention of a specific individual. I understand why the nominator may have concerns about how this article may develop (I share those concerns, and I absolutely don't think it should be a coat rack for stuff about Gabbard) but this is simply not an attack page by any plausible stretch of the imagination. Nblund talk 23:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I've recently removed a sentence as an insufficiently sourced extreme BLP claim. I've asked the person who added it to take their source to either BLP/N or RS/N for further discussion if they wish to include it. I suspect not too many people are watching this newly-created page and it would be wiser to ask there. I admit I am curious what might get said about bylinetimes.com, especially given that the author of the piece regularly writes for Middle East Eye. I gather he's not thought to be the most neutral on Hindu matters, though.
🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I removed a source that was a 1970 article that was used to support the statement, "The Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) is a socially conservative religious organization based in Hawaii, United States, founded by Kris "Chris" Butler (also known as Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, Siddha Swarup Ananda Goswami, Paramahamsa, and Sai Young) in 1977."
Samp4ngeles reverted saying, "Nonsense deletion. According to WP:RS AGE, "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing." [1] While that may be true, sources written about events before they occur are not reliable particularly in this case, where they say nothing about the information which they are supposed to support.
TFD ( talk) 04:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I may just be blind, but this entry contains a reference titled "Rick Reed's Inner Self" dated August 12, 1992 for which a pdf is given as the url. There is no article on page 1 (or anywhere I saw on pages 1-12) by this title in the linked newspaper pdf (mostly about sharks). Can someone clear this mistake up? The article is being used as a source for five or six statements.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 08:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@ HaeB: Ronz requested when reverting Samp4ngeles's that included this cite, "please get consensus on talk page per BLP”. Samp did not do so but simply reverted the deletion.
Consideration of whether the value of including this cite outweighs the risk of harm to reputation from introduction of irrelevant controversial language seems mandated by BLP as I understand it. Please clarify your argument. Humanengr ( talk) 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The article is promotional as of today. In the deletion discussion, users have shared links for Honolulu Magazine ( 2004) Stuff NZ and The New Yorker ( 2017). The Honolulu Magazine includes a lot of details about the org that should be included into this Wikipedia article. Venkat TL ( talk) 11:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Those look like good suggestions, and the recent expansion once again made the article highly promotional. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
He’s bound to be quite elderly now, if so. Does he still maintain the same level of control over his followers that he used to when he was younger? LonelyBoy2012 ( talk) 04:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Criticisms are referred to as "libelous", "unsubstantiated" and "malicious" despite being substantiated and widely reported. This whole article reads like it was written by a member of this organization (which I and many others consider to be a cult) with PR in mind. Needs serious work to bring it up to an encyclopedic standard. Throbbing ( talk) 02:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 3 November 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The statements here are all sourced to reliable sources, and there's nothing here that is particularly negative and only a brief mention of a specific individual. I understand why the nominator may have concerns about how this article may develop (I share those concerns, and I absolutely don't think it should be a coat rack for stuff about Gabbard) but this is simply not an attack page by any plausible stretch of the imagination. Nblund talk 23:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I've recently removed a sentence as an insufficiently sourced extreme BLP claim. I've asked the person who added it to take their source to either BLP/N or RS/N for further discussion if they wish to include it. I suspect not too many people are watching this newly-created page and it would be wiser to ask there. I admit I am curious what might get said about bylinetimes.com, especially given that the author of the piece regularly writes for Middle East Eye. I gather he's not thought to be the most neutral on Hindu matters, though.
🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I removed a source that was a 1970 article that was used to support the statement, "The Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) is a socially conservative religious organization based in Hawaii, United States, founded by Kris "Chris" Butler (also known as Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, Siddha Swarup Ananda Goswami, Paramahamsa, and Sai Young) in 1977."
Samp4ngeles reverted saying, "Nonsense deletion. According to WP:RS AGE, "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing." [1] While that may be true, sources written about events before they occur are not reliable particularly in this case, where they say nothing about the information which they are supposed to support.
TFD ( talk) 04:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I may just be blind, but this entry contains a reference titled "Rick Reed's Inner Self" dated August 12, 1992 for which a pdf is given as the url. There is no article on page 1 (or anywhere I saw on pages 1-12) by this title in the linked newspaper pdf (mostly about sharks). Can someone clear this mistake up? The article is being used as a source for five or six statements.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 08:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@ HaeB: Ronz requested when reverting Samp4ngeles's that included this cite, "please get consensus on talk page per BLP”. Samp did not do so but simply reverted the deletion.
Consideration of whether the value of including this cite outweighs the risk of harm to reputation from introduction of irrelevant controversial language seems mandated by BLP as I understand it. Please clarify your argument. Humanengr ( talk) 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The article is promotional as of today. In the deletion discussion, users have shared links for Honolulu Magazine ( 2004) Stuff NZ and The New Yorker ( 2017). The Honolulu Magazine includes a lot of details about the org that should be included into this Wikipedia article. Venkat TL ( talk) 11:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Those look like good suggestions, and the recent expansion once again made the article highly promotional. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
He’s bound to be quite elderly now, if so. Does he still maintain the same level of control over his followers that he used to when he was younger? LonelyBoy2012 ( talk) 04:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Criticisms are referred to as "libelous", "unsubstantiated" and "malicious" despite being substantiated and widely reported. This whole article reads like it was written by a member of this organization (which I and many others consider to be a cult) with PR in mind. Needs serious work to bring it up to an encyclopedic standard. Throbbing ( talk) 02:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)