Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:22, 24 March 2009

Barnstars

Archives

September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Sathya Sai Baba

I appreciate your bold editing in improving the Sathya Sai Baba article along with User:Spidurn. Articls has definitely come a long way from where it was due to your efforts.

I have a question. You had mentioned in the talk page about creating a separate section for "Killings in the Ashram". http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=276496176&oldid=276445679.

• The problem with this article has always been identifying the reliable sources. There are a number of conspiracy theories put forth by different people which were discussed in the newspapers at that time of killings but none of the conspiracies were proved. Some theories said this was due to internal fight between 2 factions of his followers. Some said the Vishwa Hindu Parikhshith was involved. There were other claims. Nobody knows for sure why there was an attempt on Sai Baba's life. Attempts on religious leaders life is not a uncommon thing. There was attempt made on Pope John Paul II in 1981. Nobody knows for sure why these attempts are made. We will never know the real truth.
• My question is isn't it beyond the scope of wikipedia an encyclopedia to analyze these conspiracy theories based on these questionable sources.
• Misplaced Pages stresses a lot on using only very reputed NPOV sources as its a Biography of Living Person.
• Some of the theories were also put forth by Basava Premananda and he even wrote a book "Murders in the Ashram". But this was dismissed as an unreliable source in the mediation discussion by BostonMA.

Let me know what you think of my questions. We can probably have more discussion related to this.

I had spent several hours looking at these earlier mediation discussion for the Sathya Sai Baba article. The Boston MA discussion happened in 2006. Several sources such as Findings, Basava Premananda and his book were also discussed and dismissed as unreliable. Basava Premananda is still being used in the article in a couple of places. Some of the sections which were deleted from the earlier template such as the teachings could also be added back to the article. I am planning on doing that. I am also looking at the source list provided by arb.com for further improving the article.

Radiantenergy (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me to the teachings section you would want to reintroduce? Jayen466 20:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Andries also strongly feels we need to revert to earlier version and he wants to revert to December 2007 version. He added his vote to revert to earlier version in the talk page. I agree with him.

• There are too many issues with the current article. The article has made some progress but again there are still unreliable sources and WP:UNDUE and unjustified criticism. For example Sathya Sai Baba is accused of murder right in the second paragraph of the beginning of the article. Such negative biased criticism is unjustified and incorrect. There were killings in his ashram that's not same as saying he committed murder.
• Even if we spent several hours or several days it will still be difficult to bring it in par with the old article which was balanced with equal positive aspects from Sathya Sai Baba's life as well in dealing with the criticism.
• Misplaced Pages allows editors to revert to better version based on consensus. Please let us know since you are one of the involved editors. Are you still in favor of reverting to the December 2007 version? Radiantenergy (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

nice user page.

hey jayen.I like your user page. I'm doing a little work on the sheela article ..and I was wondering do you know of any free use photos of her? recent if possible! best regads to you (Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi there, and no, I wouldn't know where you could find a free pic. Sorry. Jayen466 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Manufactured scandal, Misplaced Pages assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba and Arbitration Enforcement

Please note that I have created an arbitration enforcement thread, seen here. ←Spidern→ 14:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, Please note: White adept (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

William Timmons

Jayen, your summary "Thurmond sent a memo to Timmons about Lennon. Timmons answered a month later saying the INS had issued a deportation order" is about right. I think the only thing I've ever tried to add beyond that is some explanation of the contnet of the memos and of the historical context of those memos with respect to what they were part of (the Nixon re-election campaign) and in terms of why we know about them (Jon Wiener's FOIA request). Your initial opinions seems constructive; like I'd say that makes it a RS. I think pretty much all the other sources cited in connection with the case at present are illegitimate, since they don't really mention Timmons and I agree with Collect that if the cited source does not mention Timmons' name in direct relation to the Lennon case, then it is not a source we should use in that section to which I agreed that we should not use sources that don't mention Timmons, and asked you to point out if I did so. You didn't follow up in either case. And now you're going back again to the Rolling Stone 1975 publication of the memo from Thurmond, but have continued to ignore me trying to update you on that; it was the copy to Mitchell only, not the Timmons copy nor his reply, in spite of what some articles have stated. I'll be happy to email you a scan if you like. It's clear that Collect and Rtally3 and THF are working from a right-wing POV. It's much less clear why you've joined them in holding back progress in fixing up this article. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, none of the sources you put up say that the Timmons memo was subject to the FOIA request. Have I missed that? We'd need a clear explicit mention to that memo. As it is, the Nation article says the Thurmond-Timmons documents (plural) were in Rolling Stone.

I'm certainly not doing it because of right-wing sympathies, I'm rather more into Democrats than Republicans ;-), but it's a BLP and it should be right. Cheers, Jayen466 22:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

God knows I'm not necessarily the best qualified to do this sort of thing, but I will do what I can. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)