Talk:Sathya Sai Baba: Difference between revisions
imported>Andries Krugers Dagneaux |
imported>Andries Krugers Dagneaux |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:1. Sorry, but your attempt to clean up the reference did not make it better. [[User:Andries Krugers Dagneaux|Andries]] 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | :1. Sorry, but your attempt to clean up the reference did not make it better. [[User:Andries Krugers Dagneaux|Andries]] 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
:2. I do not feel like removing references only because it is too much work for you to check each of them. [[User:Andries Krugers Dagneaux|Andries]] 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | :2. I do not feel like removing references only because it is too much work for you to check each of them. [[User:Andries Krugers Dagneaux|Andries]] 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
:3 After re-reading it, I admit that readability is a problem and I will see what I can do. [[User:Andries Krugers Dagneaux|Andries]] 21:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Who is the Topic Informant? Why so much Wikipedia style still here? == | == Who is the Topic Informant? Why so much Wikipedia style still here? == | ||
Revision as of 16:24, 16 February 2009
The entry needs to be far more concise. Andries 22:10, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
Wait a bit before deletion, please. Andries 10:12, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
Trying for better readability
Let me preface my comments by saying I have no preformed opinion about the subject, but find the article hard enough to read that I can't form an opinion from it. As a result, I have tried to clean up some of the references, especially with embedded quotes that need to be seen in critics. I have, unless in a direct quote, tried to remove words such as "skeptic" and "follower", which we found to be needlessly polarizing in the ground rules on working on homeopathy.
There are far too many references; it is impossible to check which are anecdotal and which are authoritative.
So far, I'm simply trying to clean up. Whether a readable article can result is a good question; would Religion Editors please look at this? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- 1. Sorry, but your attempt to clean up the reference did not make it better. Andries 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- 2. I do not feel like removing references only because it is too much work for you to check each of them. Andries 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- 3 After re-reading it, I admit that readability is a problem and I will see what I can do. Andries 21:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Who is the Topic Informant? Why so much Wikipedia style still here?
I haven't gotten out all the FACT templates.
There is overwhelming micro-level citing, characteristic of WP. More synthesis is needed; it's very hard to follow this article. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- What is "micro-level citing"? What parts are hard to follow? The anthropologist Lawrence Babb made more generalized statements about SSB and the impossibility of a biography as we know it. I will add more by him. Andries 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)