Talk:Science of Identity Foundation

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:
Hinduism: Krishnaism Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Krishnaism (assessed as Low-importance). Hawaii Stub‑class Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

Yes, it's a stub and should be improved, not deleted.Localemediamonitor (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And I've removed content that was disputed at

talk) 02:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

TFD (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely possible that an article from 1970 could be a valid source for the "also known as" part of the sentence.

That said, since these are offline/paywalled sources, it would be reasonable to ask Samp4ngeles to provide quotes of the specific parts that support the statements here. You could use {{Request quotation}} for that. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would only be relevant if that was a previous name, rather than a previous group. But the only way to know the relationship is from a source following the adoption of the name SIF in 1977. TFD (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "also known as" part refers to the person, not the group. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have removed this as by all appearances it is a fake source.(diff). Sourcing will be needed for the multiple claims allegedly found in the article about Rick Reed.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the link above to the sharks article appears to have been from another section of the same alternative weekly tabloid. It appears the paper started the summer before. Samp4ngeles fixed the link to the proper section after I removed this. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

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)[reply]

I don't understand why the reference was removed. --

talk) 21:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Given the title, access to the source material would seem to me necessary. As long as the ref doesn't let the reader weigh the source, it should stay out. If there's evidence of "something", provide it, don't hide behind a headline. cf. Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard/Archive_4#Paper-only_sourcing 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is it being used to verify that's not in other refs? --

talk) 01:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Those look like good suggestions, and the recent expansion once again made the article highly promotional. --Hipal (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]