Talk:Sanal Edamaruku

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Great Tantra Challenge[edit]

I have been unable to confirm any details of this alleged event in reliable sources. The only sources cited are a page on Edamarku's own organization's site and a Boing Boing story which itself only references that page. Surely a high-profile confrontation between Magic and Science that "called several hundred million people to their TV sets" would have made enough of an impact to be reported by some independent source? Pending independent confirmation, Rationalist International's account of the event and its impact must be treated with a fair amount of skepticism. Hqb (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Several other reliable sources are in various Indian vernaculars, I think. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATE 2/17/14 - There are two YouTube videos of this event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmo1a-bimAM (Part I) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwCuv_izn4 (Part II) uploaded on 2/16/2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlydemi (talk • contribs) 02:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent "miracle" expose and subsequent legal attacks by Indian church[edit]

Um, anyone wanna update with the stuff here? http://richarddawkins.net/articles/645578-sanal-edamaruku-under-attack-for-exposing-catholic-miracle Not really in a Wikipedia-ey mood these days but this seemed rather relevant and very current. Shrumster (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd phrase[edit]

"did not receive any indoctrination as an anti-theist" This run on sentence is oddly phrased. It's also not clear what "indoctrination" means in the context. What is anti-theist indoctrination? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to clear this article even further since it still has POV issues, I agree I found that phrase very wrong and unnecessary, like supporting him or something. I think its trying to say that no one forced him to be an atheist, anyway clean this article up if you please. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good references for this article[edit]

-Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up 2014[edit]

I have been asked to review and clean up the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlydemi (talk • contribs) 02:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Onlydemi (talk • contribs) 02:46, 28 February 2014

Hmmm...looks like there's quite a bit of sources posted here but no one willing to do the writing part! If you're interested in improving it, I don't mind pitching in and helping.
On a more serious note, the sources which you provide seem to fail WP:RS except the last one by DNA. Anyway, there are enough references here for anyone to do some serious improvements in this page...so go ahead. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you I will be making revisions this weekend. I will check those links you say are failing. Thanks so much for the source list you provided which is helping me. Kind Regards, Onlydemi
I'm afraid I had to trim down some of the content since they were weakly sourced, usually we cannot rely on the actual websites or youtube videos since they count as primary sources. Reliable sources mainly involve those which are third-party, independent--like news agencies for instance. I think if you could find better sources, you can add some of his views to the individual articles like Criticism of Mother Teresa. The rest was fine and I did some quick copyediting. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo added 4/4/14 - Onlydemi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlydemi (talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has the photo used been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? It is my understanding that these are the only photos that can be used and uploaded by the subject or his photographer.Onlydemi (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all that matters is that it has a valid free-use license but all of them are from the Commons and can be viewed here. The one used currently was replaced some weeks ago by another non-free image which later got deleted..so that's why the infobox was blank. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sanal Edamaruku. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced additions[edit]

The sourced additions are largely based on the PRI broadcast audio. @Harshil169: has no right to remove properly-sourced additions, nor to call them synthesis. Elizium23 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BBC[edit]

I don't know where the BBC enters into this. BBC has awful reporting. I based nothing on any BBC reports. Is this article based on them? They suck. I used PRI (Public Radio International). Elizium23 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Some Catholics claimed"[edit]

Nah bro the facts are in the PRI story. It's not neutral to say "claimed" anyway, but the facts are that he did the mockery and insulting and it was reported. And everyone knew he was doing it because he was asked to apologise. Elizium23 (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sanal_Edamaruku&oldid=1207080470"