Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:26, 30 March 2006

Sathya Sai Baba received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Botschaften aus dem Jenseits Göttliche Gaben oder Betrug?". Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen. August 4, 2004.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives
Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive1 : Jan 04 - July 05 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive2 : July 05 - Jan 06 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive3 : Jan 06 - Feb 06

Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page

New site format

A good step would be to start moving all references to the new site format. This will allow much easier editing and will enable us to check the vairous sources provided throughout the article. The format is very simple. Inline with the text, simply add

<ref>Author, name of reference, (year), page number, Publisher, ISBN <br />A quote from the sourve if needed, (pleasde keep it short and on purpose.</ref>.

This site format will automatically generate a properly numbered ref in the Reference section. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Voluntary mediator has agreed to help

I do not know if I am allowed to post the link to the new page or not, but someone has volunteered to mediate between Andries, Moreno and myself. The person in question is not an official mediator, but has agreed to play the role of one. At least we can get another perspective. I agreed to have the person in question meditate. Thaumaturgic 16:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please sign accept or decline the offer for informal mediation by BostonMA (talk · contribs)

• Thaumaturgic (talk · contribs) I agree Thaumaturgic 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Andries (talk · contribs)
• SSS108 (talk · contribs) I agree: SSS108 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Two editors have already accepted at a special page I have set up. --BostonMA 17:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry BostonMA... Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Not a problem :-) --BostonMA

Shambles In Sai Baba's Bedroom?

Andries, where you are getting the title, "The Shambles In Sai Baba's Bedroom"? I just had a discussion about the title being wrong and not only did you ignore it, you just edited the main article and changed the correct title "Murders In Sai Baba's Bedroom" to "The Shambles In Sai Baba's Bedroom". Where are the references to support that that is the correct title? Perhaps a picture will help: Reference

SSS108 23:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I got confused by your recent complaints here about the title. Andries 12:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the only function of this talk page is to make suggestions for improvement for this article. If you make complaints that are unrelated to the current version of this article then it is likely that people get confused. Please label off-topic remarks as such. Andries 12:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Andries, the comment was not "off topic". You referred to the incorrect title and I pointed it out. AlanK wrote a new section about my comment to you about the incorrect title. That is a huge section to misunderstand. At least you corrected it now. And by the way, Premanand's book is 800+ pages. Not 400.

SSS108 01:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic: Oh and by the way, before I get accused of deception again by Gerald Joe Moreno/SSS108, Lousewies van der Laan, the person who asked the question in the European Parliament, is my cousin. Andries 12:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that, Andries. Again, this simply goes to show how all these "warnings" and "discussions" from parliaments, etc. against SSB, are inextricably linked to Anti-Sai Activists. I think this is more than just coincidence.

SSS108 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

off topic, and what does this prove? Do you think that I would risk the political career of my cousin for nothing? Clearly, it is an indication of my sincerity, degree of conviction of the reliability of my sources, and concern about the seriousness of the matter. Andries 18:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you waiting for?? BAN THEM

This article so 'not-encylopedia' and obviously very biased. Statements like

"Because of SSB's extraordinary claims, his popularity, and his reputation as a prolific miracle worker, he was and is one of the favorite targets of criticism by rationalists and skeptics."

are completely unnecessary. Misplaced Pages should only state facts, not opinions. Then the section "stance by devotees" makes no sense whatsoever! And look at the section books written by saibaba. He is not even a writer! This obviously adds unnecessary text to scrolling. Plzzz I beg some wise people here to ban such religious zealots who misuse[REDACTED] for their own thing. reasonit

Hmm, I agree with the generalization that I had my doubts about. And I do not know whether SSB has really written the books that are claimed so. I personally have strong doubts, but normally we assume that the claimed author is the real author unless there is proof otherwise. Andries 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasonit, the "religious zealot" you want banned happens to be Andries Krugers Dagneaux, who happens to be an Anti-Sai Activist. Andries is the "religious zealot" who added that section: Reference So don't blame devotees. I suggest you research the matter before casting blame.

Reasonit, where are your references that SSB did not write those books? As you said, Misplaced Pages should only state facts, not personal opinions. So where are your facts?

SSS108 19:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, excuse me, but Sai Baba has written at LEAST three books that I know of and they are listed on amazon.com. In addition to that, his articles are consistently published in Indian papers. I guess we will have to list his books as references.Freelanceresearch 11:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many booka he has written, the fact is writing the names of all the books he has written is completely pointless(since he isnot a writer professionally). Check articles on other authors, even there the name of every book has not been written Vikram_Seth And i never said he didn't write these books. SSS108, read properly I never pointed any particular person to be banned, just ppl like you. Reasonit 14:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasonit, I happen to agree with you about removing the list of books. Actually, Andries was the person who added the list of books. Thaumatugic removed the list and provided a link to the Vahini series and this was not approved by Andries. Again, a devotee was not responsible for adding the list. An Anti-Sai Activist was I am fully aware you never pointed out a particular person. I never claimed you did. You said that the "religious zealot" who wrote: ""Because of SSB's extraordinary claims, his popularity, and his reputation as a prolific miracle worker, he was and is one of the favorite targets of criticism by rationalists and skeptics" should be banned. As I rightly pointed out, it was not written by a "religious zealot". All the things you are complaining about, and attributing to devotees or religious people, are not being done by them. They are being done by Andries, a skeptic of SSB. So place the blame where it rightly goes. SSS108 06:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide references

"The young Sathya was a natural vegetarian and was known for his aversion to animal cruelty and his compassion for the poor, disabled and elderly." SS108, can you please provide references for this, not references from hagiographical material. Besides, I do not think this belongs in the summary. Andries 07:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Material from what you call a hagiography could be included, provided that the article does not become a hagiography in itself. The sentence above can easly be made NPOV as follows:

According to XYZ, in the book ABCDE, Baba in his youth, "was a natural vegetarian and was known for his aversion to animal cruelty and his compassion for the poor, disabled and elderly."

The use of quotes will clearly position this a an descriptive opinion of the author, rather than a fact. Just provide the sources and attribute it fully. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jossie. It is being taken from the outline in Sathyam Sivam Sundaram by N. Kasturi and more specifically from Howard Murphet's book, Man of Miracles. Using Andries standard, we could never write a biography because no one else, beside devotees, have attempted to write a biography. The LIMF writers are also devotees and also wrote a hagiography. I'll work on it more today.

SSS108 18:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Jossi and SS108, I do not oppose using Kasturi, as long as it is made very clear that this is from Kasturi's hagiography and separated from the serious biography. Using Kasturi for the biography sharply contradicts Jossi's insistence on using reputable sources. Jossi can you please clarify what I see as your contradictory position on this? Andries 19:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Andries, then what sources do you recommend for the biography?

SSS108 19:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not know. There are no reputable sources and may be that is why the biography should stay short. Andries 19:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Andries, can you define "reputable"?

SSS108 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, there is not a problem in quoting published sources. Cite and quote, but make sure that it is attributed. And as I have said before, there are quite a number of books that mention this person (not biographies) that can be used to put together a decent bio section. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I found an article about Sathya Sai Baba published in "Religions Of The World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia Of Beliefs And Practices" by J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann and they cite Kasturi and Sandweiss as references. If this 4 volume Encyclopedia of Religions cites Kasturi and Sandweiss, I see no reason why this article can't cite them as well.

SSS108 21:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem to cite Kasturi in the beliefs and practices section, but a hagiography can never serve as a source to a serious biography. Andries

Andries, why didn't you answer my previous question? Can you define "reputable"?

SSS108 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

well, I cannot really define reputable. A source that has a good reputation, is what it means, I guess, but that is somewhat subjective and difficult to prove. Andries 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That is the problem, Andries. You make demands for sources being "reputable", but you cannot even define it. How can anyone cite "reputable" sources when your definition seems to change with the POV being expressed?

SSS108 22:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography Section

I suggest we start a new section about SSB's bibliography (on the main article) and attribute the entire section to Kasturi's Hagiography. It is undeniable that Kasturi is a reputable reference (as he has been cited in a Religion Encyclopedia and other college references). This would provide a solution to writing a bibliography and reconciling it with Andries demand of distinguishing the material as being taken from a hagiography. So, does anyone object before I invest the time and effort?

SSS108 22:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I admit that Kasturi is a reputable reference for the beliefs and practices section, not for the biography, because Kasturi's hagiography is authorized material about SSB. Apart from that I do not understand your proposal.Andries 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please give an example? I do not understand your proposal. Andries 18:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would this source not be considered for inclusion of biographical data? You could state that the works are a hagiography, if you have a reputable source that describes it as such, or if it is stated in the said book that it is such. Otherwise, I do not see a problem. If there are other sources that challenge some of the biographical data in that book, you can describe these as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I continue to hold the opinion, as I already stated, that using hagiographical material for a biography violates the spirit of the Misplaced Pages policies. Andries 18:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, why limit Kasturi to "beliefs and practices", when Kasturi's books are not about "beliefs and practices"? Kasturi's writings are about SSB's life, of which SSB's teaching are a part. If a Religion Encyclopedia and college references can cite Kasturi in relation to SSB's biography, I see no reason why Misplaced Pages cannot. SSS108 19:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sai Baba in the media

i've added an external link related to discussions in the media about Sathya Sai Baba, his organisations and followers in the media section. It turned out that when i visited that page related to that external link, there has been considerable number of media reports on Sai Baba, Sathya Sai organisation's activities etc., than what was mentioned in the[REDACTED] page. If anybody would be interested in connecting those articles to the[REDACTED] page, that would add more relevant content to the[REDACTED] page.

Thanks

Godman stated as fact

I think that the arcicle should state as fact that SSB is a godman for the following reasons

1. Two sources state so. Andries 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

2. One source gives only one example i.e. SSB Andries 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

3. The assertions are not contradicted by any notable source. Andries 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

4. SSB fits all the characteristic of a godman as described in that article. Andries 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

For NPOV, it is better to say "described as a godman". Otherwise you are stating it is a fact, when it is only the opinion of those that call him such, in particluar when godman is a colloquialism. See Godman. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

doesn't SSB often say in his talks that he is God? I remeber when i was a devotee (well, in a manner of speaking, i was never a full-on devotee) it was common knowledge that he was (considered to be) an avatar. e.g. the Howard Murphett books, which i read (and which influenced me to travel to India to see SSB). I know SSB was often quoted as saying "I am God and you are two, but you don't know it." (or something along those lines). Hasn't he also says that he is Shiva and Shakti, that he is Krishna reincarnated, etc? I am not a SSB scholar, but surely it wouldnt be hard to find an actual quote from SSB where he proclaims that he is an avatar. M Alan Kazlev 00:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is already in the article and if it is not by accident then it is true that it is very easily added. Andries 18:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Boys?

Andries, where are your reputable sources published in notable media that SSB had sexual relation with boys? If the accounts are second hand or anonymous, they need to be stated as such.

Premanand's anonymous story is not reputable or published in notable media. Also, one needs to state how Premanand originally contended that the anonymous letter was written by a student and five years later, changed it to a father to an alleged student. Give all the facts.

Michelle Goldberg's bias was hidden from her article, but was divulged on your Anti-Sai site when she told Glen Meloy, in a personal letter: ""I apologize for not having the time to pursue every angle of the story, but I think the final piece (more than 2000 words longer than it was originally assigned) will bring much attention to your struggle. Thanks again for all your help." In reply, Glen Meloy said, "It has been a privilege to work with you and I hope the editors of Salon.com will consider allowing you to do a follow-up story on all the other leads and material that has been furnished to you." Therefore, Goldberg's hidden bias should be divulged.

Also, switching the links to SaiGuru.net is deceitful. The articles on SaiGuru.net were duplicated from your Anti-Sai Site. Changing the link from one Anti-Sai Site to another is ridiculous. Your Anti-Sai Site was the source for the material and was simply duplicated on SaiGuru.net. That's like having Lisa create a website, transferring my content to her site, linking to it and then saying it is okay because it is not on my site!

It is funny that you refuse to allow anyone to quote Kasturi relating to SSB's biography, although Kasturi is published in notable references, and yet you go around citing sources that have not been published in reputable media and see nothing wrong with that. SSS108 03:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I noticed you are heavily editing the article again. We have an opportunity to discuss our differences of opinion in mediation. Why are you not answering the relevant section about Premanand: Premanand As A Source? I think we should get the opinion of the mediator to resolve the issue instead of debating it among ourselves. What do you say? After all, you and I were actively seeking a mediator and a neutral opinion. Now that we have a mediator and a neutral opinion, you are delaying giving answers. If you have time to heavily edit the article, one would think you would have time to answer the mediation questions. SSS108 16:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the Indian Skeptic is a good source, the word "boys" is also sourced by Michelle Goldberg's 'Untouchable' article in salon.com Misplaced Pages says nowhere that only primary sources can be used. Secondaray such as salon.com are fine too. Andries 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Reverted. Goldberg used "boys" in relation to the claims that Anti-Sais made. She didn't document any cases of such and saying SSB abused "boys" when she didn't document it is factually incorrect. Either that or I add "undocumented, anonymous and unconfirmed accounts of SSB allegedly molesting boys". The choice is yours. I also gave you a couple of days to discuss it before I removed the text. We agreed in mediation to this. I would expect the same courtesy I extended to you. SSS108 19:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

undocumented and unconfirmed according to whom? Not unconfirmed or undocumented accourding to Michelle Goldberg's article in salon.com Opinions have to be attributed according to the policy. I admit that you had discussed removing "boys" in the talk page, but I had referenced it and excluding salon.com as a source with the argument that it is a secondary source and not a primary source shows so much ignorance of the way Misplaced Pages works that I could not take it seriously. Please remember that it is the duty of editors to study the policies and guidelines, especially when editing the controversial articles. It is not my duty to teach you the basics of Misplaced Pages policies after I have shown you were to look. Andries 20:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Michelle Goldberg did not document any cases of boys being abused. She used that word as expressed by Anti-Sai Activists. Where are the confirmed and documented stories that Goldberg documented about "boys" being abused? I would like to see the references. And we have a mediation process going on. We can always discuss this in mediation. I am curious why you are trying to circumvent the mediation process and press on with your agenda? SSS108 20:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, secondary sources are okay to use according to Misplaced Pages. And everybody with common sense and empathy can understand the reason for anonimity in this case. I followed all very clearly all Misplaced Pages policies (referencing and providing reputable sources) in my edit and I cannot see what there is left to meditate in this case. Andries 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Where did Goldberg document the abuse of "boys"? If the claims are anonymous, unconfirmed and unverifiable, they need to be stated as such (instead of stating it in a way that implies it is a confirmed fact). Goldberg never interviewed children or parents to children. She repeated anonymous, unconfirmed and unverifiable claims as made by Anti-Sai Activists. Period. SSS108 20:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The accusations were never stated as fact. I do not see the problem. Glen Meloy and others showed her the evidence that she found convincing and she wrote boys. Andries 20:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did Goldberg say she saw the "evidence" and found it "convincing"? SSS108 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

She did not, but I believe it, but is irrelevant. We are not seeking the truth it, but we report. Andries 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion does not make any sense. I can understand that there is a lot of gray area where mediation is useful, but in this particular dispute can be no doubt that the word "boys" is justified by reputable sources for which references are provided. And may be in this dispute and in this dispute only, I think that we can go directly to the Misplaced Pages:arbitration committee and bypass mediation. Andries 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you seeking to circumvent mediation? Why are you refusing to answer the questions about Premanand in mediation? Why are you spending so much time here and neglecting the mediation that you sought out so vigorously? SSS108 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Because mediation is only necessary and justified in case of doubt, problems about sources etc. In this case there can be no doubt: I followed all policies and what you do is simply disruption of the article and violation of Misplaced Pages policies. I have added a note to the mediation page about this dispute, not as a new subject to be mediated, but as a complaint about your behavior. Andries 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

View Discussion About Andries Complaint About SSS108's Behavior SSS108 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt for you. There is plenty of doubt on my side. Which is why it should be mediated. I am still waiting for your responses about Premanand in mediation so we can move forward. You are holding up the process with your vacillating. SSS108 21:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not holding up the process, because the inclusion of the word "boys" is backed up not just by Premanand, but also by Michelle Goldberg's salon.com]'s article. It is basically an unrelated dispute. Andries 21:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not backed up by Premanand. It is allegedly backed up by an anonymous source whom Premanand first claimed was a Sai Student. Five years later, Premanand arbitrarily changed the story and attributed the letter to a Parent of a Sai Student. This story has never been published in any reputable sources and you know it. My comment, about answering the mediation questions about Premanand, is a side issue. I would like to move forward with the mediation process and I do not know why you are refusing to answer the questions in medation so we can discuss the Betrayal Letter and the Salon.com Articles. SSS108 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware that any question are asked about salon.com I do not understand why the backlog in answering questions is related to this dispute. Andries 22:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there any other claims made in any of the SSB related articles which are based upon Indian Skeptic as a source? If so, please answer the remaining open questions on the mediation pages. --BostonMA 23:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, there are no claims in any of the SSB related article based upon Indian Skeptic as a source with the possible exception of the study of SSB's miracles by Dr. Dale Beyerstein, but that study also appeared in a private publication and was referenced by Nagel in her 1994 article for the Free universtity of Amsterdam. Andries 14:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I gave you a misdirection. I would like you to respond to the open questions anyway. A number of the questions have applicability beyond the issue of Indian Skeptic and beyond Premanand as a source. Even the questions that are Indian Skeptic specific, I believe are important, as they will help to provide a point of reference, a point of comparison for determining where the threshold lies for a source to be reputable. (So please answer questions about Indian Skeptic even if you believe them to be moot.) It is my fault that the directions I gave were not what I actually wanted. --BostonMA 21:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, because once you answer the questions, we can move forward and discuss the Salon.com article. If you check the Reminders For Mediator page, you will see that I have included it in a list of questionable sources. SSS108 00:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

List of books by SSB?

It is true that I insisted on having the list of books by SSB included in this article. I think thought that it is common and standard to list the published works of a person. I may be mistaken in this. I admit that for most people this will be scroll down content, but this is supposed to be a reference article, so I thought and still think that this list is important. Any comments? Andries 18:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC) (amended)

We should do what Thaumaturgic originally did, and which Andries reverted: Keep the "Books by Sathya Sai Baba" section and provide the link to the Vahini series, instead of listing all the Vihini titles and providing no link to the Vahini series. Vahini Link SSS108 20:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

But this article is not supposed to be a mere collection of external links. See Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. It is supposed to be a reference article and an end result of e.g. a google search. Andries 20:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A short list of the more prominent books should be sufficient. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, as you often say, the external links should be allowed for easier accessibility to sources, for readers. There is a link to the Sathya Sai Speaks series. There is a link to books listed on SaiBabaLinks.org. But instead of providing one more relevant link to the Vahini series, you insist on keeping a voluminous list that is not necessary and can easily be referenced for readers. It is amusing that you are now taking a stand against a "mere collection of links" when this was exactly what the article was when you had full control over it for 2 years. SSS108 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I never had the article under control and most of the many external links were added by others. Andries 17:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your 430+ edits speak to the contrary of your claim that you did not control the article. You were the person who determined the content to the article (and still do). Also anyone can easily verify how you added an exorbitant number of links to Critics sites on the Allegations Against Sathya Sai Page: Reference You were the person who created this article. Despite adding all those links, and seeing nothing wrong in doing so, you now have newfound sensitivities for relevant links that go to the official Sathya Sai Baba Vahini page. SSS108 20:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Check it better. It was not just me who added these many external links, but several contributors, mainly anons. Andries 21:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, maybe you should check it better. The very first time links were added (on the Allegations page), you added so many links to critics sites, it is unreal: Reference: Scroll down to view links This page is the very first edit when links were added and trace back directly to you. SSS108 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

But even if this is true what you wrote about what happened in the past (which I continue to deny) then what has this to do with improving the article now? This talk page should only discuss improving the current state of the article. Andries 15:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, there is no "even if this is true". It is true. The point being that when it comes to listing an opposing POV, you see no problem in citing as many links as it takes to Anti-Sai Sites. Once a link is proposed to be added to a site that you see as favoring SSB, all of sudden, you start making excuses and saying things like the "article is not supposed to be a mere collection of external links". Several people have opposed such a long list of books on the article. Instead of adding one more relevant link, you are insisting on keeping the long list of books. This proposition is a discussion on improving the article. So far, you are the only person opposing adding the link. SSS108 19:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Some material suitable for the article?

Check this: http://www.the-week.com/25nov27/currentevents_article10.htm It is a quite recent article on "The Week" with many POVs from different protagonists. Hope it is useful as an example of NPOV material. It was the cover story for the November 2005 issue. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, material from that article was already cited and the link was also included in the "Media" links section. SSS108 00:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Books

Under Other Books, there is a reference to Brian Steel's annotated biography. This is not a book. It should be removed. If it is a book, I'd like to see the ISBN number.

Also, how are we to deal with books that are listed in Selected books by his followers when they are now ex-devotees? It is misleading to list their books under a followers section when they are not followers. Specifically, I am objecting to the following:

Steel, Brian The Powers of Sathya Sai Baba (1999) ISBN 81-7646-080-X

Steel, Brian The Satya Sai Baba Compendium: A Guide to the First Seventy Years (Paperback) Weiser Books (February, 1997) ISBN 0877288844

Priddy, Robert “'Source of the Dream'” (1998) ISBN 1-57863-028-2

If others insist that these books be mentioned, then they should be referenced under Books by skeptics and critics with a note saying that although the books are favorable to SSB, the authors are now ex-devotees. Does this sound fair? SSS108 18:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not sound fair at all. The books two by Steel and one by Priddy were written by then followers and should hence be listed there. I also disagree with you on the book list that Steel provided. We cannot list all books about SSB here, but Steel provided a near-exhaustive book list and I think that it is good replacement. Andries 19:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I knew a good edit would bring you out of hiding. SaiBabaLinks.org provides a exhaustive list with links (which Steel's page does not). It is deceptive to claim that the "annotated biography" is a book when it isn't. If you insist that the books just pointed out be left where they are at, I will add a note stating they are now ex-devotees and critics of SSB. Does that sound fair?

On a side issue, why are you not participating in the mediation? As far as I am aware, you have not responded to either the mediator's or my queries. You also said you were going to answer the questions the past weekend and did not. Why? If you are not going to participate in mediation, you need to let everyone know so we can take the next step. SSS108 19:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I noticed you re-added the book "Petals of Grace" by Sai Maa. I read the index to that book and there is not even one chapter that makes reference to SSB Reference Occasionally, she said, "Baba says..." That's it. Where are you references and sources that show that this book is written about SSB? SSS108 19:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I had removed the book Petals of Grace. My revert was not complete. Andries 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you are reverting without a discussion. Just stating this for the public record. Again, why are you not participating in mediation? SSS108 19:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I was tired Sunday and Monday and I had to work on both days so that is why I did not complete the answers in the mediation. I did not revert without discussion. I already gave my reasons and there seems little to add to the discussion. Please note that if you remove one more time the word boys from the article then I will request a decision from the arbcom about this dispute only. Andries 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'd love to see their response when they see that there is a mediation process going on and instead of using it, you are circumventing it. SSS108 20:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither the inclusion of the word "boys" nor salon.com as a source are subjects of mediation, so it is untrue that I circumvent mediation. Andries 20:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am disputing it and it has been raised as one of my grievances to be discussed. We could discuss it if you answered the questions about Premanand that you have thus far been refusing to answer for well over a week. SSS108

What does the question about Premanand have to do with the dispute about the inclusion of the word boys? Andries 20:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding (BostonMA can correct me if I am wrong), he is dealing with the issues one at a time, getting our responses before moving on to other issues. I raised my objection on this discussion page about the reference to "boys" and you refused to address my concerns. Therefore I edited the article after a couple of days and only then did you start complaining about it. You had every opportunity to discuss the issue but chose instead to be silent until the article was edited. You did this without a discussion and everyone can see it. SSS108 21:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I had not understood that this is BostonMA's way of working and I certainly do hope it is not. An hypothetical example why this way of working by BostonMA would be wrong is as follows. Suppose I inserted the completely untrue statement that "SSB has been convicted for rape in 2000." and we can only deal with this statement after all other issues have been completed then this article will be blatantly wrong for a very long period of time. Andries 09:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not involved in the mediation as previously stated, but please note that during mediation it is better to leave the article alone without adding or removing anything, particularly as the article has a very obvious statement that the article is not compliant with WP content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This may be wise for disputed sentences treated in the mediation, but does not sound sensible for other parts of the article. BostonMA has repeatedly and clearly requested expansion and improvement of the article (beliefs and practices section). Apart from that, it was SSS108 who deleted perfectly sourced and referenced statements (word "boys") 14:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, your comments are fine examples of your bias. You take an argument (which is irrelevant and never happened) and then pigeonhole that argument, trying to make your case based on something that has never happened. First of all, no one inserted a completely untrue statement that SSB was convicted of anything. So this example is irrelevant. Stick to the discussion at hand and use the example that is already before us, i.e., Michelle Goldberg and the Salon.com aritcle. This topic has been disputed for a long time and I have already given voice to my grievances about it. You see it one way. I see it another. That is why it should be mediated so that we can reach an agreement. Instead, you are wanting to blow it out of proportion and circumvent mediation. This article has already been "blatantly wrong" for a very long time. Especially when it was under you control (and it still is). It was like pulling a molar to add the Vahini link to the article. You were the only person who objected when both Pro/Anti people said the books list was too voluminous. You have no flexibility.

Jossie, this whole issue exploded because of a few relevant changes made to the books section (completely unrelated to the Salon.com article). That's it. Andries gets so upset and overemotional, he used my edits as an excuse to revert the article and resurrect a discussion irrelevant to the books section. SSS108 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement about Haraldson

There is a misstatement on the page about Haraldssson that is going to have to be corrected. The editor wrote:

"The Icelandic psychology professor Erlendur Haraldsson who did not get SSB’s permission to study him from nearby has investigated his miracles and clairvoyance, using the testimonies of his (former) associates. Haraldsson wrote that the biggest materialized"

This blatantly wrong as Haraldsson visited Sai Baba SEVERAL times and had private interviews on every visit. Haraldsson was with his associate Osis whom Baba materialized a ring for. Baba also materialised a gold-plated Rudraksha bead for Haraldsson. Regarding the experiments Haraldsson said,

"Nevertheless, I could understand the reluctance of a religious leader of millions to submit to experimental protocol designed by people of different beliefs and cultures. After all, no one asked the Pope to go into a labratory, before his holiness could be trusted." (Modern Miracles, pg. 10, revised and updated edition �1997)

This is a VERY good point. After all, no Christians are demanding laboratory experiments to prove Christ is the Son of God either. Freelanceresearch 04:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

May be this should be re-worded into Haraldsson did not get SSB's permission to study SSB under controlled circumstances. Fact is that it would have been very easy for SSB to show Haraldsson his miracles under less ambiguous circumstances which is something that SSB refused. Andries 09:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Standstill

moved to mediation page with some responses --BostonMA 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

48 hour notice

Please provide 48 hour notice before deleting any content as unsourced. --BostonMA 16:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• If editing begins without disputes being resolved in mediation, I am expressing my intent to remove referenced links that go to partison, biased, controversial or personal homepages as per Wikipedias:
• Reliability
• Personal Websites As Primary Sources
• Personal Websites As Secondary Sources
• Partisan Websites
• No Original Research SSS108 21:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Information sourced only to homepages can be removed as per policy. Information sourced to a reputable sourced that is available online on a homepage should not be removed nor the link to the homepage that does not violate any policy. Andries 21:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Not when that information is sourced on partison, biased, controversial or personal homepages. See Discussion SSS108 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You continue to misrepresent both what I write and Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Andries 22:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If that is true, you should have no problem making your case through the mediator. You refuse to proceed with mediation, so I can only suspect you feel compromised. SSS108 23:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean that I refuse to proceed with mediation? I have answered all questions completely, excluding a few difficult ones about innuendo in a certain article in the Indian Skeptic that are only very remotely related to the current state of the article. And I have partially answered these too today. Andries 23:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

When you have fully answered them, I suspect we can discuss the link issue. SSS108 23:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please reread User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Implementation of Policies. Especially the following:

It is the mediators opinion, that where consensus exists that material is inadequately sourced according to Misplaced Pages policy, that any editor may remove such material, even if other editors believe this will adversely affect the quality of the article, and even if it is estimated that considerable time will be required to restore the quality of the article.

Please express your agreement or disagreement with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. --BostonMA 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Andries: If this means that editors can remove information immediately that is not perfectly sourced then I disagree. The reason is that very little information in any Misplaced Pages article is perfectly sourced. If it does not come close to fulfilling Misplaced Pages policies one week 48 hours after sources have been requested on the talk page then I think that the information can be removed. Andries 20:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: I Agree. SSS108 02:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, unless you are taking the position that material which is sourced to your website is adequately sourced, then, per the agreement, Andries has the right to remove this material even if it means a degradation in the quality of the article. You may also state that you will remove material based upon it being inadequately sourced, but there are several caveats. 1) You must give Andries 48 hour notice, so it cannot be a simple tit-for-tat. 2) Per the agreement, it must be material for which there is concensus that it is inadequately sourced. This would include material from Nagel's later articles for which no other source is provided, and may include material from Indian Skeptic for which no other source is provided. I say may because Andries has given mixed signals regarding Indian Skeptic. If Andries were to state unequivocally (hopefully on the appropriate page) that Indian Skeptic does not qualify as a reputable source, and the reasons why, then you certainly may delete material which is sourced only to Indian Skeptic. So, I again suggest that if you care about the material which is sourced to your website remaining on the page, at least for now, then you should provide sources for that material. --BostonMA 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is only a little bit of information sourced to one of Nagel's later articles that I forgot to remove. There is no information sourced to the Indian Skeptic. Andries 00:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, the problem is that the material on my site would qualify as original research. Although I used "notably" sourced references on my site, I used them to express my own "original research", which has never been published by notable sources. Therefore, any referenced link and material to my site are inevitably going to be removed as per Misplaced Pages policy. I don't object to this as I don't see any way around it. As you may have seen in Andries edit yesterday, he promptly removed all references to me and my site (which he then reverted). Since Andries is taking many days to make his responses, everything is going to be in his favor. He can give a 48 hour warning, take as many days as he wants to respond to mediation questions (effectively postponing discussion about reaching a consensus on what is "inadequately sourced") which means I have to wait for him, his responses, the mediation process and 48 hours on top of all that. Tell me that something is not wrong with this process?

BostonMA, I do not know if you understand the points I made earlier. I am not objecting to many of the sources that Andries want to cite. Many of them are citable per Misplaced Pages's guidelines. What I am objecting to is that these citable sources are being linked directly to Anti-Sai Sites. Just an example: In reference to Tony Colman. Although that information is citable, it goes to Andries Anti-Sai Site: Reference The page is locked in a frame page and puts the entire directory of Anti-Sai links at the top of the page. This promotes bias against SSB because this site is purely an Anti-Sai Site. Tony Colman's comments were never originally published on Anti-Sai Sites. Therefore, either a direct link needs to be provided to the original page or the reference is cited with no link. Even in the case of Saiguru.net, all one has to do is remove the link extension and there is the SaiGuru.net site. This promotes bias. I am not planning on removing the notable sources, just the links that go to Anti-Sai Sites. Understand? SSS108 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course the text of the early day motion by Tony Colman has added value to the readers. I will replace the link to exbaba.com with a link to saiguru.net that has the same contents. I could not find an alternative website with the text of the motion. Andries 01:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You just don't "get it"? Do you Andries? The SaiGuru.net site is a mirror site to your Anti-Sai Site. They don't have any original content of their own. Not only that, SaiGuru.net is purely and exclusively against SSB. Linking notable references (which never had anything to do with Anti-Sai webpages in the first place) to sites that are partison, biased, controversial and personal is not allowed on wikipedia. You are shifting the links from your anti-sai site to your friends anti-sai site. Amazing you think this is fair! SSS108 01:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, on many of these referenced pages, the comments of Anti-Sai Activists are added to them, just as was done on the Tony Colman page. SSS108 01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You continue to be confused about Misplaced Pages policies.

Andries 01:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I could not find the link of the early day motion by Tony Colman on the website of the UK parliament anymore. It used to be there. Otherwise I would have replaced the link from saiguru.net with the link to the UK parliament. Andries 01:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The link that escaped you for the last year and a half was found in 10 minutes by me. I included it in the article. SSS108 06:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And why is there a chance that some disputes will be resolved in my favor? Because I have generally followed the Misplaced Pages policies with some exceptions that I have admitted. I knew and know the policies quite well. I have generally not been making up the policies, as you seem to suggest in the discussions. I have been aware from the start that this is not an exbaba forum and I sincerely tried to follow the polices when writing this article. Andries 01:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You are making one up right now. You are essentially stating that taking referenced sources and putting them on partison, biased, controversial and personal webpages is 100% okay with Misplaced Pages. If this is true, then Misplaced Pages is promoting bias by allowing this to happen. As I stated earlier, should I put all the references on my site? Are you willing to agree to that? SSS108 01:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Parliament Issue

There is absolutely no reason the Parliamentary info has to be referenced on anti-Sai sites as they can be referenced from the Parliament website. The problem is the anti-Sais are NOT telling the whole story regarding what happened in Parliament regarding the Sai Baba issue. Here is the FULL documentation with link references:

The Parliament and Sai Baba Sai Baba Mr. Colman: � To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many representations requesting that Her Majesty's Government take action against Sai Baba he has received in the last 12 months; (2) if he will make a statement on the activities of Sai Baba involving UK citizens in (a) the UK and (b) India.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: � During the last 12 months the Home Office has received eight representations from members of the public about Sai Baba, of which seven were from overseas. In addition four representations have also been made by my hon. Friend. The Government's position is that the members of this, and any other religious organisation, are free to follow their own doctrines and practices provided that they remain within the law. 6 Nov 2000 : Column: 109W http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/semhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=sai%20baba&ALL=&ANY=&PHRASE=Sai%20Baba&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=%22sai%20baba%22&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=01106w30.html_spnew6&URL=/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001106/text/01106w30.htm

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 8 Nov 2000 Travel Advice (India) Mr. Colman: � To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidance to UK citizens travelling to India about visiting the Sai Baba ashram. Mr. Hain: � I have been asked to reply. The FCO issues guidance for visitors to India through its Travel Advice Unit. This information is also available on the FCO web-site (www.fco.gov.uk). We have no specific guidance for UK citizens visiting any of the Sai Baba ashrams at Puttaparthi (Andhra Pradesh), Bangalore (Karnataka) or Shirdi (Maf harashtra). The police at Puttaparthi, the focus of celebrations to mark Sai Baba's birthday on 23 November, have assured our Deputy High Commission at Chennai (Madras) that preparations are already under way to meet the demands of the large congregation expected at the ashram. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/semhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=sai%20baba&ALL=&ANY=&PHRASE=Sai%20Baba&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=%22sai%20baba%22&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=01108w10.html_wqn7&URL=/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001108/text/01108w10.htm

SAI BABA AND SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN 26.02.2002 Colman, Tony That this House, mindful of the many accounts and witness statements of the sexual abuse of the male children of devotees by the Indian guru Sai Baba, calls upon the Foreign Secretary to use the travel advice for India page of the Foreign Office website to issue guidance to British families intending to visit the ashram of Sai Baba about the possible danger to their male children of individual audiences with the guru. Signatures( 43) Status Colman, Tony Mahon, Alice Llwyd, Elfyn Cox, Tom Dobbin, Jim McDonnell, John Cohen, Harry Cook, Frank Cryer, Ann Etherington, Bill Williams, Betty Griffiths, Jane Simpson, Alan Jackson, Glenda Corbyn, Jeremy Flynn, Paul Griffiths, Win McNamara, Kevin Amess, David Holmes, Paul Hancock, Mike Hoey, Kate Knight, Jim Linton, Martin Widdecombe, Ann Duncan, Peter Baldry, Tony Dowd, Jim Doughty, Sue Harris, Evan Walter, Robert Jones, Nigel CLARK, HELEN King, Oona Tonge, Jenny Bottomley, Virginia Austin, John O'Neill, Martin Rendel, David Jackson, Helen Jackson, Robert Clarke, Tony Gillan, Cheryl

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=21147 http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/tony_colman/putney

Since Tony Colman is no longer seated in Parliament, this issue may be dead on the table, as they say. Freelanceresearch 09:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Proper Attributions

The article needs to start giving relevant information about the people and sites it discusses. For example, instead of saying "BBC", it needs to say "United Kingdom BBC", so that people do not confuse them with BBC News. They are wholly different entities. The Secret Swami Documentary was never shown on BBC News, just through the UK BBC. Another example is when talking about the "Dialog Center". It needs to be clearly stated that the Dialong Center is a Christian Anti-Cult Group. These are just a few of several clarifications and attributions that need to be made. SSS108 18:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems redundant in the case of the Dialog Center. The reference already states that the author, Hummel, was/is a pastor. Andries 19:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you Andries: You are saying that we should leave out the fact that Hummmel is the founder of Christian Anti-Cult Group and say instead that he is a "pastor". Is that what you are saying? SSS108 19:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hummel is not the founder. Prof. Johannes Agaard is. Andries 19:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then we need to state that the Dialog Center is an Christian Anti-Cult Group. This is relevant information. SSS108 19:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that sounds exaggerated, because no information is sourced to the Dialog Center. Andries 19:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It should say, "on the website of the Dialog Center, a Christian Anti-Cult Site" and "Dr. Hummel has been director of the Evangelische Zentralstelle fur Weltanschauungsfragen in Stuttgart since 1981, which is a church institution set up in 1960 by the Evangelical Church in Germany". Misplaced Pages aims to divulge relevant information that might be a source to bias in "notable" references. SSS108 20:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hummel is also a specialist in Hinduism and new religious movements. Andries 21:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference it then. But also reference the facts as stated above. SSS108 21:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Warning

The article is still under mediation and, in my opinion does not comply due to several outstanding issues. Until this is resolved through the mediation that Andries is half-heartedly engaging in, the warning is going back up. SSS108 00:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I also want to make it clear that Andries was the person who removed the warning. Why he would remove the warning before mediation is complete is highly questionable and I ask we discuss this with the mediator before removing the non-compliant warning. SSS108 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The normal procedure it that a warning is justified by an explanation on the talk page, otherwise it can be removed. Please explain the warning. Where does the article break policy? Andries 06:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Joe/SSS108, again please explain the warning. Where does the article break policy and how? If you do not explain it then I will remove the warning. Andries 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Sources

Although, in the past, Andries agreed that Brian Steel and Robert Priddy do not constitute reputable sources, he has not removed references to them. Nor has he removed Nagel's other non-notable writings, for example, "A Guru Accused". All these need to be removed. Then there is the issue of linking to the personal homepages of Anti-Sai Activists. SSS108 00:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the entire section: "Some ex-followers believe in the truth of the allegations but at the same time refuse to retract the stories of miracles that they claim to have experienced directly. For example answers to prayers which they attribute to him or clairvoyance during an interview. Hence some ex-followers believe that while he has siddhis (psychic abilities) it is only because he is a powerful rakshasa or demon, while some claim he is simply a fraud and now totally deny they ever had any paranormal experiences they can attribute to SSB." either needs to be referenced by notable sources or removed. SSS108 02:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a gentle reminder that sources need to be reputable but do not need to be notable. On the other hand, facts that are to be included in an article should be notable. You probably meant to say that that the statement required a reputable source. I often use words incorrectly, so this is just a gentle reminders. However, I think being careful with words will help to avoid unnecessary arguments. --BostonMA 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that what BostonMA writes is fully accurate. Here is my interpretation of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines

1. For inclusion in Misplaced Pages an article about a person or about a subject, the person or subject needs to be notable

2. Statements voiced as facts needs to be referenced by reputable sources, with a few exceptions, like non-reputable primary sources by the person himself

3. Facts mentioned in the article must be informative. For example, we do not write in a biography that a person sleeps almost every night, because that is not informative, but we do state in this article that SSB never claims to sleep (if I can find a reputable reference).

Andries 10:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The section can, I think, be (partially?) referenced by the Daily Telegraph, Salon and India Today, and Trouw articles. Please note that I left most now-redundant references intact due to lack of time, incl. the ones to Moreno. Fee free to remove them. Andries 06:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I will be creating a geocities account to host the disputed references on. After the account is completed, if Alan K. is willing, I will turn the account over to him, so it will be in neither the possession of myself or Anti-Sai Activists. Then (if no one has undertaken the task by then) I will sort through the references and remove the "now-redundant" ones, including my own. SSS108 16:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to discuss the link that goes to Andries Anti-Sai Site about videos of alleged faked manifestations. I left it in the article for now until there is more discussion on it. I am uncertain how Andries site can be referenced in relation to this material. SSS108 19:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am proposing deletion of the Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba page. It is unfair to have 2 pages devoted to this issue. SSS108 17:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

well, seems like a good idea. Deleting it increases maintainability. Andries 17:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I will work on incorporating the Beliefs and Practices section back onto the main page. SSS108 18:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also disputing Nagel's English article about Wolf Messing. This English paper has never been published in reputable sources and it is clear that it is not the same as the original Dutch publication. The page contains references that link to Anti-Sai Sites and other pages. Therefore, I suggest removing the link unless it can be shown that the English, web-version has been published in reputable sources. I do not object to the reference to the original Dutch article. SSS108 19:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the English language article has been published in a reputable source. Andries 19:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I am going to remove the link from the Main SSB Page and on the Non-Biased geocities site. SSS108 19:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also disputing the following Trouw Reference. Not only was this article translated by an Anti-Sai Activist, there is no way to verify it. It does not have a link to it's original source and I cannot accept Ever's translation. Also, I don't know what this article has to do with the alleged fall in numbers of adherents. SSS108 20:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I admit that the translation by the Dutch American Ella Evers is not good as I already wrote. The article states that there have been many defections "Hundreds of Dutch devotees did the same tearing up all the Sai Baba photos off the walls and throwing out his books." Here is the Dutch original Andries 21:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If you insist on citing the article, Andries, then it must also be stated that an anonymous person using the pseudonym "Leo" claimed that ""Hundreds of Dutch devotees did the same tearing up all the Sai Baba photos off the walls and throwing out his books." I am also uncertain if these types of comments are notable. You fail to divulge crucial facts that can rightly be interpreted as blatant misrepresentations and distortions of the truth. SSS108 21:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I do think that these comments are informative. Andries 21:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I believe you are thoroughly biased. SSS108 21:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my intention to remove the following: "In Nordic countries and the Netherlands, numbers fell after 2000, including an article in the Dutch newspaper Trouw." (along with the Trouw reference). I suggest we remove this reference for several reasons: 1) It misleads readers into thinking that there is a reputable souce that supports the claim of defection among Nordic Countries when it does not, and 2) This claim is based on an anonymous person's comments and not factual data. If Andries disagrees, then I suggest we take it to mediation and hopefully Andries will answer the outstanding questions that he has thus far refused to answer. I also ask that if Andries does not want to participate in mediation, or answer the mediation questions, instead of maintaining silence, he needs to openly declare that he does now want to participate. SSS108 21:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not voiced by Leo (whose real name I know by the way) but by the journalist Koert van der Velde. The article by Mick Brown wrote that the Central Group in Sweden closed down. I changed Nordic countries into Sweden. I admit that I made the mistake of thinking that many defections is the same as less followers. Which is not necessarily the case as many new followers may join, though I do not believe that this is the case in practice at all. Andries 21:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It is also my intention to remove the following: "his Critics such as David C. Lane and SSB’s former followers have footage of his alleged materialization on their websites that they consider at least suspicious and at most evidence of fraud." (along with the reference that goes to Andries' personal site). I suggest we remove this reference because the sentence includes the name of David. C. Lane in an attempt to push the link to Andries personal site. David Lane does not have any video on his site. If Andries disagrees, then I suggest we take it to mediation. SSS108 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

David Lane has published videos of SSB's materialization of his website. The wording may be open for improvment but I do not agree with its deletion video on David Lane's website Andries 22:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my intention to remove the link that goes to "The Findings". Although The Findings has been cited in reputable sources, The Findings itself, has not been published by reputable sources. Therefore, the link should be removed for this reason and all comments taken from it (not published on reputable sources) should be excluded. If Andries disagrees, then I suggest we take it to mediation. SSS108 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not agree with removing the link to the findings. Andries 22:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Findings is a pivotal document in the whole SSB story and the Michelle Goldberg's Salon.com article or Mick Brown's Daily Telegraphy article links to it too. Not linking to it would be a witholding the reader important information. Andries 19:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is also my intention of removing the following: "Sethi complained in a testimony published on the internet that he was treated as a criminal by the Puttaparthi police after he was found with papers critical of the Baba in Puttaparthi." This should be removed because it this was not published in the India Today article. It is not published in reputable sources. I also intend on removing: "In the years 1999 and 2000 SSB has repeatedly belittled the internet and discouraged its use." I also suggest that the following be moved to the Media Section: "In 2006 followers of Shirdi Sai Baba in the Ahmednagar district sued followers of Sathya Sai Baba for use of the name Sai Baba in the court of Rahata. The case is as of January 2006 pending." If Andries disagrees, then I suggest we take it to mediation. SSS108 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing the comments by Sethi, but I see no reason for removing the other two statements. I can provide and have provided on this talk page references for the anti-internet statements by SSB. Articles and books that are already referenced in the article do not need to be listed in the bibliography, media or external link section, as per guidelines. Andries 22:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, if you have disagreements, then we need to take it up with mediation. If you have no intention of using the mediation process, you need to state so publicly. So far, you have been silent and have refused to publicly state your willing to utilize the mediation process. You still have questions you have not answered and continue to avoid giving an answer. So unless you want the material in question changed, you need to tell me which course of action you plan on taking: Mediation or no mediation? SSS108 06:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You can take those disputes to mediation. Andries 06:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andries, are you still interested in mediation? If so, please take some time to respond to this. --BostonMA 10:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I am not asking you whether or not "I" should take the issue to mediation. I am asking whether or not you agree to participate in mediation regarding the issues I brought up. It is a simple question and you have consistently failed to answer it. Your actions have shown that you are either stonewalling, circumventing or not interested in the mediation. The Findings cite sources that are non-reputable, including Premanand's article on whether SSB influenced the judiciary or not. This issue has been discussed in mediation and it took you 11 days (with demands made from me) before you indirectly answered the questions. Direct answers to these questions were asked for, and you have thus far refused to answer them (8 days and counting). So telling me to take the issue to mediation when you have shown no interest in mediation is conflicting. You need to publicly state, on the record, whether or not you are interesting in pursuing mediation or not. What is your answer? SSS108 15:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It does not help the article if I answer the question about Premanand as a source, because the article does not use Premanand as a source. Nevertheless I will continue to answer the difficult questions about Premanand. Andries 15:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The importance in answering the questions about Premanand has already been made clear to you by the mediator Reference SSS108 15:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my intention to remove the following paragraph from the introduction to the article: "Critics, including skeptic Basava Premanand and the former follower Welsh pianist David Bailey, claim that these materializations are done by sleight of hand and say that this can be verified with videos available on the internet. Most vehement criticism since the year 2000 are the allegations, made by former devotees, of inappropriate sexual relations with young men. Followers like, Peter Pruzan, consider the evidence of wrongdoing against Sathya Sai Baba to be insufficient. According to a cover article in the India Today newspaper in 2000, the coterie that surrounds Baba dismisses these allegations by denouncing them as "anti-Hindu" attacks made by foreigners ." The reason why this paragraph should be removed is because it is already fully discussed under the critics section and is redundant. It is also my opinion that repeating (or "summarizing") this type of information over and over is promoting an Anti-Sai POV. If Andries disagrees, then I suggest we take it to mediation. SSS108 18:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What you call the introduction is normally called the lead section and the lead section should contain a summary of the whole article. Andries 20:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Lead_section The lead section should contain a definition and an overview. It is not an introduction. The current lead section is not perfect, because it does not give a good overview of the varying responses to the allegations by SSB and devotees: the responses range from jealousy (SSB), bribery (SSB), refusal to comment (ashram secretary acc. to India Today and Danish documentary), anti-Hindu attacks (according to India Today article), and insufficient evidence of wrondoing (Pruzan acc. to Danish documentary). Andries 14:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I am going to remove it. If you feel that it shouldn't be removed, then you should answer the question you keep avoiding giving an answer to: Are you or are you not willing to participate in mediation to resolve our disagreements? Yes or no? You need to give a public answer instead of maintaining silence, as you have done thus far. SSS108 20:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have today given answers to several questions in mediation. Andries 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Good, then we should discuss our differences of opinion with the mediator, instead of reverting back and forth. SSS108 20:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary to the article. It is not a place to address specifics. The criticism section should be summarized in one short sentence. Misplaced Pages:Lead_section : "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Misplaced Pages:Summary style and news style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of ...' and similar titles)." SSS108 18:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Sources II

Andries, you need to discuss the changes first, before editing the article. I am giving you advance notice of my intentions. You should do the same, as was agreed in mediation. SSS108 20:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not remember this agreement. I thought that it only applied for deleting material with a 48 hours time to provide sources. Andries 20:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You are deleting links and pushing links that go to your Anti-Sai Site. You should give advance warning to discuss this first before doing it. You are not. I am going to abide by the 3 revert rule. SSS108 20:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind linking to another website with the footage, but I do not know any. Andries 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as it is referenced by reputable sources, otherwise, it can be deleted by any editor. I am also objecting to the personal homepage of David Lane. We agreed no personal homepages. David Lane's personal homepage is not referenced by reputable sources and I intend to remove it as well. If you disagree, I suggest we take it to mediation. SSS108 20:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the materializations have been shown on TV such as the BBC the lingam regurgitation and in the 1995 TV documentary "Guru Busters" by UK's Channel 4. So at least some of the footage of the materializarions has been referred to and published by reputable sources. Andries 21:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As soon as you answer the mediation questions that are still outstanding, we can discuss it in mediation. SSS108 22:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my intention to change the number of estimated followers for SSB from 3 - 10 million to 3 - 50 million. Mick Brown, in the Divine Downfall interview said that SSB has an estimated (up to) 50 million devotees. Therefore, I am going to use this source as a reference for the new estimated number of followers. SSS108 16:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove the following comment: "predominantly people of Indian ethnic origin", in relation to number of adherents. According to the Adherents link, 3 million are from india and 7 million from other parts of the world. This would mean that the SSB's devotees are not predominantly of Indian ethinic origin. Also, the reference is misleading as it says "retrieved March 2006". The numbers in question are from a 1999 article. SSS108 04:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a miscalculation on the above numbers. Instead of saying "3-50 milion", I put "10-50 million" because 10 million is the total figure given on the Adherents site. 3 million is a partial estimation that only accounts for Indian adherents. I gave the total figure, not a partial one. SSS108 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality warning

I gave this article a neutrality warning because of witholding the reader the chance to see footage of materializations. The materializations are crucial for the SSB article. Andries 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this article requires a neutrality warning for other reasons. Again, you are attempting to force your POV by linking to your Anti-Sai Site. SSS108 20:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Coming Edits

Andries, I already gave you a 48 hour notice of my intention to remove certain material from the article. I told you that if you disagreed with my proposed edits that we should take it to mediation. You agreed. However, you still have not answered your outstanding mediation questions. I will delay making these edits for today. However, since you still have not responded to the outstanding mediation questions, effectively stonewalling the mediation process, we cannot proceed. If you want to engage in another revert war, you are going to be hard-pressed for giving valid reasons for reverting the article. You agreed to mediation regarding these edits, but you have refused to answer the outstanding mediation questions so we can discuss these edits. You have not given any reason for refusing to answer these mediation questions and despite many promises to answer them, you have not. SSS108 15:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am planning on removing the following material:

• Link to Andries site about alleged videos of faked materializations.
• Link and references to David Lane's personal site and non-reputably published comments made by him.
• Link to The Findings, which has never been published by reputable sources.

I will be removing this content because it has not been published by reliable or reputable sources. SSS108 04:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the findings published in Mick Brown's article Divine Downfall. in the UK Telegraph on 28 Oct. 2000. Andries 18:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The videos of materializations have been shown in various TV documentaries. The link to the Findings is also present in articles in reputable magazines. Andries 06:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to reference it Andries. I can't take your word on it. And we are not talking aobut "a link to The Findings". We are talking about where The Findings has been published by reputable sources. SSS108

If the link to the findings has been published by a reputable source then Misplaced Pages can also link to the findings. link to the Findings in the UK Telegraph on 28 Oct. 2000. Andries 18:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Then link the section about The Findings to the UK Telegraph article. SSS108 18:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am planning on removing/editing the following material:

• Removing link to Beyerstein's alleged book, "Sai Baba's miracles: an overview". As far as I can tell, this is not a book but was simply printed by Premanand in paper form. It does not have an ISBN # nor has it been cited or published by reputable or reliable sources.
• Changing the reference for the quote: "According to Donald Taylor in his 1987 article "Charismatic authority in the Sathya Sai Baba movement in Hinduism in Great Britain", SSB made extraordinary declarations to be God to keep his authority at the center of the movement and he made his claim to get reincarnated as Prema Sai Baba in 1963 to maintain his authority and to prevent a struggle about his succession as long as he lives." → to simply read: "Taylor, Donald Charismatic authority in the Sathya Sai Baba movement in Hinduism in Great Britain, Richard Burghart (ed.), 1987, London/New York: Tavistock Publications, pp. 130-131. ISBN 0422609102" instead of publishing the entire article by Rajghatta, who is irrelevant for the quote.
• Move the following to the Media section: "In 2006 followers of Shirdi Sai Baba in the Ahmednagar district sued followers of Sathya Sai Baba for use of the name Sai Baba in the court of Rahata. The case is as of January 2006 pending." SSS108 18:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you propose? I do not understand it. Andries 18:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation but I disagree on all points:

• • The book by Beyerstein has been published by Indian CISCOP which is reasonably reputable.
  • Most of the excerpt from Taylor (not Rajghatta) is relevant for what is asserted in the Misplaced Pages about
  • Why move to the sentences about the dispute between devotees of Shirdi Sai baba and Sathya Sai Baba to the media section? I cannot see any reason for this?

Andries 18:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please fix footnotes/references

Andries and SSS108, The article currently has two systems of references/footnotes in use. The footnote/reference numbers are duplicated because of the use of two systems and the result is quite confusing. Please take some time to fix these. --BostonMA 14:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, this is your mess. Clean it up :-) SSS108 17:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Not fair use image

Image:Sathya_Sai_Baba.jpg cannot be used in this article. Fair use of cover art applies to an article about the book, CD or DVD only, and not applicable to an article about the subject of these works. See Misplaced Pages:Fair_Use#Images. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists