Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Reference Problems

In response to the subsequent two paragraphs: The reason He does not heal everyone is the same as why God does not make all our problems go away instantly. Why would He take away our free will of choice? To experience all of Life is our purpose for being on this earth. To love one another as God loves everyone. To evolve and grow spiritually. We have to help ourselves first. That is, we must truly want to improve first before Life goes the way you want it to.

If SSB is capable of wonderous healing using spiritual energy, then why may i ask does his hospitals have to be populated by doctors skiiled in western medicine, with the help of his so called energy i am sure he can do a more efficient and cost effective cure of the poor patients. This just goes to show that there are still many gulliable fools in the world who beleive in unscientific and irrational sayings.

If SSB is capable of materialising a currency note with the same number that i show him, then i will give him one million rupees and become his devotee.

I wanted to discuss two issues in the article: 1: David Bailey's claims that the Water Project failed and 2: Jens Sethi's complaint in Munich. First of all, someone needs to provide proof that the Water Project failed. It did not fail and is currently fully operational. Secondly, there is no proof that Jens Sethi filed a complaint in Munich. Jens Sethi claimed he did. The India Today article did not say they confirmed that Jens Sethi filed a complaint. They simply made reference to it (the same way Sai Antagonists made reference to it) and in the the same way they made reference to other second information (even getting the date to Tal Brooke's book wrong). They did confirm they received a handwritten "affidavit" (although it was never said to be an attested affidavit). So where is the proof of the complaint, Andries? Until you can provide proof, it is a claim, which is exactly what I called it. And if Moreno has made the page into a "blog link resource" by citing information on his site, then you are guilty of the same Andries, as you have done the same thing by posting many links to your Sai Antagonistic site (many of which do not link to your "scholarly" people). Your so called "scholars" are not authorities on Sathya Sai Baba any more or less than Moreno. Thaumaturgic 21:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia an assertion (such as that Jens Sethi filed a complaint in Munich) made by a Wikipedia:reputable sources (India Today) is considered proof. Doubts voiced on Moreno's homepage do not change this guideline. Why doesn't Moreno try to get an article published about SSB in an academic magazine about religious movements, like critic Alexandra Nagel succeeded in doing so. If he succeeds then I won't protest in giving space to Moreno's article here. Andries 21:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to separate the homepages attacks from the rest of the information, as also proposed by Jossi Fresco some time ago. Andries 21:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not proof when they related second-hand information. India Today also said Tal Brooke's book was written in the 1980's (when it was actually written in the 70's). Is this proof as well? And why are you removing the devotees and proponents section without a discussion? Alexandra Nagel got her college homework published. Big deal. She is still biased and she is not an authority on Sathya Sai Baba. Thaumaturgic 22:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to explain the Wikipedia guidelines and policies again and again to you. If you think that I am wrong then read and ask others. Andries 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This has been proposed and discussed extensively by Jossi Fresco some time ago. And after thinking about it, I think he is at least partially right. Andries 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
With regards to Alexandra Nagel, I already explained this on the talk page some time ago. In addition I want to state that she managed to get her article about SSB published in one of the most prestigious academic magazine here in the Netherlands, not just as a guest contributor. Andries 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sai Antagonists, like Barry Pittard, have admitted helping give information to the India Today writers. India Today included second-hand information that was sent to them. India Today did not verify that Jens Sethi filed a complaint. Therefore, it is a "claim". Alexandra Nagel got her article published because it was a college paper. Alexandra Nagel is not a cult expert, a guru expert or a Sathya Sai Baba expert. She already admitted being against Sathya Sai Baba and her views are biased. It doesn't matter how much you quote her and reference her, that doesn't make her an expert on Sathya Sai Baba. You just keep talking about Nagel because you are her good friend (according to Moreno). You cling to her like she is all you have. Thaumaturgic 22:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

yes, so what if Pittard helped India Today? What matters for Wikipedia is that India Today considered Pittard's information credible and after verification decided. It does not matter for Wikipedia that you do not consider Alexandra Nagel an SSB expert. What matters is that the Free university of Amsterdam thinks she is. It does not matter that I was behind the question in the European Parliament. (deliberate revelation) What matters is that the question was asked. Andries 22:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, please list the link to Alexandra Nagel's scholarly article that was published in a "prestigious academic magazine". I would like to see it. And remember, college homework does not count. Thaumaturgic 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

De Sai Paradox This article was published in the magazine of the Free University of Amsterdam about religious movements. Andries 22:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Her article is also listed here [1] Andries 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Barry Pittard is not credible. Moreno has already made a strong case against him using Pittard's own words: Since you and other Sai Antagonists claim to be in contact with victims, why don't you have Jens Sethi send you a copy of his complaint? Until you have proof, it is a claim. Are you saying that Lordegard's sexual abuse claim against you is true because it was published on the internet and gave full names to people you allegedly molested? You would demand proof. I am demanding the same. Until then, a claim is a claim. Great, your article on Alexandra Nagel is only written in Dutch. Thaumaturgic 22:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did I claim to be in contact with Jens Sethi? Your idea of how Wikipedia works is clearly wrong. Read Wikipedia:reputable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. If a reputable source (e.g. the New York Times) wrote about the allegations against me then it can also be written in Wikipedia in my biography. Reputable sources have stated that sethi filed a complaint as a fact so it can be stated as a fact here. Ask others if you do not believe me. Andries 22:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You, as the former Webmaster (and now the Main Representative) to the largest site opposing Sathya Sai Baba, claim that former followers have the private contact details to supposed victims. This would mean that you should have Jens Sethi private contact information as well. Or are you publishing stories on your site without confirming them? Again, India Today published information that was sent to them. They did not claim, in any way, that they verified Jens Sethi complaint. Now if you want this to be stated as a fact, then I guess, using Wikipedia's outlines, Tal Brooke's book must have been written in the mid 1980's, despite the fact that it was published in the 70's, just because India Today published that comment. India Today was completely influenced by Sai Antagonists. I will leave the comment about Sethi as is. Now, we need to discuss David Bailey's claim that the water project failed. It didn't. Thaumaturgic 23:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, please take your time to read and study Wikipedia guidelines and policies before editing Wikipedia, especially before editing controversial articles such as this one and especially before reverting edits on controversial, such as you did yesterday. The following excerpt from Wikipedia's official policy (not just a guideline) gives a reply to your concern. From Wikipedia:Verifiability

"Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be verified by readers and other editors.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three."

The above excerpt explains why I will not fulfill and cannot fulfill your request regardings Jens Sethi criminal complaint in Munich. Apart from that I am not saying that all the critical material about SSB perfectly follows this policy but the quotes and references from Moreno's homepage are very far removed from following this policy. Andries 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, it's about time you level with everyone about Alexandra Nagel's "scholarly" material. The article "De Sai Paradox" was a college assignment paper. Alexandra Nagel emailed me and made reference to "De Sai Paradox" and said, "It encapsulates basically the same material as the English article SB Shiva-Shakti" (which was another college assignment paper: Reference). Nagel has been recycling the same material, over and over again, in college assignment papers (just look at her references and you will notice how eerily similar they are). Nagel has done what other Anti-Sai Activists have done, except other Anti-Sai Activists have NOT used their material for their college classes. Nagel did. Now if you want to cite Nagel's homework assignment "De Sai Paradox" as authoritative, when Nagel said it encapsulated basically the same material in ther Shiva-Shakti homework assignment, then you are trying to fool everyone with an article that basically talks about morphing penises! Oh, that sounds "scholarly" to me!

SSS108 00:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

wrong. The Sai paradox by Nagel was not a college assigment but an official publication in the series Religious movements in the Netherlands of the Free university of Amsterdam, edited among others by Reender Kranenborg. Andries 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I emailed Alexandra Nagel about the article in question and she adamantly refuses to comment on it or clarify whether or not it was a college paper. This is strange because Alexandra Nagel always answered my emails. Now, however, she is refusing to comment on it. Therefore, my original claim that this paper was a college assignment still stands.

SSS108 23:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There may be 1000 reasons why Alexandra Nagel did not answer your e-mail. Andries 21:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Devotees and Proponents Viewpoint being deleted by Andries?

Can we expand and maybe add some references for the below paragraph? I think some some emphasis should be placed on the views of Sai followers. Right now, the article seems to imply they are imbeciles. How can millions of people believe in Sai Baba unless there is some truth? Some form of explanation is required.

"Despite the controversy, the number of Sai devotees continue to grow and increasingly large crowds of people attend the celebrations held at Puttaparthi every year. When asked about the divinity of Sathya Sai Baba, many of his followers readily attest to it by accounting anecdotes about the numerous miraculous occurances and strange coincidences they have experienced."

Jossie, why is it that a devotees and proponents point of view, which is an entirely applicable point of view, is being deleted from this article? Why is it that only the antagonistic point of view is being allowed without a rebuttal? Now Andries may try to argue his case on his repeated references to "scholarly" people, etc. However, this is not applicable for the Devotees & Proponents point of view when Moreno is the main source that speaks for devotees and proponents. His viewpoints cannot be deleted simply because they don't fit into Andries idea of who should be posting material. Thaumaturgic 22:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Because extensively quoting from Moreno's homepage that is not favorably cited either by mainstream media and scholars and contradicts their writings blatantly breaks the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:verifiability. Andries 22:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I re-added this article to the Wikipedia:Request for Comment about the use of Moreno's homepage. Andries 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Then how do you suggest that Devotees and Proponents present their POV? Who are they supposed to reference? The fact of the matter is that I represent the Proponents POV. Since I am the main proponent, writing in favor of Sathya Sai Baba (and there are no other active writers), my site is authoritative for the Proponents POV. As a matter of fact, you were the one who started attributing my viewpoints to me. Your attempt to eliminate my POV would qualify as Pov Pushing. My POV can be checked and verified on my thoroughly documented and referenced website.

SSS108 00:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If you also wrote extensively on your homepage (and as the only one) that the theory of special relativity is wrong (thoroughly "referenced", and "proven"), could your homepage be extensively quoted and referenced at that article? Clearly not. Unless of course, the article is cited as a credible source either in mainstream media or preferrably by people who have published articles in peer reviewed articles about special relativity. It is certainly not be used as a source for that article if what you wrote contradicts the findings and conclusions of the latter. Andries 00:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is just one aspect. You need to conform to other content guidelines as well such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:RS. I don't know much about this subject but it seems if we are to apply your argument to the majority of sources in this article we will end up with no sources that fall within what is considered reliable sources, with the exception of a couple of press references and a few obscure books. Is that not the case? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To say that the majority is not well sourced is an exaggeration. Some of the article is not well sourced and, as I said, the majority of the apologist material is very far removed from the Wikipedia policy. The beliefs and practices section that is undisputed is not (yet) well referenced though it is mainly sourced to primary sources. The best referenced and sourced part is the critical material because of the considerable media attention to the controversy. If most of the apologist material (Moreno's homepage) is removed then the article will be better sourced and referenced than the average Wikipedia article of this size. Andries 10:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking "special relativity" and peer reviewed studies! We are talking subjective and unverifiable allegations made against Sathya Sai Baba. You are trying to present your POV without allowing me to present mine, because my POV undermines your cause and comments. If you want to talk authoritative, then you should cite the indictments against Sathya Sai Baba. Since you and your clan have not even attempted to take your allegations to a court of law, in over 5 years, you are attempting to wage a smear campaign against SSB, using Wikipedia as a means toward that end. You have already conceded, on this same talk page, that the "mainstream media" you cite are biased against SSB. You said, out of your own mouth, that they were favorably inclined towards Anti-Sai Activists. Therefore, they are not neutral and opposing views are allowed. Also, many of your "mainstream media" did not take into account, nor mention, other relevant information that is given on my site. My site even links to Anti-Sai Sites. I can fully substantiate my POV and it IS relevant to the material posted on this article about Sathya Sai Baba.

SSS108 01:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

SSS108/Joe Moreno, Can you please explain, referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, why your homepage needs to be quoted and referenced so extensively? Andries 11:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I don't know who wrote all that, but I would guess it's Joe, because it has words bolded for emphasis, as well as failure to consider the opposing point of view (there is a brief mention of one guy, Al Rahm, but that is only to refute him in the next sentence, so it isnt really a non-biased perspective). In short, this is a vanity entry, biased pov, and not notable (if it was a short paragraph i wouldn't have any problems with the latter point, but it goes on and on). See Category:Wikipedia guidelines, and if a neutral person wants to write a few lines summarising Joe's arguments, include that, just like we would the opinions and arguments of any other person. If no-one else wants to, I'll do it, I consider myself neutral. Joe I'm sure after reading this you'll add additional rants to your page against me, well, so be it. I'm wearing my wikipedian hat here, so I don't have to pander to anyone's POV preferences M Alan Kazlev 12:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Even my personal TV performance with regards to SSB is more suitable for inclusion than Moreno's homepage. We could write for example. "The critical former follower Andries Krugers Dagneaux expressed the opinion in the programme tabloid (Nov. 11th 2002) on the Dutch station SBS6 that the sexual abuse by SSB in combination with his claims of healing may lead to the suicide or near-suicide of sick young men who come to SSB for help. The editors of the programme stated that SSB leaves his ex-followers in a state of devastation." Andries 13:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Andries is the former webmaster and current "main representative" for the largest site opposing Sathya Sai Baba on the internet, he should not be allowed to determine which points of view are eliminated without an authoritative decision from Wikipedia moderators. Apparently, the only point of view Andries is allowing is his own, without allowing Devotees and Proponents to express their point of view. Moreno is the main source for our point of view, hence he cited. Thaumaturgic 22:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikiedia policies does not have such a policy. You keep however breaking an official policy Wikipedia:verifiability. Besides I hardly deleted anything I only organized the article more or less as per Jossi's recommendations. Andries 23:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a whole other side to these allegations against Sathya Sai Baba. You are presenting a highly biased and antagonistic point of view. Until your side is weeded out for verifiability issues, you should not be weeding out the Devotees and Proponents point of view. And this decision needs to be made by someone other than you. You were the former webmaster for the largest site opposing Sathya Sai Baba for years and now are the Main Representative. You, of all people, should not be making any changes without an authoritative decision from other moderators who can view this issue neutrally. Thaumaturgic 23:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am not saying that the antagonistic side perfectly follows the verifiability policy but the apologist's side blatantly breaks it. So if there is something in this article to be improved then the blatant violations of policy should be dealt with first. My background (that you by the way misrepresent) has no consequences for my duties and rights as an editor. Andries 23:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. You cite your antagonistic website repeatedly. As Moreno has has already stated here, and to me in private, you were the one who began attributing his comments to him and you were the one who started demanding that references be added. I simply added references to Moreno's comments as you did with yours. You don't seem to mind these things when it comes to your point of view, but you take an unusual hostility when it comes to the Devotees and Proponents point of view. This proves you are biased. Even other editors on Wikipedia have accused you of the same. So we need to take this issue above you, a biased opponent, to someone who is neutral. Thaumaturgic 23:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There are several differences

Most of the references to exbaba are to media article or to scholarly articles by Nagel, not to just a homepage. Exbaba contains many articles by many authors.
Moreno's homepage is neither cited by the media nor scholarly articles, unlike the homepage of Steel and Priddy
Moreno did not publish books on SSB that he now rejects on his homepage
Moreno did not publish a book on SSB unlike Premanand and Priddy. The BBC favorably quotes Premanand.

Andries 23:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

May be an edit war is a good thing because that seems to be one of the few things that evoke the interest of serious editors. A Wikipedia:Request for comment has already been filed and they generally do not help in a dispute is my experience. Andries 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You are forgetting that your articles and media sources are biased. I don't know how many times I am going to have point this out Andries, but YOU said, out of your own mouth, that the BBC was sympathetic and agreed with Anti-Sai Activists. If you insist on citing them, then you must also state they are biased. It doesn't matter if Nagel wrote scholarly articles, she has already professed, on the online petition, that she is an Anti-Sai Activist, all of her papers and comments are against SSB and she continues to take an Anti-Sai Stance. Therefore, your MAIN reference is openly biased against SSB. She is NOT neutral. Where have Steel and Priddy's HOMEPAGE been cited by the media? Who are Proponents supposed to reference? You are eliminating the main reference for Proponents because my POV undermines your cause and the bias you are trying to promote using Wikipedia. Period.

SSS108 23:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And I have already stated many times that it does not matter for Wikipedia that media articles are biased. Please show me Wikipedia policies that says that Wikipedia articles should correct scholarly or media bias instead of following them. Andries 23:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nagel has referenced Steel. And Premanand has published Priddy's critical book. Andries 23:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Show me where Wikipedia does not allow a Devotees and Proponents POV. You were the one who added my name to my comments and you were the one who demanded references be made. Now that these have been done, you realize that your Anti-Sai POV is compromised, so you are making a fuss about it now. You are continually setting up opposing POVs for failure. You demand a certain standard and when it is applied, you say it isn't allowed for other POV. Tough luck! I agree with Thaumaturgic. Someone other than YOU needs to make the decision. You are thorougly biased and I am not going to let you get away with it.

SSS108 23:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, the burden of proof for an statement in an article on the person making it. The person demanding the references was Jossi, not me. I do not have to proof that proponents have no place in this article. You have to prove, referring to guidelines and policies, that they do have a place here. I now have removed all contents that is only based on home pages both critical and antagonistic. Andries 23:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You can quote media or scholarly articles or SSB himself but you have failed to supply one good reason referring to Wikipedia policies why your homepage can be extensively quoted and referenced. Andries 00:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest no more than a paragraph on Joe Moreno, that includes both his claims and criticism of them. For the latter, try following up some of the links from a Google for Gerald Joe Moreno and you will see there is a great deal of criticism (there's a lot of links to wiki mirrors i notice, also). By having both Moreno's and his critics' views, both sides can get a hearing. But half the SSB article shouldn't be taken up with all this, as it is now, it is ridiculous. It looks in fact like the page has been hijacked. You will also notice that "gerald joe moreno" gets only 85 hits on Google, which includes the wikipedia mirrors. So - not notable.

Also, while Andries has indeed been involved in an anti-SSB website, i looked at the articles he wrote for wiki (and made some suggestions with one of them) and i don't have problems with them. I have never seen him make ad hominem attacks against devotees the way Joe does against ex-devotees. I am not writing this to criticise Joe (I have made my comments known elsewhere), but to support Andries.

The antagonistic you are wrong i am right attitude that can be sene on this discussion page characterises the whole Sai / ex-Sai controversy in general and makes it such an ugly thing. i have already written about this from an unbiased point of view on my own webpage. M Alan Kazlev 00:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The main reason why this is such an ugly thing is because it involves deep emotional investments related to giving life meaning and in case of some former followers personal trauma. It is also a matter of life and death in some cases because of SSB's claims of healing that attracks sick young men whom SSB then sexually abuses. Andries 00:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally, a Wikipedia:Google test is not a good way to determine whether some book or a writer is a good source for a Wikipedia article because the writings may be if high quality but "hidden" in libraries. However in this case, the only writings by the writer are on his home page and I did not see him quoted by the media in the google test, so in this case it happens to be a good test. Andries 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Tell me Andries is not biased! Just look at his comment above.

Not even one alleged victim has even attempted to file a court case against SSB, first-hand, despite Pittard offering them FREE "world class legal resources". These allegations are 5-30 YEARS old.

SSS108 00:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to Alan Kazlev: Who is failing to consider opposing POVs? On this wikipedia article, there is an entire section, 4 times bigger than the Proponents section, that discusses the opposing POV! Thaumaturgic and I have been working for the inclusion of a Devotees and Proponents POV, and our POV has been systematically butchered and altered by Andries. He chronically seeks to undermine the Devotees and Proponents POV.

and you chronically seek to undermine his.

sure Andries has his agenda, so have you and so do I. But when someone's agenda involves ad hominem attacks, i get a little cynical.

Furthermore, you cannot write a neutral POV for Proponents when you have already conceded, several times, that you have NOT even read Anti-Sai Sites.

If by read anti-SB sites you mean read every single page and word, then the answer is, i concede, i havent. But I have read a little of the material that is there. The sheer weight of all this material, the sure number of claims, was enough to convince me (even against my better feelings because I have always gotten a good vibe from SSB) that there is obviously some abuse going on. We aren't talking about a few embittered ex-disciples with an ax to grind. I've also communicated with people who i find to be sincere, why should they every single one of them all be liars? Finally, googling your name Joe as i did a little earlier (see above link) reveals a whole lot of criticisms of your methods, so are you the only one who is right?

The case involving SSB and other gurus like Da, Rajneesh, Mataji, etc, against which there have been similar claims of abuse levelled, is far far too complex to fit into black and white judgmental they are wriong and I am right categories. I have repeatedly tried to explain this to you Joe, although you have been decent enough to put our correspondence up on the web, so anyone who wants to can go to your site and read and make up their own mind.

How can you sum up my POV when you continually misrepresent my POV due to your lack of knowledge of Anti-Sai material?

see above comments

You rely on Anti-Sai Activists to sum up their arguments to you in private emails. You accept these arguments blindly, without even attempting to read their sites fully!

If i did, then i would say outright that SSB is a fake. As you know, I have never said that, and i challenge you Joe with all your obsessive attention to detail to find anywhere where I did say that

Even as recently as January 5th, you STILL admitted you have NOT read Anti-Sai Sites.

yes, i haven't read the whole sites through, with their hundreds of pages each, and i expect i never will. I have read pages here and there, enough to give me an understanding of what they are on about. That is why, as I said, I have been forced to change my opinion of SSB. originally I thought Tal Brooke was either lying or self-deluded, now i concede he may have been telling the truth, his Christian fundamentalist belief-system notwithstanding

So how can you discuss my POV when you attack my POV without even having researched the material in question (admittedly)? And you are also forgetting that other editors consider Andries highly biased. I am not the only one who has issues with him. You do not consider Andries biased because of your private email correspondence with him.

I have only had two emails from him, both very short, over the last 5 years or so. For the rest i only know Andries through wikipedia. If you want to call that a "private email correspondence", yes, technically it is.

I think other editors would find that laughable, as do I.

well, perhaps those same editors can be referred to your numerous ad hominem attacks (sometimes infantile - e.g. Robert Priddy is several times referred to as "Priddles") and muck raking against ex-devotees

One possible solution to the curent problem be to have people who either, like me, are non-aligned, or else those who have not been involved in the organisation, and never been a devotee, do the editing of this page M Alan Kazlev 02:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I do not agree with YOUR methodology. It should be left to moderators to resolve this issue, not you. Therefore, I am reverting the article. Invariably, this issue will be further refined to comments that have been made in notable media. This would eliminate even more your Anti-Sai POV. Also, I would like to see you enforce the same policy on the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" article, as well as the others. Step upto the plate.

SSS108 00:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have no problem in confining this article to comments made in notable media, notable books, and in scholarly article and statements by SSB himself. But let us not use double standards in that by allowing a homepage to be quoted without the homepage of Steel. Andries 00:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic logic there, Andries. First you argue that references must be made in notable media. So you cite Nagel. Brian Steel has not been directly cited by the media, but you want to cite him because he was listed as a reference on Nagel's article! Of course, your current scheme conveniently omits the Devotees and Proponents POV and allows full dominance of the Anti-Sai POV! This is unfair and it needs to be resolved by a neutral moderator. Not you, the Webmaster turned Main Representative for the largest Anti-Sai Site on the internet! Reference

SSS108 00:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Steel is cited by scholarly sources then that it is at least some indication that his opinion does matter. Why do not you try to get cited by the media and scholarly sources. Then we can talk seriously about quoting your homepage. Now it it just a clear-cut matter that your homepage does not deserve to be quoted according to wikipedia guidelines. Andries 00:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Nagel also cited 'anonymous' sources in her articles as well. Are they reliable too? Again, YOU are determing what is noteworthy and what is not. My site is new to the internet. Anti-Sai Activists have had YEARS to spread their propaganda and have it published on various media. My site has been around a little over a year and was under construction until 5 months ago. How is my site supposed to be cited when it is new? And if my site does not deserve to be cited "according to Wikipedia guidelines", WHY have you cited Anti-Sai Sites for the last several years? And are you going to remove personal sites on the other Sai Related articles as well? If you want to set the standard, you should at least follow it. Why did you begin attributing my website to me and now change your decision? Don't blame me for your wishy-washy standards. I am not budging one inch. I am in for the long-haul. I suggest you buckle down and do the same.

SSS108 00:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Nagel cites sources that are anonymous for the public. However I know from personal experience that she does contact these persons. But that does not mean that she can mention their names on the internet. Andries 01:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan, kindly post your response in one section. Seperating my post with your responses is confusing and does not allow my point of view to be read without disruption.

First and foremost, why don't you show my attempt to undermine the Anti-Sai POV? I have not edited the articles for quite a while. My comments have been limited to this discussion page and today, after a long gap, I reverted the article. Thaumatugic has. You are not aware of this basic fact? Where has Thaumatugic edited the Anti-Sai POV, removing text? He has not. He simply added relevant material under the relevant sections. At no time, in ANY section, has Thaumaturgic modified the Anti-Sai POV. Get your facts right. Thaumatugic has mostly limited his activity to the Devotees and Proponents POV.

Secondly, you are unaware of the MANY "ad hominem" attacks made against SSB, devotees and proponents. You would have been aware of these numerous attacks had you read Anti-Sai Sites. Since you still are unaware of these basic facts, this proves that your research into Anti-Sai Material has been exceedingly sparse. If you care to read this page in depth, you will see how I already talked about Anti-Sai "ad hominem" attacks under the section "I suggest a seperate section about SSB's miracles". Andries also made personal slurs against me as well, but where do you talk about his "ad hominem" attacks? You don't.

Regarding Tal Brooke, if you accept his story, then you must accept that someone, somewhere else, has lied about the allegations. I discussed this already on the following section: Reinier Sandt :: Did Nagel and Alleged Sexual Abuse Victims Lie?

SSS108 03:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, ok, will post in one section

Thanks for clarifying re Thaumatugic. I incorrectly attributed the edits to you on the basis of style and content, but obviously several people can write in similar ways

re Thaumatugic's edits, my point was that there was so much material - paragraphs - from a "not notable" source. As i said, i would be happy with (and indeed like to see) a aparagrah presenting your veiws,a nd the controversy regarding them

ad hominem attacks. Yes, I have seen them going both ways on at leaat one Yahoo group. As for SSB, he is a public figure. Or are you saying no public figure can ever be criticised?

My concern is however with unprovoked attacks on both ordinary devotees (and I don't mean those who engage in flamewars!) and ex-devotees. Your own website contains many ad hominem attacks, so you cannot complain if someone else attacks you back.

You could have made your case Joe perfectly well without constantly claiming this person is a paedophile, that person is a pornographer, and so on, or using purile wordplays such as "Basava Premanand, India's leading rationalist and skeptic, irrationally and septically speculates on what happened on June 6th, 1993"

concerning Tal Brooke, I do not know whether his story of SSB making sexual advances at him is true or not, but as i said these early claims of his (which I originally rejected, and even put up a page on my website quoting another SSB devotee who criticises Tal Brooke) do fit a larger pattern of reports, which lends weight to what he is sayiong (obviously, I am not talking about Brooke's fantasies regarding Sai Baba being the anti-christ etc, nor am i referring to the issue of whether or not SSB is a hermaphrodite).

M Alan Kazlev 01:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan, it is getting tedious talking to you. I have to repeatedly substantiate each and every single point, because you have NOT fully read both sides to the Sai Controversy. Of course, I have to explain each and every point, because each and every point is important. But when I do this, you accuse me of being "obsessed", etc. You do this even in face of the admission of NOT having read Anti-Sai Sites! You read a paragraph here and an article there, combine it with private email correspondences with Anti-Sai Activists and then draw a definitive conclusion.

Thaumaturgic and I correspond through Instant Messenger and he often summed up my POV in his.

Alan, originally that is ALL I asked to be submitted to the Wikipedia article: One pargraph! Thaumaturgic did exactly that and Andries was the one who kept dissecting that paragraph, adding more and more Anti-material, which required more and more Pro-Sai material to clarify it. Andries then began attributing these viewpoints to me. Then, after attributing these viewpoints to me, he claimed I am "non-notable" and wants to delete the Proponents POV. It seems Andries is adept in creating situations where others are forced into a particular situation, and once in that situation, Andries pulls out Wikipedia's Guidelines and eliminates views that are contrary to his own.

As you can see, I have made NO attempt to suppress or eliminate the Anti-Sai POV. Andries is trying to suppress and eliminate the Devotees and Proponents POV. Why doesn't this concern you? Of course Public Figures are open to scrutiny and criticism. Where did I say they should not be? Even on my site, I attempt to promote a 2-sided inquiry by providing links to Anti-Sai Sites. Anti-Sai Sites won't even link to my site or my responses (they even banned my site from linking to them directly). I think this shows who of guilty of suppressing information.

What you fail to realize is that Anti-Sais have repeatedly resorted to ad hominem attacks against SSB, Devotees and Proponents. However, when the tables are turned, they don't like it. As I said once before, Anti-Sais have attacked me, SaiOnline, Radiosai, Goldstein, Kalam, Kasturi, Alwe, Tigrett, Ramanathan, Sullivan, Krystal, Hislop, Shah, Jogarao, Jagadeeshan, Bozzani, Meyer and many others. Glen Meloy attacked Dr. Wayne Dyer simply because Dyer recommended SSB's books. Barry Pittard attacked Rabbi David Zeller simply because he spoke at Sai Interfaith Conferences. Barry Pittard is also currently attacking Dr. Anand simply because he gave a tribute to SSB at his 80th B-day celebrations.

I am NOT complaining about the ad hominem attacks made against me. I am complaining about the double standards where Anti-Sais feel THEY are perfectly entitled to attack others and scrutinize them, but feel they are beyond reproach when the SAME thing is done to them. Why aren't you criticizing Anti-Sai Activists when they attack the character of others and document it on their sites (which is irrelevant to the Sai Controversy)? I have done exactly what Anti-Sai Activists have done. No more. No less. Once again, this points your lack of knowledge regarding the Sai Debate.

Did you even read the link that I provided about Tal Brooke and the hermaphrodite claims made against SSB? It sounds like you didn't even read that page! This is the problem I have with you. You rather skim through the information than dedicate the time to research it thoroughly. But when I research it thoroughly, you accuse me of being "obsessed"!

SSS108 23:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We already discuss edits before reverting but we do not come any closer. Andries 00:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, why don't you do anything about it? Andries has already reverted around 6 times with impunity. I am abiding by the 3RR. Andries is not.

SSS108 00:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Untrue, I made a completely new version of the article by removing all references to homepages, both critical and apologist. That is not a revert. Andries 00:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A completely new article that completely eliminates the Devotees and Proponents POV.

SSS108 00:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you try to re-write the section without violating Wikipedia policies? Andries 01:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Andries, that is difficult to answer when you, for years, allowed the personal homepages to Anti-Sai Activists, violating Wikipedia's guidelines. Once the Pro-Sai viewpoint was added, all of a sudden, "I" am violating Wikipedia's guidelines. Again, YOU are changing the standard to PROMOTE your POV. Whatever is written must pass through your hands. This is not fair considering you are an Anti-Sai Activist.

SSS108 01:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

yes, you were blatantly violating Wikipedia policies. May be me too in the past but only a bit. Andries 01:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Eliminating Personal Homepages

Since the Exbaba Site is Andries and Reinier's personal homepage, we must also remove links to their site as well since this is violating Wikipedia's Guidelines. The references will have to cited from their original source without links. Since personal homepages cannot be cited, then we must remove the ExBaba links. It is NOT fair to say that personal homepages cannot be referenced, but then have the personal homepage of Andries and Reinier referenced. How do we resolve this issue?

SSS108 01:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The references in the article are now to scholarly or media articles that are also published on exbaba. Andries 01:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Does not matter. You are promoting YOUR personal homepage by publishing these articles on your site. The references in question were NOT originally published on your site. You need to remove the links as per Wikipedia's guidelines. You set the standard, now follow it.

SSS108 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot take this ridiculous suggestion seriously. Andries 01:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I can. You happen to be promoting YOUR personal homepage by publishing all these references on YOUR site. You just said that promoting homepages violates wikipedia's guidelines. You are indirectly promoting your homepage. Therefore, you need to remove the links. Otherwise, my links are going back up. Unless of course, I publish the SAME references on MY site and remove your links and substitute them with mine? How does that sound to you?

SSS108 01:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

well, in that case I would say, neutral references e.g. to the BBC are preferrably as long as they are easily accessible to the reader. Andries 01:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, why are you continually flip-flopping about the neutrality of the BBC? You already made the case (on this same talk page) that the BBC was favorably inclined towards Anti-Sai Activists!

Now you are claiming they are "neutral"! Make up your mind. So your next task is to remove links to your personal homepage and to remove the links to personal homepages on the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" page. What are you waiting for? Why aren't you rushing to remedy the violations to Wikipedia's Guidelines on the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" article?

SSS108 01:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

the BBC may or may not be neutral, but they are noteworthy

Really, wikipedia lays down very good guidelines, which both sides can follow. Joe, I'm happy for someone else to sum up your views, providing that person can show lack of bias.

I would also suggest the main pro and anti SSB links be moved to the Allegations page, the rest deleted. Wikipedia isnt a link directory, so no need to have long lists of links. This was decided before but the links just crept back.

A possible solution to the current war is to find some editors who Andries and Joe are both happy with, and get them to edit the controversial aspects of this page. M Alan Kazlev 03:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the best solution is to merge the article Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba back into this article. See Wikipedia:POV fork. I am not sure yet. Andries 02:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You can attempt that, but to do so will need to reduce the size extensively. The article can neither exceed the 32K limit, nor overwhelm the article itself. IMO, that will be extremely difficult giving the contentious nature of the subject and the passion of the editors involved. A previous proposal was to summarize the criticism section in this article and do a split fork into the Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba article. That, at least would be more in the realm of possibility and is not a POV fork, but a split fork, and 100% compatible with policy. Note that a POV fork is one in which articles are split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. That is not the case here, ad the proposal is to summarize here and split the rest to another article. Read: Content forking: Summary style articles ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, just as long as you remove homepage links, including yours (ExBaba), Brian Steel's, Lionel Fernandez (at SaiGuru.net) and Robert Priddy's. Otherwise, I will duplicate half of the references to my site and link them on this Wikipedia article. Of course, these referenced pages are going to contain links that go back to my homepage and other main pages, just like YOURS do on your homepage. Fair-Is-Fair.

SSS108 02:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge Allegations section with Allegations page

I suggest that the bulk of the "Opposition, controversy, and allegations" section be merged with the Allegations against SSB page. The current page can then have a summary, say a few paragraphs or however long it needs to be, which summarises both allegations against SSB, the responses by devotees, and the counter-response by ex-devotees (and if you wnat very briefly the counter-counter response, though obviously this can go on forever)

Also, this current talk page is much too long - how about archiving it and starting a new one? M Alan Kazlev 03:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alan. That was exactly my proposal above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

I have listed this article at Wikipedia:Third opinion It seems that in spite of extensive discussions here, Thaumaturgic and SSS108 and I are not coming a millimeter closer. Andries 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You have already third opinions from M Alan Kazlev and from me. But I agree that more editors taing a look would be benefital. This article is in shambles, reading more as a pamphlet than a bioagraphy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I followed most of your suggestions but my edits get reverted. However I cannot expand the biographical part because I do not have reputable sources for that part. Andries 16:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny Andries, when it comes to contradictions and inaccuracies, you want to cite LIMF as reputable, but when it comes to other parts to SSB's biography, you toss out LIMF and say you do not have reputable sources. Another fine example of your double-standards.

SSS108 00:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

An Opinion

This is what I propose: That the Pro/Anti Viewpoints be merged into a single paragraph with a link going to the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" page. All controversy and differences of opinion should be expressed on the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba". I suggest the following paragraph and that we work on it to NEUTRALLY represent both sides without trying to defend and extrapolate on each and every single detail. I will then move the "Devotees and Proponents" section to the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" and we can hash out our differences there:

In recent years, especialy the year 2000, various allegations of sexual misconduct have been leveled against Sathya Sai Baba by former followers who were alleged victims. None of the alleged victims, however, have filed court cases against the Guru in India. These allegations gained wide exposure with the production of a BBC documentary, entitled "Secret Swami", and a SBS Danish programme, entitled "Seduced by Sai Baba." Sathya Sai Baba's materializations and miracles have been explained as trickery, magic, and deception by critics and skeptics. Concern has also been raised about Police Shooting that occurred in the Guru's residence in 1993, in which 2 of the Guru's aides were murdered by 4 assailants, who were also said to be devotees. The 4 assailants were shot to death by the police in what the police claimed was self defence. Inconsistencies in various official reports led critics and some members of the media to question the events that transpired that night. In face of these allegations and criticism, the Indian Guru maintains a large and international following. The Organization that represents the Sathya Sai Movement has not released any formal statements regarding these matters.

It seems to me that the paragraph should fairly and neutrally cover the main allegations against SSB. The only point that is not really discussed is about his teachings, but that is a matter of personal opinion, especially when the controversy surrounding SSB's teaching are taken from English translations and not from the original Telugu Discourses. Of course, if someone wants to add a sentence about the controversy surrounding SSB's teaching, then adding the comment I just made about English Translations vs. the Original Telugu Discourses can be included.

What do you think?

SSS108 00:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

that description is factually incorrect. Notable published accusations have been levelled at least since the year 1976 (e.g. Brooke & Narasimhaiah). The only difference is that all the accusations have been collected since the year 2000 and were widely reported then by the media. Andries 06:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

How about then

Beginning in 1976, with claims by Tal Brooke, Narasimhaiah, and others, but much more widely reported from 2000 onwards, various allegations of sexual misconduct- (etc)

M Alan Kazlev 02:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and since 1976 (mid 1980's if you accept the notable authority of India Today) no one has even attempted to file a court case against SSB. Not even one single person! Barry Pittard offered these victims FREE "world class legal resources" and no one has come forward to utilize these services. No one! Zero. Zilch.

SSS108 07:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

untrue, Jens Sethi complained to the police in Munich. Andries 09:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Moreno specifically said "no one has attempted to file a court case against SSB". Jens Sethi did not file a court case. He supposedly filed a complaint. There is a difference between a complaint and a court case, Andries. So Moreno is correct. Thaumaturgic 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jens Sethi claimed he did. He has not forwarded his alleged complaint to anyone. Neither you or anyone else has ever seen his complaint. You are relying on second-hand information from the India Today article, which contradicted your earlier assertion about Brooke publishing his account in 1976 (India Today said Brooke published his book in the mid 1980's). More importantly, Sethi has NOT filed a complaint against SSB in India. As a matter of fact, he has not even tried despite being offered FREE "world class legal resources". Anyone who reads Sethi's testimony can see that something is seriously wrong: Reference Which is probably why nothing ever came from it.

SSS108 16:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

India Today is considered a reliable source in Wikipedia so it can be stated as fact. Andries 18:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Premanand's Atheist Status is NOT relevant

I'm sorry, but I find the "also an atheist" comment regarding Basava Premanand definetly NOT relevant to the discussion at hand, and also think that it's implications (for instance, that someone's faith or lack of faith should automatically be considered a sign of bias in religious discussions) are rather insulting.

Basava Premanand is a self-professed Atheist. He has publicly taken a stand against Gurus and Religious Figures (past and present) and uses his arguments against them to support his Atheistic beliefs. If Premanand does not have a problem with boldly professing his Atheism, I see no reason why others should have problem with it.

SSS108 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a self-professed atheist. I have absolutely no problem with "boldly professing" my atheism, and see no reason why others should have a problem with it, depending, of course, on the context where such labelling takes place. I try to believe that an atheist's opinion on any topic, including religion, should be judged on its own merits, not on his or her lack of faith. An atheist can say and do a lot of bulshit, can have a hidden agenda, can be irrationally biased regarding a certain topic, etc., just like anyone else - this is simply not determined by his or her atheism, unlike the comment in question seemed to imply.

Maprieto 22:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If a notable atheist makes a negative comment about religion, it would be OK to state his/her atheism in the article. That would be not appropriate if the article was on music, for example. An analogy would be a notable source for the article on Communism. A person can be described as anti-communist in that article if he/she is notable for that specific reason. The notability of this Basava Premanad seems to be related to his skepticism and atheism, and as such it woul be appropriate to mention it, not in a derogatory manner of course. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Premanand is also (and may be mainly) notable because of his life-long campaign against SSB. He even appeared on Dutch TV in the early 1990s to talk about SSB. Andries 23:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. His own article in Wikipedia states that he is is "an eminent skeptic and rationalist". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer not to have mentioned that Basava Premanand is an atheist in this article (outside of Wikipedia, online apologists are waging a smear campaign on the critics and make many ad hominem attacks ) but it is a minor thing when compared to the several problems with this article and its editing behavior

citing extensively from non-notable homepages
removals of references to reputable sources and additions upon reverts. Please do not do this. Please restore references to reputable sources and additions
the lack of solid biographical info in this article that describes the non-controversial aspects of SSB (this is due to lack of reputable sources)

Andries 22:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (amended)

Premanand's atheistic beliefs are relevant to his views on Sathya Sai Baba. Andries just wants to suppress this fact from the readers. First Andries said that personal homepages violate Wikipedia Guidelines, but he refused to remove his own personal home page, and the homepages to other Sai Antagonistic sites. Now, Andries is changing tactics and saying that one cannot cite from non-notable homepages. All of the notable homepages and notable sources, that Andries say qualify for this article, exclusively support the Sai Antagonistic point of view and conveniently eliminate all other point of views. Andries extensively cited his personal home page from his Netherlands exbaba site. He extensively cited the personal homepage of other opposing sites as well. Anyone can see the many links he added that go to the personal homepages of critics. However, when I do it, Andries wants to eliminate Moreno's homepage completely. Andries also contradicts himself about Sathya Sai Baba's biography. On this talk page, under "pending tasks", Andries said, "The book Love is My Form (that I have not read) is, I heard, the best researched biography on SSB and used by Alexandera Nagel for her articles. The offical "biography" by Kasturi and several unofficial biographies are hagiographies and not very useful for providing facts in this article." Andries does not want to include the positive information in this book because he is now arguing that all the positive stuff is "controversial". That should not matter. As Andries said before, since the Love Is My Form biography is "the best researched biography" and is notable, its contents can be stated as a fact. If this book is not reputable and is non-notable, then the references from it should be removed. As Moreno rightly pointed out, Andries is incapable of neutrality. Thaumaturgic 20:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thaumaturgic, you misunderstood me with regards to homepages. All opinions and information that is only sourced from homepages and that is nowhere else favorably cited or quoted has according to the official policy no place in Wikipedia. In contrast, it is basically okay to link to the transcript of the BCC documentary on either the exbaba website or Moreno's homepage, but to avoid conflict, I think it is better to link to he BBC if they have the whole transcript online. Andries 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Starting Fresh

How about we stop all the above arguing, and just write the article(s) according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, there is one very important thing which seems to have been lost in the pages and pages of arguing. The role of Wikipedia is not to prove the guilt or innocence of a controversial guru. It is simply to report what notable sources from both or all sides say, without making dogmatic statements of its own. The wikipedia guidelines give very clear and straightforward instructions on how this can be done.

Andries, Joe, Thaumaturgic, and whoever else wants to contribute, and is familiar with all the details (which unfortunately I aren't), can therefore write up the Sai Baba page (and any other pages required) - and Jossi and I can moderate.

M Alan Kazlev 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Let us start with removing all contents ~~references to~~ and statements referenced and supported only by non-notable homepages, such as Gerald Joe Moreno's homepage. That is clearly the most blatant violation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the current version. Andries 19:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (amended)

This whole article is a blatant violation of Wikipedia content guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree and cannot understand this. Can you please be more specific? Andries 20:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that this is a very good article, but I compared it last Monday with the articles about SSB in several encyclopedias and books about NRMs and cults and then the Wikipedia article (even this flawed version) is much better and much more specific than entries there. And, since you insist so much on references, this article is also far better referenced to reputable sources than the entries there. I have not read any information there that can be used to improve this article. Andries 20:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (amended for grammar)

Let Andries clean up his section first before he attempts to clean up other sections whose views he openly dislikes and disproves of.

SSS108 22:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "his" or "mine" section in any Wikipedia article. Why do you object to dealing with a clearly identified blatant violation of wikipedia policy first? If we wait until the rest of article is perfect then your blatant violation of Wikipedia will never will be dealt with. Is that what you are hoping for? To what sentences do you object in the criticism section? Andries 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (amended for grammar)

First clean up the Critics POV before you attempt to remove the Proponents POV. You must step up to the plate and apply the same standards to the Critics POV that you attempt to apply on the Proponents POV.

You must remove ALL personal home pages, including your own. References do NOT require links. Therefore, you should provide references to the original sources without attempting to promote your home page and the home pages of Anti-Sai Activists. You also need to remove non-notable critics and references made to them.

You, Andries, have TWO pages for the Critics POV. One on this Main Page and one under Allegations Against SSB (which has been up since July 2004, without objection). Until you apply your standards on the Critics POV, you will be seen as being duplicitous and biased. A perception you can't seem to shake, even among other editors.

SSS108 22:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This misunderstanding keeps coming up again. What I meant and mean to say is that references must be sourced to reputable sources and if the reputable sources are easily accessible on e.g exbaba (which is not a homepage, but the website of the Dutch ex-followers of SSB) then I link to the exbaba.com website. Online references are preferrable to just naming the article and date. What I do is, I believe, perfectly in correspondence with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Andries 22:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

All the critics are either mentioned in media articles or cited or quoted scholarly articles. There is one person named in this article who is neither mentioned in the media nor in scholarly literature and that is Gerald Joe Moreno who keeps quoting from his homepage in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Andries 22:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries: why, in addition to the majority of the text of this article, is there an entire seperate article devoted to criticizing SSB? — goethean ॐ 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

because I created it and it has not been deleted (yet). Andries 23:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And this is in accordance with your typically high standards of fairness and appropriateness? Please elaborate. — goethean ॐ 23:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Goethean, many thanks for your unexepected compliments. Recent media and scholarly articles have been highly critical about SSB. The set of articles on SSB reflects this as per Wikipedia:NPOV policy. Andries 23:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we to assume that we should take your word for the fact that media criticism of SSB outnumbers other media discussion of SSB about 5 to one, as it does in the Wikipedia articles on SSB? — goethean ॐ 23:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

On the internet, the situation appears to be the opposite. [2][3] — goethean ॐ 23:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the exact ratio, but it is a fact (that you can verifiy to a great degree if you do a little effort) that so called reputable sources like the Times, Salon.com, The Free university of Amsterdam (Alexandra Nagel), BBC world Service, Danish Radio, De Volkskrant, Trouw have extensively treated the negative aspects of SSB and very little on the positive. One of the reason for this is, of course, that these media have no access to reliable biographical data about him. And yes, the ratio may be 5 to 1. Positive appraisals by devotees and adherents do not count for a majority. Scholarly articles and mainstream media articles do count. Andries 23:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Goethean, when I look at your flawed google test because of stated reasons then I see many, many highly critical websites.

Andries, why don't you create a list of critical websites and I will create a list of Pro-Sai Websites and then we can make a comparison? First, try to out do SaiBabaLinks.org.

SSS108 23:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Websites do not count, because a majority in Wikipedia is not formed by the number of adherents. I do agree with creating a list of recent articles in reputable sources and check how much criticisms these contain as a guideline for this article. Andries 00:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries 23:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The BBC have favorably quoted the arch enemy of SSB, Basava Premanand. Premanand also appeared on Dutch TV in the early 1990s to talk about SSB after the IKON and NOS had shown positive TV documentaries about the guru. But lately it 90% critical here. Andries 23:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

With regards to majority/minority positiion, in the USA where he is not as popular as in the UK or Western Europe, there was only one mainstream article, that is the article in salon.com by Michelle Goldberg which was extremely critical (and somewhat unfairly critical, in my view). That makes a 100% majority for the USA. Andries 23:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Your website is as much a "personal homepage" as is mine. My website is not about me. It does not discuss my life, personal history or hobbies. It is specific to the the Proponents POV. It doesn't matter what is "preferable". Your linking to your personal home page solicits your POV and the POV's of Anti-Sai Activists. You are specifically trying to remove the Devotees and Proponents POV, conveniently leaving your POV intact with links that exclusively promote the Anti-Sai POV! You were/are the webmaster for your personal homepage for over three years: Reference Trying to change tactics now is a little bit too late. You have already been caught red-handed.

SSS108 22:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it is easier for the reader and better for the article if the references are on line available and linked to in this article. This is explicitly described as preferrable in the guidelines and policies, though I forgot where exactly. Andries 22:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What strikes as particularly wrong in this version is the fact that statements of opinions (not concrete accusations, I mean) of both critics and propopnents precede the measures by governments. That is far more important than just opinions. Andries 23:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Gee Andries, that is why there are links to my website. To make it easier for others to read information that supports the Devotees and Proponents POV! If you want to solicit your homepage, then my homepage is staying. It's that simple. Either link to the reference directly or provide references without links. There is your answer. You don't want to do this because...you are trying to promote your Anti-Sai POV through your personal Anti-Sai website.

SSS108 23:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand exactly what you mean, but again, contents only sourced by your homepage is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policies and will be removed. Andries 23:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I will duplicate ALL your references onto my site and we can link to them that way. How does that sound to you?

SSS108 00:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If you then also remove all contents only sourced to your homepage then at least the article improves greatly. I have less problems with that then your blatant violation of Wikipedia policies. But of course, it is better to link to the transcript at the BBC's website instead of exbaba or Moreno's website to avoid conflict between us. Andries 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny Andries, because on your site, the references all source back to your homepage! I guess the current references, that link to your website, are all violating Wikipedia's guidelines afterall! You just shot yourself in the foot again.

However, I agree. I will duplicate all the references on my site without providing a link to my main page or any other Pro-Sai Site.

Now, please provide me with a list to all the notable references you intend to use in the article. I suggest we do not edit the article until the pages are complete and you view the references and agree to them.

SSS108 00:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why we have to follow such a tedious procedure when it takes only 10 seconds to remove the blatant violations of Wikipedia policies from this article. Andries 00:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot change exbaba easily because I am not the webmaster. Andries 00:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the "blatant violations" are being perpetrated by you also. You are referencing your personal homepage.

You have to make a list of notable references anyway. It shouldn't take me that long to duplicate the necessary information. The exbaba domain is registered under your name, therefore, you are the webmaster. The "technical" webmaster is Reinier.

SSS108 00:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I just removed all contents only sourced by homepages. Where is now the blatant violation of Wikipedia that I committed or endorse? Andries 00:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the references you cite go directly to your personal homepage. You are removing the homepages of those whose names are specifically associated their homepages. You are continuing to cite your homepage and solicit the content on it. There is your "blatant violation", out of your own mouth. Remove your homepage links and the homepage links to Fernandez (saiguru.net) and other Anti-Sai Activists. Until you do that, you are violating Wikipedia's Guidelines. You said it.

SSS108 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

no, that is not a blatant violation. That is completely following wikipedia policy. Where are the guidelines that say so? Can somebody please explain the policy to Gerald Joe Moreno, because he really does not understand it. Andries 01:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about contents only sourced to homepages. It is perfectly okay to refer to the transcript of the BBC on exbaba (or on the BBC). It is not okay to quote Gerald Joe Moreno's personal opinions as voiced on his homepage here extensively. The differnence is that the opinion of the BBC does count and Moreno's opinion does not count. Andries 01:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, do personal homepages violate Wikipedia Guidelines? Yes or no? If yes, WHY do you continue to cite your personal homepage and remove other's personal homepages? If no, the debate is moot. Remove all references to YOUR personal homepage. Fair is fair.

SSS108 01:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If I copied on my homepage a BBC article then linking to my homepage as a reference is basically okay (though linkin to the BBC would be better). It is not okay to quote extensively from my homepage my personal opinions about e.g. special relativity which would be a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy (with a few exceptions). Andries 01:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You deserve to be blocked for your repeated blatant violations of Wikipedia policies. Andries 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But all your reference pages load back into your frames site and lock the viewer in your site (you can't use the back button). You are promoting your home page. Again, you need to reference the articles from their source or without links. There is your answer. You are soliciting your home page through the references you copied onto it. Give me a list and I will copy the references to my site and we can link to them that way. Why are you afraid to do this? Is it possibly because you know that you promoting your viewpoints by using your personal home page?

SSS108 01:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to replace the links to BBC transcript on exbaba to the BBC transcript on the BBC website. Feel free to do so, but do not make it difficult for the readers to read the references. Andries 01:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, Andries is now threatening me by sending me private messages. This is what he sent me:

If you continue to break blatantly violating wikipedia policy Wikipedia:verifiability on Sathya Sai Baba then I may start a Wikipedia:request for comment against you. Andries 01:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you deserve it. How can anyone remain so ignorant and persistently unreasonable. Andries 01:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I could ask the same question of you.

SSS108 01:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you ask others e.g. on the Wikipedia:village pump (policy) who is right in this case. Or shall I do that? Andries 01:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, give me a list of references and I will duplicate them on my site. Why are you not working on this? You are simply reverting the article over and over again. Remove your homepage if you want to remove homepages. Otherwise, keep quiet.

SSS108 01:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you want. References are listed in the article. Andries 01:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, do you have problems understanding English? The references listed go directly to your personal home page. How can I make this any more clear to you? Either link the references to their actual source, or don't provide a link. You are unfairly exploiting the process to solicit your POV through the referenced links.

SSS108 01:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Where do the policies say that this has to be so? I cannot find such a policy. There is no such policy, but you can propose one if you want. I think that your demands even break the guideline of providing easily accessible references. Andries 01:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (amended)

As I understand it, wikipedia operates, or is supposed to operate, from a neutral point of view. For Andries to link the references to his Sai Antagonistic website does not qualify as a neutral point of view, because 1) the references were not originally published on his site and 2) his site is openly antagonistic towards Sathya Sai Baba. It seems Andries has found a way to cite references, shove his point of view and violate wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines all at the same time. Thaumaturgic 01:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not break any Wikipedia policy or guideline in this, but feel free to replace the links to exbaba to links to e.g. the BBC or India Today, provided that they remain accessible to the readers. That is, I have to admit, preferrable. It has never been wikipedia goal to correct media bias or scholarly bias. Andries 01:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

CAN YOU PLEASE REFER TO A GUIDELINE OR POLICY THAT STATES THAT WHAT I DO IS INCORRECT BEFORE REVERTING MY EDITS AGAIN AND AGAIN? I HAVE DONE SO IN THE CASE OF MORENO QUOTING HIMSELF. SEE Wikipedia:Verifiability. THANKS. Andries 01:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you sound very hostile. I suggest that there is a consensus here before you go around deleting the entire Devotees and Proponents section. I am sure you think you are right, but as stated before, we need other moderators to weigh in. If you want to eliminate all the homepages from the Sai Antagonistic viewpoint, go right ahead. Just don't be deleting our point of view without direction from someone who is neutral. Thaumaturgic 02:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I did remove all contents only sourced by homepages, both critical contents and apologist contents, as per Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:verifiability, but I keep getting reverted without any justification that refers to Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Andries 11:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please restore references after a revert

Thaumaturgic and others, please restore references after a revert. References have repeatedly been removed in revert wars. I have no intention to do all the work. Next time I may simply give a revert to a better referenced version, regardless if the revert is from a version that is better in other respects. Andries 19:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed Tag

I suggest a "neutrality disputed" tag be placed at the top on the Main Page of the SSB Wikipedia Article, just as it is done for the Shirdi Sai Baba page. I'm surprised it has not been done so far.

SSS108 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

This is getting out of hand. Reverting each other edits will get you nowhere fast. Article will be protected until you come to an agreement on how to proceed. When you are ready to proceed, place a request to unprotect at WP:RFPP. Have a nice weekend.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a clear-cut case. Gerald Joe Moreno keeps quoting himself extensively from his homepage that is cited neither by the media nor by scholarly articles. If that is not a violation of Wikipedia:verifiability then nothing is. Andries 11:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Alo, Jossi, I am still hoping for an answer to my question what other blatant violations of Wikipedia policies are made in this article, as you wrote before. Andries 11:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, at least get the facts right. In cooperation with Thaumaturgic, we submitted one paragraph for the Devotees & Proponents POV. You were the one who began dissecting that paragraph, adding more and more of your POV, trying to dilute and alter the direct and concise nature of that one paragraph. Then YOU began attributing the quotes to me (see link below), although the statements are factual and are not dependent on my POV. Then you began referencing each and every little point, and the same thing was done for the Devotees & Proponents section. That is why there are all these references to me and my site: You were the one who began attributing them to me. After doing this, now you claim it is violating Wikipedia guidelines. The original one paragraph was:

Devotees and Proponents of Sathya Sai Baba remain doubtful about ex-devotee and critic's claims. The sexual abuse allegations against Sathya Sai Baba are made despite no court cases ever being filed, first-hand, in a court of law in India. Not even one alleged victim has utilized free, "world class legal resources" to bring Sathya Sai Baba to justice. Not even one single affidavit has ever been made public (despite numerous claims to "20", "scores" and "over a hundred" affidavits being in existence and published on the internet). The petition signatures have never been independently verified. "Evidence" is cited from mostly anonymous sources or people using a first name or a pseudonym. Devotees and Proponents believe that antagonists to the Guru willfully misrepresent and suppress facts about Sathya Sai Baba, which has been documented on the internet. Consequently, devotees and proponents have valid doubts about the claims and allegations made against the Indian Guru. First Post by Thaumaturgic

Andries attributing all the viewpoints to me.

Of course, the paragraph just cited does not do justice to the Devotees and Proponents POV. But this was the ONE paragraph that was added, to which Andries kept undermining with his edits and attributions. People can trace the course of events from the links just cited.

SSS108 12:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I had to attribute them to somebody, because according to Wikipedia policies, opinions have to be attributed. A good example of writing about the view of devotees and proponents is the paragraph quoting Bill Aitken (traveller) in the Week. That paragraph follows, I think, perfectly Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please try to find other media rebuttals by devotees and proponents instead of quoting yourself extensively in this article. I mean, would it be appropriate if I extensively quoted my story about SSB extensively in the article that has not been published by mainstream media? Clearly not. In contrast, it could possibly be okay to quote from my personal TV performance with regards to SSB. Andries 12:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the excerpt from wikipedia:NPOV that states that views have to be attributed. "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted." In this case, attributing statements only revealed the fact that those statements are only sourced from a non-notable homepage. Andries 12:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The views you attributed to me are not my own. They are self-evident facts. Now if you want to attribute them to me, then you shouldn't whine about my name being in the article.

It kind of goes like this: POV submitted → Andries does not like POV → Andries attributes POV to Moreno → Andries taps his fingers for several weeks → Andries Deletes POV because of attributions to Moreno.

You are hardly consistent, Andries. That's because you are continually seeking ways to undermine POV's that compromise your own.

SSS108 13:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted all contents only sourced to homepages, both critical contents and apologist contents. Attribution to Moreno by me only revealed that contents was only sourcec to your homepage. I think this is perfectly in correspondence with the Wikipedia policies. Andries 13:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have to admit that it is reasonably to assume that your view that the evidence against SSB wrongdoing is insufficient is a view widely held among proponents, so I have no problem if this is stated as such and attributed to you as a prominent proponent of this view. Andries 13:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is another excerpt that proves that attribution by me of opinions to Moreno was fully justified. (This is a guideline, not a policy though) Wikipedia:Cite_sources "The need for citations is especially important when writing about the opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to some place where they can be seen or heard expressing that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your opinions or for original research." Andries 16:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you are promoting your personal homepage, your bias and your POV through the referenced links. Therefore your efforts to reference your POV pushes a bias that is frowned upon by Wikipedia. The answer is right in front of your nose, but you refuse to use it because it undermines your POV: References should be linked to actual sources or with no links. I have proof you claimed to the be webmaster for the largest Anti-Sai Site on the internet, that opposes SSB: Reference. Now, however, you claim to be the "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for this Anti-Sai Site. Either way, your involvement is obvious and indisputable.

First you argued that personal homepages violated Wikipedia guidelines. Once you realized that this argument undermined the links to YOUR Anti-Sai personal homepage, you are now arguing against "non-notable" personal homepages, etc. I can hardly wait to see you make your case for neutrality with all those references that go directly back to your Anti-Sai personal homepage or the personal homepage of Lionel Fernandez at SaiGuru.net or the personal homepage of Robert Priddy.

Even though you are supposedly a savvy Wikipedia Editor, you have referenced the personal homepages of Anti-Sai Activists for over 2 years. Just look at your article on Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba. That article has been there since July 2004 and it is JAM PACKED with personal homepages and you NEVER complained about it one bit! Now that there is a Devotees & Proponents POV, all of sudden, personal homepages are a violation of Wikipedia Guidelines. Even AFTER this admission, your REFUSE to remove the personal homepages on the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" article!

You are biased and duplicitous to your core.

SSS108 16:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I had already admitted that I may have broken the policies of Wikipedia a bit in the past, but I have never broken it so blatantly as you. Andries 16:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

And besides, I do try to follow the policies when people complain about my edits, unlike you. You are the first one to complain about the reference and links at Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba. I will try to improve the article. Andries 17:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Having observed this discussion for more than a month, and given that the dispute is very much between two editors, I would suggest request mediation. Mediation us a voluntary process in which a neutral person works with the parties to a dispute. The mediator helps guide the parties into reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone. Read Wikipedia:Mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem in mediation as long as there is prior agreement after all factions agree with the person volunteering as mediator that the decision of the mediator, whatever that will be will be respected. Andries 15:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation does not have an priori clause, or an apriori binding such as arbitration. Mediation is designed to assist two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement, with concrete effects, on a matter of common interest. If Andries, Thaumaturgic and SSS108 agree to mediation, I can place a request for mediation on your behalf. Please write agree or disagree after your name below.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries (talk · contribs) Agree Andries 17:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thaumaturgic (talk · contribs) Agree Thaumaturgic 20:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
SSS108 (talk · contribs) Agree SSS108 16:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I was aware that mediation does not have a binding effect, but it will probably take a lot of time and effort for the mediator and all other participants and hence I am unwilling to have the article mediated unless there is some strong indication or proof that the decisions of the mediator will be respected. Andries 16:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

As meditation does not carry a pre-binding condition, what you are saying is that you disagreeing with mediation. In that case, please state it above, after your name. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What I request is a promise in advance of all particiants that they will follow the decisions of the meditator. I mean, what sense does it have to do a lot of effort when there no indication at all that this will change something? Andries 17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That is one issue that the mediator can address as the first order of business: set the level of expectations and get a sense from the parties about their willingness to compromise and agree to a desired outcome. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I agree with mediation. I hope there is a good volunteer though. Andries 17:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the ignorance and lack of experience of contributors SSS108 and Thaumaturgic with Wikipedia in general and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. They should study the policies and guidelines and contribute to other articles too before editing a controversial article such as this one. All of their relatively few contributions to Wikipedia are to Sathya Sai Baba. In contrast I have more than >10,000 edits in Wikipedia and am well aware of most policies and guidelines. I have the impression that they simply do not believe me when I write that their edits blatantly violate Wikipedia policies. And they oppose to edits without referring to any policy and guideline. Andries 16:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you are such an experienced, knowledgable and honest Wikipedia editor that you openly violated Wikipedia's Guidelines by referencing the personal homepages of Anti-Sai Activists, on the Main Article for Sathya Sai Baba, for over 2 YEARS.

Your article on the Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba was created in July 2004 and it is JAM PACKED with personal homepages that you NEVER objected to! Now, however, you are objecting to MY homepage, yet you continue to leave the personal homepages of Anti-Sai Activists on the Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba article. Despite your hollow boasts on being knowledgable about Wikepedia Guidelines, you continue to violate their policy.

Practice before precept.

SSS108 17:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You are the first one to complain about it just 5 minutes ago. Give me some time to correct it please. Andries 17:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

5 minutes? Try 5 days ago! [4] Also, since you are so knowledgable of Wikipedia's Guidelines, you should have known, for the past 2 years, that you were violating them.

SSS108 17:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I checked the references at the article Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba and there are some references to articles or testimonies only published on the internet. But most of them, e.g. Robert Priddy, Nagel, Bailey etc. have also been treated in the media, books or scholarly articles. I admit that there is still a lot to improve with regards to the reference in that article, like 99% of the articles in Wikipedia. Andries 17:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

can you please discuss problems with the article Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba at talk:Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba and not here to avoid confusion? Thanks. Andries 18:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If that article is any idea of how you are going to reference homepages and notable references, then I see we are going to have a big problem. The problems with the article are too numerous to mention. I will wait for moderation.

I like the way Andries added multiple links under the "Websites of critics and critical articles": 3 links go to the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site; 4 go to Robert Priddy's sites (plural); 2 go to Brian Steel's site; 2 go to SaiGuru.net and many of the others articles were duplicated from the exbaba site and are referenced using different links!

Gee, Andries, you are such an honest and knowledgable Wikipedia Editor! And Andries is STILL referencing personal homepages. Since July 2004, all these errors have been on the article and you are now saying it needs more work!

SSS108 18:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, most of the references on the article Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba are to media articles or scholarly articles, so I do not see a problem. Again, could you please explain referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines why this is wrong? Andries 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, who is talking references? I am talking links to to Critics sites! There are problems with the references as well. The references still promote your personal home page and the personal home pages of others. Make up your mind: Do personal home pages violate Wikipedia Guidelines? Yes or no? If the references are "only" published on those sites, then they are not notable and should be removed.

SSS108 19:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy that limits the links to a certain website to a maximum. At least I am not aware of such a policy. Where is it? In contrast there is a policy that says that all opinions have to be attributed and verifiable. This is exactly what I have tried to do, though I admit that the verifiability must be improved to remove non-reputable sources. Please take into account that both Steel and Priddy have had their books about SSB published and that Bailey has been extensively quoted in media articles. I may have violated the policies of Wikipedia a bit in that article but never so blatantly as you do here. Andries 21:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If Moreno is allowed to quote extensively from his homepage then I am also allowed to quote extensively from my future homepage. Exbaba is not my homepage, but the website of the former Dutch followers of SSB of which I am one of the members. Only a very small fraction of the exbaba website was authored by me. Andries 16:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Future homepage? You have a personal homepage right now at hetnet.nl/~exbaba. Now you might want to deny that this homepage is yours, but I have the proof it is yours Reference. You claimed, for over 3 years that you were the Webmaster, News and Contact for the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site. Now you are claiming to be the Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact for the site. You cannot distance yourself from the site when your involvement with it is fully documented!

Why doesn't it surprise me you have made over 10,000 edits?

SSS108 17:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Where do I distance myself from that website? Yes, I am affiliated with that website, but it is not my homepage though. Andries 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You claimed to be the Webmaster for the ExBaba site for over 3 years. YOU made that claim Reference. You changed this claim recently attempting to distance your involvement with the site. Too late.

SSS108 17:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not make that claim. The webmaster of exbaba made that claim. Andries 17:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If the real "webmaster" falsely attributed that title to you for over 3 years, and you NEVER objected to being called the "webmaster", some could argue that since the real webmaster lied (and you played along), your integrity is seriously compromised.

SSS108 19:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I never tried to distance myself from the exbaba website. I have always admitted that I am affiliated with that website. Andries 17:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Exbaba has never been a website that is de facto or de jure used as soapbox for my personal opinions, unlike your website. Andries 17:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But the ExBaba site is your homepage and it supports your opinion of SSB. One can very easily make the case that your homepage IS a soapbox for Anti-Sai Activists to voice their personal opinions (which you happen to endorse and support).

SSS108 17:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it supports my opinion about SSB, but I have limited influence over its contents. Andries 17:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you Andries. Especially when are currently saying that you are the "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the site. How do you have "limited influence over the contents" when you are the "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact"?

SSS108 19:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I could explain to you the somewhat complicated and chaotic details, but the problem is that you always use and distort everything that other people write due to your ignorance and bias. I cannot even write you an e-mail without it getting published on your website on which you add all kinds of suggestive, and sophists and ignorant comments to it. I would rather speak to you by phone. Why don't you call me? Andries 19:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

By posting your reply here, others could judge whether or not I would distort your explanation. You don't seem to be complaining about all the private emails that you published on your site by devotees and proponents (with all kinds of suggestive and ignorant comments added to them). It's all listed in your Letters Section and even on Robert Priddy's site. Of course you want to speak to me on the phone! That way you would not be held accountable for your words and you would more than likely distort mine. You are free to publish my emails as you choose. I have nothing to hide and I, unlike you, am more than willing to stand behind my words.

SSS108 19:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that your writings are often based on misunderstandings that could easily be solved if you did the effort to ask people in advance. But the problem is that people have lost trust in your fairness so they would rather not write to you at all. I have no reason to believe that you will interpret anything that I say about SSB ex-followers fairly because you already assume that they are liars and deceitful. And you interpret all their words in such a way that supports your point of view. If you have such an assumption and have shown such behavior in the past then you can expect that people would rather not write to you anymore. Andries 19:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, fellow Wikipedians for settling my personal feuds here, but I cannot e-mail Gerald Joe Moreno/SSS108 because he will publish every e-mail on his homepage and re-interpret and distort it in such a way that it supports his basic assumption that the critical former followers of SSB are deceitful and dishonest. So I have to do it here. His greatest mistake that he shows in his writing is his ignorance and lack of understanding of Hanlon's razor. Also he seems to believe, from reading his website, that when articles by former followers are not 100% balanced and scholarly neutral then they are deceitful and dishonest. I wonder whether Moreno considers 99.9% of the world's population deceitful. Andries 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I do admit that I have something to hide, that is the names and the addresses of people who told me private confidential stories. Andries 20:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question about the limited influence that I have on the contents of exbaba. This is because I am not the only person who determines the contents and I am not the webmaster, as I have already stated many times. There are some aspects that of exbaba that I do not like (e.g. the charicatures, and the black band over SSB's eyes) and I have repeatedly complained about them, but to no avail. Andries 20:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What I expect for this article and from mediation
1. Same standards for allowing sources and reference: if critics can only use peer reviewed articles and articles from reputable magazines and newspapers then apologists' material must follow the same standards. If apologists (like Moreno) can quote themselves from their non-notable homepages then I (and other critics) can quote myself too from my non notable homepage.
2. Main organization of the article should by subject or chronological, not per POV. We should not discuss Jens Sethi, or affidavits in two or three different places. 3. The discussion and space dedicated to criticism in this article reflects the criticism in both mainstream media articles. Andries 19:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I read your responses, Andries. I do not agree with you either. Moreno has shown, in many instances, that articles by former followers are thoroughly deceitful and dishonest. As Moreno pointed out, he has done nothing less that what Sai antagonists have done. If Moreno went around requesting Jesus pornography, telling brazen lies, making secret nefarious blogs, looking at child pornography, blatantly exaggerating numbers, etc. (like Sai Antagonists have done), nobody would trust him. I'm surprised you believe these people and, even worse, defend them. Thaumaturgic 21:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum

Please note that this is not a discussion forum. I would suggest that now that you have all agree to mediation, that all of you take a couple of days to cool off until such a time a mediator is willing to take your case. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What am I to do when Gerald Joe Moreno publishes all my e-mails with all kinds of dishonest comments? I am sorry about it. I cannot talk with him another way. Andries 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

FYI, a request for mediation was filed on 21:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC). See: Requests_for_mediation#Sathya_Sai_Baba. Next step is to wait for a member of the mediation committee to agreee to mediate between the parties. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, many thanks for your effort. I really appreciate it. (this is not something I can always say about your contributions to Wikipedia :) )Andries 21:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Official Publication by the Free university

There seems to be a lot of skepticism about my claim that Alexandra Nagel's 1994 article is an offial publication of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)/Free University of Amsterdam and not just a college paper as part of her curriculum of her study. Here is her article in full. And here is the publication data De Sai Paradox: Tegenstrijdigheden van en rondom Sathya Sai Baba/The Sai Paradox:contradictions of and surrounding Sathya Sai Baba from Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/Religious movements in the Netherlands nr 29 Sekten/Cults, published by the Free University Amsterdam, (1994) ISBN 9053833412 Andries 22:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is Nagel's group college assignment. I emailed Nagel and she refused to answer my questions about this reference. She has always answered all my emails and apparently does not want to answer my direct questions about whether or not this paper was a college assignment. That's why people still have doubts. She refuses to answer the direct questions.

SSS108 01:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that a college group assignment is published in a book with an ISBN nr. ? I have never heard of that. Andries 01:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

When it is published by a University, yes.

SSS108 01:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Not in the Netherlands, I have not heard of it. The series was edited among others by Reender Kranenborg. Andries 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

According to several pages, Reender Kranenborg was the author Reference Also it is published a series, meaning that the University published other articles in volumes, which accounts for the reason why it has an ISBN #

SSS108 01:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The other articles published in that book edited by Reender Kranenborg were

Braak, André van der, (Dutch language) Verlichting als evolutionair proces: Een studie van Andrew Cohen en zijn leefgemeenschap
. Schepens, T. (Dutch) Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland volume 29, Sekten Ontkerkelijking en religieuze vitaliteit: nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en New Age-centra in Nederland (1994)

And may be one or two more articles. Andries 02:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If it wasn't a college assignment, what credentials did Alexandra Nagel have in 1994 that would entitle her to have her name listed in that journal? Did this "notable" journal/magazine publish random articles submitted to them by the uneducated and unnotable public? She is barely getting her MA.

In 1994, she clearly didn't have any degrees at all. Since I don't speak Dutch, we need to find out the criteria used for accepting articles into the magazine. None of this is looking good for your "notable" reference.

Ask Nagel. She won't answer my email. Since you are her friend, you should get the info from her.

SSS108 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the criteria for accepting articles to that magazine. You would have to ask Reender Kranenborg. But it is my impression that the criteria are not so much based on academic credentials but more on the knowledge of the author of the movement about which s/he is writing. It is not the job of Wikipedia so be on the editorial board of a magazine published by the Free University of Amsterdam. If the editorial board thinks that author is good enough then Wikipedia thinks that an author is good enough. Andries 05:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The article by van der Braak was clearly labelled as a guest article and not an official article. Andries 05:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy praised the book series Religious Movements in the Netherlands as meeting the highest international standards.(I have read several articles in the book series and I am able to compare it to non-Dutch publications and I agree with this assessment).Andries 06:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

With regards to background information about Nagel, I am not going to post any information without their consent about the critics of SSB here that has not already been published elsewhere, because Moreno has shown repeatedly on his website that he distorts, misinterprets and uses any information to conduct ad hominem attacks on them. Andries 20:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Correction of previously made statement Robert Todd Carroll

I had written that only one person (Gerald Joe Moreno) who is mentioned in the current version of the article is neither named in scholarly nor media articles about SSB. That was incorrect. Another person is Robert Todd Carroll. Andries 07:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research

I have given this article an original research warning because Moreno quotes his views and analyses from his homepage here and he is neither a spokesperson for the Sathya Sai organisation, nor for SSB, nor is his view shared or his homepage favorably cited by any media, nor by scholarly sources. In other words this violates Wikipedia:no original research. Andries 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What strikes me as a clear case of original research is Moreno's analysis of the behavior of Alaya Rahm. The BBC documentary clearly explains why he did not tell his parents. And apart from that it is very normal that committed devotees in doubt who have duties to fulfill in the organization do not show their doubts. Yes, I know this from personal experience and observation of other people's experience and what they told me in retrospect. Andries 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (amended)

Please note:

Just because information is sourced, it doesn't mean that it is acceptable to add it to Wikipedia.
Just because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it. See what Wikipedia is not.

Acceptable sources for a biographical article, include:

Published books and periodicals
Media articles, documentaries, news reports, etc. from reputable media outlets
Research papers and scholarly articles
Official websites of the person and/or related organizations

Sources that are not acceptable as per Wikipedia policies

Personal home pages
Bulletin board, USENET, chatroom and discussion forums
Email or IM messages
Partisan websites created by individuals to either promote or denigrate the subject of the article

As a reminder of what is the policy of verifiability is:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be summarily removed by any editor.
The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it.

As this article is a biography, please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living people for some guidelines on how to treat these. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jossie. The one paragraph I originally submitted said nothing about Moreno nor did it link to his website. It was Andries who started attributing the viewpoints to Moreno, when the veiwpoints were not dependent on Moreno or his website. Most of the references that Andries uses link to his and other partison sites that promote his viewpoint. I think that is what all this is about. Andries is so obsessed with Moreno that he cannot see he is violating the same guidelines he seeks to enforce with Moreno. He and his site are clearly partison. Instead of admitting this, Andries keeps projecting the blame on Moreno. Thaumaturgic 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You will have to resolve thee issues with Andries, hopefull via mediation if a mediator will be willing to take your case. Just checking some sources in the article, please note:

Indimedia websites are not reputable source as anyone can post a "news report" in these sites.
Kheper.net // ditto - Personal website of Alan Kazev
The link to the US Dept of State advisory does not mention the subject of this article.
When a reference is used such as “Charismatic authority in the Sathya Sai Baba movement” by Donald Taylor in 'Hinduism in Great Britain', Richard Burghart (ed.), 1987, London/New York: Tavistock Publications, pp. 130-131. The reference should be of the book itself, not to a website commenting on the source.

It is difficult to check the other refs as the cite numbering is all over the place and impossible to follow. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

- Jossi, of course the US state dept should be mentioned. Can it reasonably refer to another person than SSB? Clearly not. I only posted an excerpt of the book by Taylor. This make verifying easier. The questions by Alexandra Nagel can clearly be distinguished from the excerpt. Where do the guidelines say that this is not allowed? Andries 00:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the book by Taylor, list the reference as the book itself. If you need to add a short citation do it on the ref itself. The questions by Mrs Nagel were posted on a bulleting board and thus not useful as a source. As for the US Dept advisory, as it does not mention anyone in particular so it is not verifiable that it is indeed about this person (although I agree that it is probably referring to him, but that is not the point). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I do not have the intention to check each source,. I took a few at random, to illustrate the work that needs to be done to make the article compliant. I leave the work to active editors on this article. If there is a dispute about a specific source, and anyone would find my opinion useful, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

The policy does not say that the selection of sources has to be done verifiably. It only says that the information in the article has to be verifiable which is fully the case for the US state dept. warning. That is a big difference. I do not agree that the excerpt that is online available cannot be linked to as an easily available excerpt. She only copied the book. The bulletin board is not the source. The book is the source. Andries 01:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, I agree. And the way the article is set up now, promotes an Anti-Sai POV. SaiGuru.net is the personal homepage of Lionel Fernandez. hetnet.nl/~exbaba is the personal homepage of Andries/Reinier (among numerous other homepages). home.no.net/Anir/ is the personal homepage of Robert Priddy (among 5 other personal homepages). bdsteel.tripod.com is the personal homepage of Brian Steel. All these sites are Anti-Sai. NONE of them are neutral. If my personal homepage goes, so must all these. Once these are removed, I have no problem removing the references to my site. Funny how I am being singled out when the majority of personal homepages belong to Anti-Sai Activists. The answer is easy: Remove personal homepages and either link to the original article or reference it without a link. And this policy needs to be enforced for ALL Sai-Related pages, including the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" page (from which Andries still has not removed Anti-Sai personal homepages).

SSS108 01:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If a good media article is available online on exbaba or on saiguru and not available online (anymore) on the website original publisher then I will continue to link to saiguru or exbaba and I think this is fully according to policy. Andries 01:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And also please note that most of what Priddy wrote online was also published in a book form. Andries 01:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The websites in question are partison/biased. You have much to lose by not linking to them (which explains why you continually defend linking to personal homepages). Cite Priddy's book. Not his personal homepage. I doubt you have read Priddy's book. You can't even get the title to Premanand's book right: "The Shambles in Sai Baba bedroom". SSS108 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have Priddy's book at home. Andries 05:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Cite the books, the ISBN number, the page. Take a pertinent quote or passage if you must and include it in the reference as a footnote for the same reference. But linking to a website for the only reason that it is on a critical site that an editor wants to promote, I would argue that it may not be specifically shunned as per policy, but surely is not in the spirit of neutrality and consensus building. The important thing is the reference, not the site in which an excerpt has been copied. I have made a count and you have twenty-one links to pages on that same site, a thing I find excesive and unecessary in most of the cases. If you insist in linking to an on-line excerpt, because without it the article will suffer, find that excerpt on a neutral site, for example, or cite more profusely from the book if you must, or sumarize the text into the article itself if that helps the article. Concerning the US Dept. advisory, you can ask other editors if you wish, but I would argue that including such text without a clear disclaimer that the subject of this article is not mentioned by name, is not acceptable as it has connotation of WP:NOR and may be violating NPOV. I am sure you can fix that easily, and keep the reference that way. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The excerpt of the book by Taylor is only available on exbaba and nowhere else as far as I am aware so linking to it is full within policy. Can you please assume Wikipedia:AGF? I do not see how a literal cite of the US state dept without any comments breaks Wikipedia:NOR. Andries 05:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(true I can fix it easily) Andries 05:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with your assertion that the important thing is the reference and not the site to which the reference is copied. The latter is important too, because it help the reader greatly if s/he wants to check the reference and want more information about the subject without having to go a university library. Andries 05:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So the best thing here would be to cite the print refernce, ISBN number etc, as with any other book, and, if any of that material appears online, to include the link at the end M Alan Kazlev 08:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, but I addressed the two problems that you mentioned, but I think they are minor when compared to the major problem in this article of Moreno quoting himself extensively from his non-notable homepage that is cited by nobody else. I had removed all information that is only supported by homepages (incl. Priddy's and Steel's), but Moreno and Thaumaturgic keep reverting. Andries 05:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If this was an article about Mustard, I would agre with you. But this article is one of the most disputed in the whole of Wikipedia. As such, and if you have an interest for the betterment of this project, you can attempt to accomodate the need for sources (i.e the book and a quote), without having to dab in the promotion of a website. The important thing is the reference, not the website. If you do not accept that, your opponents can easily upload a reference and excerpt from that book and other books to their website and argue for its inclusion. That is where this is heading if we do not stop the attempts to promote personal pro and con faction's websites. Let's stick to references by the book, (pun intended) and eliminate all these spurious links to personal websites, yours and theirs. That will be a good first step and make some progress. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Andries, for finding and using direct references rather than copies of these posted in 'anti' sites. That is an excellent step in the right direction. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Andries, as long as you keep linking the references back to your personal homepage then my homepage is going to stay. Remove all references to saiguru, exbaba and other Anti-Sai Sites and then I will remove my name and webpage. However, the Devotees and Proponents POV is going to stay until the controversy section is fairly and neutrally summarized. You were the one who began attributing viewpoints to me. After doing this, you are now complaining about it. For over 2 years (on the main article and on the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba") you fully linked to the personal homepages of Anti-Sai Activists and never saw it as violating Wikipedia's guidelines. Of course, now you have changed your tune, except it seems to apply exclusively to other personal homepages and not your own.

SSS108 23:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Civility please, Joe

Joe I notice you are always angry.

A quote at random from your recent reply to Andries:

"You can't even get the title to Premanand's book right"

Please read the Wikipedia:Civility guidelines.

You have every right to be here to present the SSB devotees' point of view, from a NPOV perspective. You do not have the right to continue to act here in the sort of abrasive and inflammatory manner that you use on your own website, and in emails to others when feeling you have to defend your position against criticism.

If you feel the SSB page at present is unbalanced and not in keeping with wikipedia NPOV policy, then surely you can express your views in a more restrained and civil manner.

To return to the above quote, what is wrong with

"The title you gave for Premanand's book is incorrect"

Remember, Wikipedia is not your or my or anyone else's personal homepage. It is a communal project, that belongs to all, and should be treated respectfully as such.

M Alan Kazlev 07:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Alan, please save your public posturing for those who do not know you and your lack of research into the SSB Controversy. Andries has made numerous slurs against me on this very same talk page and I don't see you saying anything to him. Of course, you probably didn't even read the full discussion page and that is why you are in the dark about this fact. Just as you are in the dark about numerous points of contention.

What? Are you going to ask me do the research for you again and point out Andries slurs against me?

SSS108 16:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Phrases like "public posturing" prove my point. That could see be interpreted as a mild ad hominem attack upon me, but i'm not fussed over it, or making a big deal about it; i'm just pointing it out here as an example to illustrate what I am concerned about. All I'm saying is that you - and yes I agree with you everyone here - should follow these guidelines, which are part of Wilipedia policy.

Have you ever found me to be rude or abusive to you Joe, either in any correspondence I have had with you in private, or in anything I have posted here in this talk page? Critical, yes. Frustrated, often! But angry, rude and abusive? And any independent readers are free to check our correspondence which you have publishe don your home page, to see for themselves. So I am certainly not asking anyone to believe anything I say just because I say it!

True i don't have time to read every single word, here or elsewhere; as I do have many other projects happening. You have the advantage here in that you are absolutely interested in one thing and one thing only, hence you can dedicate all your time and attention to it; i don't hav ethat luxury, nor is it something i personally would be interested in doing (but this is just me, i'm not saying this to be critical). I do of course agree that if Andries has used a non-civil tone then he should likewise follow Wikipedia guidelines; in fact this whole discussion would benefit greatly if everyone, on all sides, do.

A little politeness goes a long way.

M Alan Kazlev 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Alan, why are you making such a big fuss over one sentence: You can't even get the title to Premanand's book right: "The Shambles in Sai Baba bedroom"? This comment is factual. There is nothing "angry" or "uncivil" about this comment at all. If you want to interpret this one sentence as being "angry", "uncivil", etc., then that is your problem and I suggest you look in yourself for reasons for interpreting it as such. I suggest you follow the "civility" you are attempting to preach.

Have I ever found you to be "rude, angry and offensive"? Of course! But this is not the place to post such vulgar words and phrases that you used in private email correspondence with Lisa and me. You, like most Anti-Sais, try to present yourself one way in public, but Lisa and I have seen how you present yourself in private. You even talk behind my back with Anti-Sai Activists, as Sanjay already publicly stated. So please don't try to make it seem like you are so innocent and non-partison.

Andries is scouring every imaginable reference he can find to smear SSB with. He skims through this research and cannot even get basic titles to Anti-Sai Books correct. This shows how lamentable his research is. You defend him because you do exactly the same thing, i.e., skim through references and articles and then try to draw definitive conclusions. You still misrepresent my viewpoints on your page about this issue. The fact that you keep finding fault with me, but bypass everything Andries says or does is proof that you are sympathizing with him.

SSS108 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to think saying "you can't even get-" is not being uncivil, that is your perogative.

Even if you personally consider me angry, offensive etc, any person can visit your website and read our correspondence there for themselves. They can also compare the tone and language of your website with that of mine, to come to their own conclusion about things.

My position, as i have repeatedly said, is that the SSB phenomeon is more complex then simply being either a faultless avatar or a sexual abuser. But if you want to catagorise me in simplistic back and white terms as "like most Anti-Sais", that is your choice

Yes I talk "about you", which is not the same as "talking about you behind your back". I thought this was clarified in email correspondence between us, and I assume this was likewise posted by you on your website, so all this can be checked objectively.

I have conceded your point that Andries may have acted at times in an uncivil manner to you. But you miss the point of what I am saying, which is that a lot would be gained by everyone here being more polite.

Finally, the objective person can read our respective comments both on these talk pages and on our respective websites and see which one of us he or she feels is being more reasonable

M Alan Kazlev 23:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"You can't even get..." is "angry" and "uncivil"? You are blowing my comment way out of proportion Alan. I wonder why? For those who want to know more: Reference Think twice before making a mountain out of a mole hill. That is all I have to say about this and I would like to stay on topic.

SSS108 23:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stay on purpose=

This page is provided to discuss the article not for other purposes such as personal confrontations and off-topic debates. Please remain on purpose. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Etiquette. If you need to adrdess personal matters please use email, USENET or a discussion forum. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi. I'll shut up now :-) M Alan Kazlev 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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. Wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 [5] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 wikipedia page. If anybody would be interested in connecting those articles to the wikipedia page, that would add more relevant content to the wikipedia 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 ^talk-email 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk-email 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk-email 20:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, secondary sources are okay to use according to Wikipedia. And everybody with common sense and empathy can understand the reason for anonimity in this case. I followed all very clearly all Wikipedia 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 Wikipedia: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 ^talk-email 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email

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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You continue to misrepresent both what I write and Wikipedia 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article is perfectly sourced. If it does not come close to fulfilling Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You continue to be confused about Wikipedia 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 ^talk-email 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. If this is true, then Wikipedia 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 ^talk-email 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; [136849] (2) if he will make a statement on the activities of Sai Baba involving UK citizens in (a) the UK and (b) India. [136848]

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. [136849] 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. [136850] 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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". Wikipedia aims to divulge relevant information that might be a source to bias in "notable" references. SSS108 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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 ^talk-email 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)