Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 5

Relevance of True Believers Syndrome

Andries, what is the relevance of adding a section about "True Believers Syndrome"? It appears you are pushing your POV by adding this section. Explain why you insist on adding this section and how it does not violate a NPOV. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant for the article: SSB is mentioned in the article True believer syndrome. Andries 05:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You are pushing your Anti-Sai bias by including an empty reference to "True Believers Syndrome". If you attempt to include it, I am going to remove it. I guess it is only coincidence that you happened to create the page for "True Believers Syndrome"? Ref SSS108 ^talk-email 11:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the inclusion of this article in the see also section seems to be yet another subject for mediation, otherwise we'll keep reverting each other until one of us dies. Andries 20:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I suspect that we have differing views regarding what this means. From my perspective, the aim of many of your edits, such as the one which sparked this subsection, appears to be to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. I would very much like for you to share your views on the WP:NOT policy and your understanding of what this policy means. --BostonMA 15:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I had removed the true believer syndrome as described by Robert Todd Carroll from the main text in the article, because Jossi complained that people mentioned in this article were not notable. I objected to that by saying that everybody mentioned in this article was mentioned either by reputable media sources or scholarly sources that reported about SSB. Later I found out that the only one who was not mentioned by reputable news articles was Robert Todd Carroll who wrote entries in his book and website Skeptic's Dictionary about SSB and the true believer syndrome in which he mentioned SSB. So I decided to move the true believer syndrome from the main text to the see also section. I think it should stay there because it is clearly relevant for the article. With regards to violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy I think that only one sentence could be relevant in this dispute and that is "[Wikipedia is not] Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. " I think I would be breaking "What Wikipedia is Not" policy if I linked the word charlatan in the see also section, unless of course, SSB is mentioned in that article. Of course, it will be clear that I do not agree with the critical information being minimized, but I do not think that I am breaking the policy here: SSB is very controversial and this article should reflect that. Andries 17:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, thanks for pointing this out. It is apparent I need to edit the "True Believer's Syndrome" article because its mention to SSB is not referenced by reputable sources. You attempt to make your case against SSB by citing the non-reputable and original research of Tony O'Clery and Paul Holbach. Either you reference these citations by reputable sources or I'm deleting it. I am going to remove the references to O'Clery and Holbach (whose link does not work anyway). Trying to cite the "True Believer's Syndrome" article because it refers to SSB is deceptive because you were the one who made that reference to SSB on that page. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andries, thank-you for your response. I am glad you agree that if you created a see-also link to charlatan that this would not reflect Wikipedia policies. However, I do not understand your reasoning that seems to differentiate between a link to charlatan and a link to True Believer's Syndrome. From my perspective, it seems that a see-also link to charlatan would be innuendo that SSB is a charlatan, while a see-also link to TBS seems to be innuendo that devotees of SSB suffer from TBS. In both cases, it seems to me that NPOV is violated because controversial opinions are not presented as such. Rather, the implication of a see-also link to TBS is that Wikipedia is voicing the opinion that devotees of SSB suffer from TBS.

In addition to clarifying the above issue for me, there is a second issue that concerns me. Although it is the aim of Wikipedia to have articles written according to NPOV, it is certainly the case that some articles suffer from a lack of NPOV. I believe that True Believer's Syndrome is one such article. Although based upon a published work, I believe that the appropriate community of researchers in the field, in this case, is psychologists. I am unconvinced that there is consensus within the community of psychologists that "True Believer's Syndrome" is an actual syndrome. However, whatever the merits of my doubts on this matter, I think that NPOV can be violated by linking to another Wikipedia article just as much as it can be violated by linking to an article outside of Wikipedia. In each case, the neutrality of the linked article should be evaluated. I would like to hear your opinion on this, as well as your opinion on the matter above. Sincerely, --BostonMA 13:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I admit citing Paul Holbach and Tony O'Clery in that article was wrong, but I was new to Wikipedia when I did that. However I was right to make the reference to SSB in that article, because it was also there in the original entry in the Skeptic's Dictionary. Andries 21:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you edited the article as recently as April 4th 2006 and you never removed the original research of Tony O'Clery and Paul Holbach Ref (even though this edit of yours was to remove unsupported references). So although you might not have known better when you first started the article, you should have known better 2 days ago. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You are referring to the online version of the book. It is clear that there is a difference between the online book and the published book, because people cannot click on links in a book. I will see if I can find the book with its original text. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A Very Disturbing Trend

The only 'disturbing trend' is Joe Moreno's own continual pushing his fanatical pro-Sai agenda... not all 'neutral' because he selectively wants to eliminate the maximum of critical materials on any pretext and keep all positive sources he can, while removing any criticism of those sources on any pretext. This can be seen ny anyone who visits his bloated website, with its demagogic style, irrelevant comments about virtually every critical statement about Sathya Sai Baba, calls nearly all the critics of this guru liars, with his invasion of the privacy of every critic on the internet, a dozen of whom have been stalked by him by phoning any contact in any land whose phone number he can discover to dig out anything he can to twist it into defamatory ad hominem material (this is actually documented by him on his own website!). Comment from Revision as of 20:07, 26 May 2006 from user 209.200.60.200

I have noticed a very disturbing trend with Andries pushing his POV by incorrectly or deceptively wording references to say something they never did. I noticed this was discussed on the Prem Rawat Talk Page Reference.

I also noticed this type of deceptive paraphrasing on the article for true believer syndrome. Andries paraphrased Robert T. Carroll, thoroughly misrepresenting what Carroll said (although Andries claimed he was giving a "more accurate" wording for Carroll's position). Andries claimed "Carroll holds the opinion that the True Believer's Syndrome fits the psychiatric definition of a delusion" Reference. Carroll never said this. I asked Andries where he got this information from and he refused to answer Reference. Andries made several other deceptive paraphrases on the true believer syndrome article as well.

Andries also attempted to paraphrase Mick Brown (citing Brown's book written in English) and thoroughly misrepresented Brown's position on the alleged resurrection of Walter Cowan. Andries claimed "in a 1998 book, based on evidence provided in the Indian Skeptic published by Premanand, that the claim by SSB of resurrecting, Walter Cowan, as described in the books My Baba and I by the follower John Hislop and in SSB's authorized biography by Kasturi, was untrue". Brown never made or drew this definitive conclusion. If I had not double checked this claim, by reading the book for myself, this deceptive information would have been left in the article.

Consequently, because of Andries repeated attempts to push his POV through misleading and deceptive paraphrasing, I am requesting that all references made to any Dutch Article (including Nagel's "De Sai Paradox") be translated by a neutral third party, before any more references are made to them. I am also requesting that the sections to Nagel's article, that have already been cited, be translated by a neutral third party as well. I cannot accept Andries translations because of his POV pushing, as described above. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page of Sathya Sai Baba. Your comment is off-topic. Please discuss this either at my talk page or at Talk:True-believer_syndrome#Delusion.3F. Andries 23:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Andries is making outdated comments. Notice that Andries made the comment above almost 3 months after the thread was started. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I will follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but if you do not trust me then this is your problem not mine. You can ask other Dutch speaking editors to check my translations. Andries 18:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I should have written in the case of Brown writing about the resurrection of Cowan by Baba "probably untrue". Andries 18:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, and how do I go about asking other Dutch editors to check your translations? If you are committed to the integrity of your translations, I do not see why you are refusing to ask other editors to check your translations. I do not know where to look. You do. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is littered with contributors who can understand Dutch language. See e.g. here.Andries 19:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In my experience in working with Andries I have observed countless times the following behaviors (that I have copious evidence of via diffs)

• Selective citing. Citing a scholar's opinion that supports his POV and chosing not to cite opinions from the same scholar that does not support his POV;
• Interpreting and editorializing text from cites to suit his POV;
• Citing quotes from citations made by other authors without having access to the original cite;

Given these recurring behaviors, I would say that editors of this article to be in their right to challenge Andries about his edits when quoting from sources that are not available in English. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I will not accept any extra demands regarding my edits that are not supported by policies and guidelines. Andries 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree to a great extent with the accusations made by Jossi about my editing behavior. See talk:Prem Rawat where he accuses me of such things and where I defend myself. Andries 23:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I requested evidence from Jossi for his accusations. Andries 23:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree to a great extent with the accusations made by Jossi

I love that – 'I don't falsify information...for the most part.' In politics, that's what we call a non-denial denial. — goethean ॐ 23:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I admitted that I made some minor mistakes in the article Prem Rawat lately, but they are greatly exaggerated by Jossi in this hyper sensitive subject. Andries 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And please do not provoke me further if you do not want me to use more Dutch language sources. I have a great repository of Dutch language sources and I can easily cite them and stay completely within policies and guidelines. Andries 23:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I also request you to ask yourself who is more dishonest in this article, Joe Moreno/SSS108 or I. Moreno repeatedly removed the word boys from this summary though I had referenced it very well. Andries 01:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I suggest you refer to me by my wikipedia name unless you want me to start referring to you as "Andries Krugers Dagneaux, the webmaster to the largest Anti-Sai Site on the internet, hetnet.nl/~exbaba". I gave reasons why I removed the reference to boys in the introductory paragraph. If you want to add those references in the Critics section, go right ahead. You agreed to have this issue mediated but dropped it. Do you want to take it up with BostonMA? SSS108 ^talk-email 03:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, I want to take it to mediation again. I thought that this had already been mediated when discussing salon.com as a source. Andries 05:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No agreement was ever reached: Reference SSS108 ^talk-email 05:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, although Andries just agreed to take this issue back to BostonMA for mediation, he reverted the article anyway! SSS108 ^talk-email 05:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement of Fact

Do we need to have references for statements of fact. It is a fact that no alleged victim has ever filed a court case against Sathya Sai Baba. This is a self evident fact and I am uncertain how it can be referenced when it stands on its own merit. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we need references for this. Andries 05:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

in==References?== Where are the reputable references for: "Dr. H. Narasimhaiah who founded and chaired The Committee to Investigate Miracles and Other Verifiable Superstitions publicly challenged Sathya Sai Baba to perform his miracles under controlled circumstances"? SSS108 ^talk-email 03:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The sentence about Narasimhaiah is mentioned in Haraldsson's book. I will provide the reference together with the re-addition. Andries 17:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

All is referenced in the book by Erlendur Haraldsson page, chapter "The Critics" pages 204, 205. I will revert. Andries 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also challenging the reference to C. Rajghatta "Is Sai Baba on his way out?", in 'Sunday' (Madras), September 8-14, 1985. I can't find any Indian Newspaper named "Sunday". SSS108 ^talk-email 04:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That is just a copy of the reference used in the reference. I opppose its removal. Andries 15:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The main reference in question has no reliable information to support that it was published in a reputable source. Until you can supply the information that proves there was a reputable publisher in India using the name "Sunday", I am removing it. The only place this article is mentioned is on Anti-Sai Sites. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference to Rajghatta is in the book "Taylor, Donald Charismatic authority in the Sathya Sai Baba movement in Hinduism in Great Britain, Richard Burghart (ed.), 1987, London/New York: Tavistock Publications, pp. 130-131. ISBN 0422609102". I will revert. Andries 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition to removing the above two references, it is my intent to remove "Annotated research bibliography in three parts collected by Brian Steel, available online", which is not a book. It is an endorsement of original research that has never been published and is a direct solicitation of an Anti-Sai Activist. I am also going to remove "Beyerstein, Dale Dr. (1994) Sai Baba's miracles: an overview available online", which is not a book. And I am going to remove the books of Priddy and Steel which are listed under "Selected Books By His Followers". Brian and Steel are not followers and have retracted their books, so they should not be mentioned under a section calling them SSB's followers. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The annotated biblography by Steel has already been discussed. I oppose its removal. Andries 15:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The books by Steel and Priddy were written when they were followers and have never been retracted so they belong into the section of books by followers. I oppose removing them. Andries 15:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also proposing a simple reorganization of material on the site. See User:SSS108/Sri_Sathya_Sai_Baba_Sandbox SSS108 ^talk-email 06:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The document "Sai Baba Miracles" written by Beyerstein has been published in book form by the Indian Skeptic. I oppose its removal. Andries 15:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, why do you insist on advertising for Brian Steel and his biased annotated biography when it is not a book? You need to explain why you insist on referencing this material and how your insistence is not POV pushing. The annotated biography of Brian Steel was and is not a book. It is an internet compilation. Your compunctual need to solicit and attempt to advertise Brian Steel proves you are POV pushing.

The section "Selected books by his followers" is self-explanatory. Priddy and Steel are not followers. Period. What purpose does it serve to include their books in the section "Selected books by his followers"? Why do you insist on doing this? Once again, your opinions make it seem that you have an agenda to be pushing.

We already discussed Beyerstein. His article was not a book nor can you provide any reliable information that it is a book. I, on the other hand, have provided direct evidence that Beyerstein's "book" is simply a compilation of articles that were published by him in the Indian Skeptic magazine (Reference). Mick Brown (the journalist you love to reference) referred to Beyerstein's "book" as an "Internet Document". I have yet to see Beyerstein's "book" in any other form. Give us the ISBN and I will believe you. Until you do, I am removing it. You have no reliable or reputable references to support your erroneous claim that Beyerstein published a book. Until you can back it up reliably, I am not going to take your word for it, and it is going to be removed. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Please check the talk pages and archives for the discussion about Brian Steel's bibliography. I will revert a removal.
2. The study by Beyerstein has also been published as a book by the Indian CSICOP as I already wrote, as mentioned on the website of the Indian Skeptic. As if all the books about SSB by followers have an ISBN nr. The publication by Beyerstein is also referred to by Alexandra Nagel in her 1994 article that was published by the Free University of Amsterdam and it is unlikely that she had access to the internet then. It does not matter that it is also an internet document. I will revert your removal.
3. Priddy and Steel were followers when they wrote their books so it belongs in that section. I will revert your removal

Andries

Andries, you need to provide the link or text to the "archives". You simply cannnot make your case that an internet compilation is a book and should be cited in the books section. You are promoting original research because it suits your POV. Mick Brown said Beyerstein's book was an "internet document". Mick Brown is a reputable source. The Indian CSICOP and Premanand are not different entities. They are one and the same. It doesn't matter if Nagel referred to it, it is not a book. It is some sort of collection of articles taken from the Indian Skeptic magazine. Priddy and Steel are no longer followers and are not going to be listed under a section that refers to them as followers. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, a link to Brian Steel's site has already been provided, through which his annotated bibliography can be found. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If a fact is self-evident, it may not need to be cited--but it doesn't need to be stated either. If you feel the need to say it, that is an indication that it is in fact NOT self-evident, and therefore it should be cited. HeBhagawan 18:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Translator Needed

I have created the following page for Dutch text in need of translating into English. If anyone knows a neutral Dutch Speaker who can translate, please have them view User:SSS108/Dutch_Translation_Help I will not accept the translations of anyone associated with Andries, Andries exbaba site or anyone promoting or holding bias against SSB. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

For those who support a translation of the Dutch text, please add your name on under the "Supported" tag on the following link: Support Dutch Translation: Add Name In the meantime, I am also asking other Dutch users for help. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem to do a translation that other, neutral, people can check. Andries 17:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I will check Andries's translation. I've skimmed through it and don't think that redoing it is necessary. I'll provide a short explanation of changes at the end of it so people can follow what I've done. I'd never heard of Sathya Sai Baba before this, so I should be neutral enough for anyone.

After I'm done, I suggest the translation request be moved into the recently completed translations area for the standard month so that other proofreaders can have a go at it. Kimberley Verburg 17:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, then please add your name to the "Supported" list. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries's translation has now been checked and can be found (along with a short explanation of the corrections) at User_talk:Andries/Translations_SSB_1. Kimberley Verburg 15:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraphs

Andries, I created a page regarding the Introductory Paragraphs at: User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox There is a section for disagreements. Please list your disagreements first before editing the introductory paragraphs. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

1. the statement that the nr of devotees did not diminish cannot be written down as fact
2. The statement that the accusations that there are no legal complaints should be dated (i.e. year 2000) and the case of Sethi who filed a complaint to the police in Germany should be added

Andries 19:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There are some more issues among other the claim to be Shiva Shakti that is described contradictory in SSB literature. Andries 19:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You cannot use the US state dept "unconfirmed" as if it is certain that it relates to SSB. I mean, this is not how the US state dept. statement is used elsewhere in the article and it should be treated consistently throughout the article: not treat it as a great source in the summary/intro when stating that the accusations are "unconfirmed" while treating it elsewhere in the article with great skepticism when mentioning the allegation. Andries 19:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries:

• Regarding numbers not diminishing, that is why I used the word "appeared": "and the allegations have not appeared to impact the Guru's following". It's referenced. If you want me to use the word "seems", let me know.
• Regarding Sethi, that is already mentioned and fully discussed in the Critics section. The introduction is not a place to make the debate and start naming specifics. It is a summary.
• Regarding Shiva Shakti contradictions, you need to cite reputable sources. Also, if there are reputable sources that discuss contradictions, it can be discussed in the critics section. Again, the introduction is not a place to make the debate and start naming specifics. It is a summary.
• If you do not believe that the US State Dept. "certainly" relates to SSB, then we should remove all references to it from the aricle. So which is it: Does the US State Dept. warning refer to SSB or not? If the US State Dept. warning can be cited, then its contents can also be cited. You may not want to use it that way, but I do. The fact that the warning specifically and unequivocally states the allegations are "unconfirmed" is an important fact.

I will add the date about no court cases being filed in India. But I am also going to cite Goldberg, so the year will 2001, not 2000. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, if you state that no victims have filed a complaint then Sethi should be mentioned too. I won't accept otherwise.

The not-diminishing nr. of devotees should be attributed

Regarding the US state dept. warning it does not matter what I believe. What matters is that one sources should be treated consistently throughout the whole article.

Andries

The article specifically states that no complaints have been filed in India. India Today said that Sethi filed a complaint in his country, not in India. If the statement said no one filed any complaints, then that would be a different story. The article does not say that, so your point is moot. The fact remains that no one has even attempted to file a court case or official complaint in India, first-hand (where it would really matter). SSS108 ^talk-email 20:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason why Sethi did not file a complaint in India which will be clear when reading his internet testimony. Andries 20:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If it is reputably cited, then use it in the critics section. Any other complaints with the introductory paragraphs? SSS108 ^talk-email 21:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Original Text From Nagel's Article Needed

Andries, I am requesting the original Dutch text from Nagel's article: Een mysterieuze ontmoeting... :Sai Baba en mentalist Wolf Messing. I want the full paragraph that contains the following section: "Sai Baba was in 1927 één jaar oud - of nog niet eens geboren (er bestaat discussie over zijn geboortejaar.)" I would like it translated. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

“Terugkerend naar het begin: het verhaal van Sai Baba over zijn ontmoeting met Wolf Messing in 1937 op een station in Zuid-India kan nooit hebben plaatsgevonden. Nergens in het materiaal van Messing wordt 1937 als het jaar van een reis naar India vermeld. Messing bezocht het land in 1927. Evenmin valt in het Messing-materiaal een aanwijzing to ontdekken dat Messing mogelijk een tweede keer, veronderstel in 1937, India zou hebben bezocht. Sai Baba was in 1927 één jaar oud of – of nog niet eens geboren (er bestaat discussie over zijn geboortejaar). Sai Baba deed het voorkomen dat Messing eerst in Rusland was en Stalin benaderde en vervolgens in Wenen Freud ontmoette, hetgeen een omkering van de feiten inhoudt. “ Andries 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Andries. The text you just cited disqualifies it's citation in the article. We must either remove Nagel's reference to SSB's 2nd birthday being on October 4, 1929 (a claim she never made), or state that Nagel reported an ambiguous birthday in the year 1927. Which do you choose? SSS108 ^talk-email 21:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

She writes that he may have been born either in 1926 or not yet born in 1927. You can state that in the article, but of course any knowledgeable reasonable person will admit that she refers to the discussion about the school register. Andries 21:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But is it cited in reputable sources? SSS108 ^talk-email 21:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am removing Nagel's reference regarding SSB's second birthday User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox. Once you find reputable sources, you can re-add it. If you have no further disagreements with the introductory paragraphs, I will edit the article with the new changes. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

At least we have a reputable source that says that SSB was may be later born than 1927. I do not accept as a statement of fact that he was born on 23 Nov. 1926 when there is doubts about it. Andries 05:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did Nagel get that date from? It is my opinion that Nagel's research is inferior and her reference to "1927" proves this. What is amusing about this is how you criticize SSB's traditional birth date because there are "doubts" about it, yet you try to defend Nagel's "1927" date when there are far more doubts about that date than the traditional one! Shocking how you accept this, and even worse attempt to endorse it! Where did Nagel get that date from? What sources did she use? Or did she just reach into a hat and pick a number? SSS108 ^talk-email 05:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It is basically irrelevant where she got that year from, though I think she got it from the school register. What matters is that a reputable sources says that SSB may be born later than 1927. Andries 16:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It is "irrelevant"? Nagel did not get that date from the school register. The school register gave the date of October 4th 1929 (along with other unbelievable birth-dates). It did not make some vague reference to "1927". You have no idea where Nagel got that date from. Nagel gave no references for that date. The date she gave is entirely without merit and you wholeheartedly defend and believe it! SSS108 ^talk-email 16:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I will check it, but she copiously referred to Brian Steel's writings in her article, so I think that is where she got it from. I think that the reason why she did not mention the year 1929 is because she was not writing an article about SSB, but about Messing. Andries 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The question of SSB's birthday is a biographical or an historical question. What is the majority opinion among biographers and historians regarding SSB's birth date? Is there a significant minority opinion among biographers and historians regarding SSB's birth date? --BostonMA 16:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no significant majority because there is not a single serious biography of SSB. Andries 17:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Like professional historians and biographers, reporters for reputable newspapers are expected to check the facts which they report. Can one discern a majority opinion amongst reporters for reputable newspapers? --BostonMA 17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reputable sources say SSB was born on November 23rd 1926. Andries can cite only one source: Nagel. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The doubts about the birth year of SSB are a few years old, so that is why older materials mention the birth year of 1926 as a fact. Andries 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The document in question existed since the 1940's and it was rejected for a variety of reasons, as explained in the LIMF (Love Is My Form) book. Among the errors with this document are the recording of 10 birthdates (out of 12) as being on "July 1st". These types of school records are not accepted as valid documents for establishing a date of birth. Thaumaturgic 19:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The school register was not rejected with certainty by Nagel and Steel, as can be seen from their writings. Andries 19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And neither Nagel or Steel took into consideration other inaccuracies on the school record, as can be seen in their writings. They only focused on SSB's information and dismissed everything else. That doesn't sound thorough or non-biased to me. SSS108 ^talk-email 07:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, Nagel did not refer to Brian Steel's article in her original paper. She referred to him on the internet version of the paper (which has not been published in reputable sources). If Nagel did cite Steel, one is left to wonder where she got the date from, considering that Steel never said anything about SSB being born in 1927.

BostonMA, Andries can only cite one reputable source for an alternate dob for SSB. The overwhelming majority opinion gives SSB's birthdate as November 23 1926. Andries cites Nagel, who apparently did not cite anyone else. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nagel did not write that SSB was born in 1927. Andries 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Who knows what Nagel wrote? I am uncertain if even she knew, as she has no references to back it up. Provide us with the references Nagel used for that date. Even if she alluded to SSB being conceived in 1927, then he would have been born in 1928 (still a year away from the school record date). SSS108 ^talk-email 07:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Andries, we already discussed Jens Sethi and you did not refute the points I made. That you are editing the article with your changes after I asked you if you agreed to the paragraphs (to which you did not respond) is entirely inappropriate. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I found your arguments entirely unconvincing and I did not think and do not think that further discussion would have yielded something. Andries 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You expressed your disapproval and I justified my edits. After justifying my edits, you choose not to refute my comments. Even after asking you, a couple of times, if you had any disagreements with the proposed edits, you remained silent and now you forcing your views when you had every opportunity to resolve them when I asked you. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not have to state more than once with a reason that and why I disagree. Andries 17:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider it a detail that Jens Sethi filed a complaint in Munich. Andries 17:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The entire point of the discussion was to reach a consensus on the introduction. Expressing your disapproval once and expecting me to infer your intentions and read your mind is preposterous. I asked you several times if you agreed with the introduction (and I made edits to accomodate your disagreements). You refused to answer (as you have done in the past). This type of behavior is inappropriate and I can't help to wonder why you persist in your silent mode until an edit is made and then you start arguing you views. I gave you every opportunity to discuss the edits and I only made the edit after you did not express any further disagreements. There does not seem to be any way to deal with you rationally. If I make an edit without your consent, I am wrong. If I make an edit after asking for your consent (to which you do not respond) I am wrong. Something is very wrong with this picture. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What you write is untrue: I did raise objections this time and I was specific where and why I disagreed. Andries 17:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Let us see your "objections", my response and you failure to refute my response: Reference SSS108 ^talk-email 17:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the time and energy to raise extensive discussions about every point that you make within 48 hours. I have a job to do. I wrote down where I disagreed and to a great extent with reasons, but you went ahead anyway. Andries 17:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been very active and vocal on wikipedia in the last 24 hours and if you had objections, you should have said so. I am not a telepath or a clairvoyant. I asked you to respond and you chose not to. Accept responsiblity for your choices and actions. You apparently have lots of time to debate me and argue in favor or your points, but you have no time to respond to my questions. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You cannot exactly say that I have not objected to your edits and your proposal. Nearly everything that I wrote down was an objection to your edit or your proposal. Sorry, what are your questions that you are waiting for? Andries 17:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

They were already asked! I proposed edits → You raised some points of contention → I responded to your points of contention and amended the proposed edits to meet some of your concerns → I asked if you had any furher concerns → You stayed silent (indicating you did not) → I made the edits → Now you are objecting to them. I will be back later tonight if you want to take it up then :-) SSS108 ^talk-email 17:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you willing to go back to the sandbox and work on it? I will quickly update the sandbox with the latest edit and we can discuss it there (if you are willing) User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox SSS108 ^talk-email 17:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any unanswered questions by you for me except the one that you asked 5 minutes ago about the sources that Nagel used for SSB's birtdate in her article about Messing. Andries 17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

May be there was a misunderstanding, because I only looked at your proposal once and wrote down most of my concerns and objections here once. Andries 18:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Andries. I think you are confused about SSS108's "question". The question SSS108 asked was whether you had any other complaints with the edits he proposed. SSS108 also stated that he was going to update the article with his edits if you did not express further disagreement. You did not answer his question or express further disagreement. That is why he updated the article. I think you need to be aware that when someone asks you a question and states that they are going to make an edit, either you respond or face the consequences of your decision to not give a response. One of these consequences is having the article reverted, which I have done. Thaumaturgic 18:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with your interpretation, but anyway, as per the agreement made, all non-objections lose their value after 48 hours. Andries 19:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, let us put aside our differences of opinion. This type of arguing is not constructive. On a pro-active and constructive note, are you willing to work on the introduction on the sandbox link that SSS108 provided? From what I have read so far, I think BostonMA is willing to help mediate the discussion there. Thaumaturgic 19:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To avoid further misunderstanding the following. When I have stated once that I disagree with SSS108 and explained why then I find further arguments by SSS108 unconvincing unless I state otherwise: I do not have to state again and again that I do not agree with SSS108 and provide extensive explanations within 48 hours. Andries 06:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thaumaturgic, your assessment of the situation is correct. Thank you.

Andries, are you willing to resolve your disagreements on the sandbox link provided? Yes or no? I would like to see a public answer. If you do not agree, then tell me by which means you intend to resolve our disagreements.

Perhaps I should follow your example: If you choose to make an edit that I disagree with, I will simply state my disagreement once and refuse to cooperate or discuss the matter further with you and resort instead of reverting the article. Does that sound fair to you? Then again you don't need to answer that question. You already have. SSS108 ^talk-email 07:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not that I am unwilling to discuss with you proposed changes, but do not expect an extensive discussion from me within 48 hours and if I do not provide an extensive discussion within 48 hours then do not see this as "no objection". And please understand that the agreed upon proposal about implementation of policies states change in singular, not changes. Of course when there are many proposed changes in a short time then 48 hours is not enough for me to dicuss each of them extensively. Andries 07:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I informed you of my intention to make the edits and even asked you if you had disagreements. You chose not to answer. If you did not agree, you should have said so. Yes, it's that simple. SSS108 ^talk-email 07:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I was not exactly quiet about my disagreements and I edited your summary as per the disagreements that I voiced here. That is as simple as that.Andries 07:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely cannot understand the disagreement between me and SSS108 about me making objections or no objections to his proposal for the summary (that SSS108 mistakenly calls "introduction"). I wrote the objections clearly down on this talk for everybody to see. May be some outsiders can comment? Thanks. Andries 07:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Back to square one. I am not going to repeat myself again. When you decide you are ready, the sandbox link is there for you to express your disagreement on, so that we can work on it together. I intend to work on it with or without you :-) SSS108 ^talk-email 07:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went there and wrote down again the objections that I had already written down here. I will try to give a more extensive reason for them later. Andries 08:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Procedural matters

First of all I would like to separate procedural discussions from discussions regarding contents. Say let's do them here Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Editing procedures Secondly I never agreed to first discuss well-referenced additions such as the Beyerstein via Matthijs van der Meer's addition to this article before making them. Discussing additions before making them contradicts the generally accepted practice in Wikipedia. Andries 17:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 Banned

SSS108 just contacted me and wanted to let others know that User:FreakOfNature banned him from Wikipedia without warning. Since I agree with SSS108 edits, I will take off where he left and I suspect I will be banned next. It is my hope that other editors will discuss User:FreakOfNature actions when Andries actions are just as disruptive and "warring" as he said SSS108's actions were. Thaumaturgic 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thaumaturgic. User:Freakofnurture blocked Andries for 24 hours under the WP:3RR rule. He/she also blocked User:SSS108 for 24 hours for edit warring. The block of Andries was within User:Freakofnurture's right as an administrator. The block of User:SSS108 was User:Freakofnurture's judgement call. Your judgement or my judgement may differ, but it is my opinion that the best course of action is to stay calm, and avoid taking actions which might make the situation worse. Since you are in contact with SSS108, please express to him my regrets at this turn of events, and for my failure to sufficiently warn him regarding the possible intervention of administrators. --BostonMA 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries is also currently blocked.

Wikipedia policy does not require sources to be in english.Geni 17:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I was not aware that Andries was also blocked. Geni, I know that sources do not need to be in English. As SSS108 pointed out, there is disagreement over the translations being used from Dutch articles. A neutral translation is being sought due to what is seen as incorrect "paraphrasing" by Andries. Thaumaturgic 18:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that inaccurate translations and incorrect paraphrasing are two different things. You reverted my edit with the justification that the translation had to be checked first, thought there is no such policy or guideline in Wikipedia. In addition the translation into English was done by Matthijs van der Meer who was also the author of the original Dutch article, so I think that the revert because of language check was completely unjustified. Or may be I miss something? The source for my edit was apart from the book by Mick Brown the following: Dutch New Age magazine "Spiegelbeeld" under title "Sai Baba & de waarheid het verhaal van een bevochten ontgoocheling" October issue 2000 English translation available online Dutch original by Matthijs van der Meer Andries 17:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

we are not short of people who speak dutch Category:User_nl-N.Geni 20:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Geni, do you think you would be able to help get the Dutch material translated on this sandbox page — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SSS108/Dutch_Translation_Help? Thaumaturgic 05:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

===>I already made the translations here<===. You can request them to be checked for neutrality and accuracy. I do not accept restrictions on my behavior that are neither supported by policies and guidelines nor by a more or less official verdict against me e.g. by a request for comments. Nevertheless, please do try to find people who are willing to check my translations, which I think is only very little work for one of the many persons in Wikipedia who know both Dutch and English well. Andries 17:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I intend to make the following changes

Please express disagreements with reasons

1. re-add the bibliogrpahy by Brian Steel: we cannot list all books in the article, but we can add a link to Steel's list that contains nearly all books

2. re-add books by Steel and Priddy under the section followers

3. re-phrase the lead section to include various rebuttals. not just anti-Hindu

4. add attribution for non-diminishing devotees in summary

5. add Jens Sethi in summary

6. add statement to summary from BBC website and salon.com that it is difficult to prosecute SSB in India

7. remove statement from US dept of state from summary

8. rename Bibliography subsections into "books and articles"

9. re-add Matthijs van der Meer's description of Beyerstein's study

10. re-add statement from Mick Brown's book about discrepancy between statements by SBB about historical events and generally accepted accounts

11. Add contradictory staments about Shiva Shakti claim to summary: the current version is now one-sided, and uses only one source

Andries 05:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Andries proposed edits, as they are controversial, and will revert them. I suggest we attempt to take this to mediation and have our differences of opinion resolved through a neutral 3rd party. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Taking this into mediation is a good idea. It is better to have your differences of opinion resolved through a NEUTRAL 3rd party. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This goes on and on and on (and on)

I have never seen anything like these talk pages! But i know there are ones just as bad, and indeed probably even worse if that is possible, here on Wikipedia. I would have a nervous breakdown were I involved in this sort of mental trench warfare! Isn't there some way that both sides can come to an agreement? After all, there are standard guidelines for use of references on Wikipedia. The goal, as we all know and agree, is neither to accuse nor to defend SSB (that's what your respective home pages are for), but simply to report what others say about him, regardless of whether or not one agrees with their support or criticism. e.g. The Howard Murphett books (which introduced me to SSB back in the early 1980s) and the BBC "Secret Swami" video are equally notable and their claims can equally be included, as should all other such references. Since one is simply reporting what these external sources say, i fail to understand the reason for this endless bickering, each side clawing for every inch of ground, and not wanting to give an inch to their opponent. M Alan Kazlev 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

New Request For Mediation

New Request For Mediation SSS108 ^talk-email 04:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Court Records For Self-Dismissed Case

The court records do not belong in this article as they are records of a case that was withdrawn. This is in line with Wikipedia policy. Therefore it should be deleted by all serious and neutral editors who find this constantly re-posted. Therefore none of the testimony presented is the result of any ajudication. The presentation of the records as made by Robert Baskin's helper, Gerald Moreno, is prejudicial. It is based entirely on the subjective opinions and conjectures of a permanent resident of Sathya Sai Baba's ashram, to the exclusion of the testimony of Alaya Rahm, whose untold but traumatic experiences with Sathya Sai baba alone in the private interview room on many occasions Kreydich claims to know better than the subject himself couldnot have taken place. This conjecture has no legal weight and proves absolutely nothing in any legal sense.

Since it was agreed to not include links that go to either Pro/Anti Sai Sites, for those who would like to independently confirm the references cited for Alaya Rahm's Self-Dismissed court case, against the Sathya Sai Baba Society, scans to the public court records are on the following links:

• Deposition From Kreydick
• Dismissal Records SSS108 ^talk-email 18:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I never agreed with this. I only agreed that linking to the article on whe website of the original publisher is preferrable and if not available online then I did not have any problems with using a specifically designed neutral website for the references, instead of anti-baba or pro-baba websites. Andries 17:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I question the validity of the inclusion of a self-dismissed court case papers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Andries, that is what I said. I am not trying to include a link to the scans in the Wikipedia article for SSB. I am only providing the link on this talk page for others to verify the information for him/her self. Comprehend? SSS108 ^talk-email 14:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is too long. May be it needs trimming..a suggestion..

Anon..Alleged Vandal of Diamirza article

I agree with Jossi and anon that the transcript of a self-dismissed court-case is a not reputable source for this article. Andries 18:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Court records are reputable and the self-dismissed section is cited from actual court records. Futhermore, Andries did not give a 48 hour notice of intent to remove the section. And as if this isn't enough, Andries refuses to accept mediation. Twice he has refused my request for mediation: (Ref). Show me where wikipedia states that court records are not reputable and I will remove the section that comes from actual court records. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, may you explain why you object to the self-dismissed court records? They are actual court records and this case was a very important case that lasted almost a year and half before it was self-dismissed by Alaya. This is relevant information as most of the major articles discussed on the Wikipedia article for SSB are related to Alaya's testimonies. Are court records reputable? Yes or no? SSS108 ^talk-email 05:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Court records are reputable sources, of course. But that can only be used to attribute the POV of the person that gave testimony, not to assert if the testimony was true or false. I am not familiar with these copurt papers, just note that court papers only represent the POV of the person filing these papers. So if person ABC says "XYZ" you can only assert that "according to court records, ABC said 'XYZ' ". But you cannot say that "XYZ" is true or false. Hope that this makes sense. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, so what are you saying exactly? For Kreydick's deposition, it said that his comments were made in a sworn and videotaped deposition. This is the same (albeit in different words) as saying "according to court records". Where is it said that Kreydick's testimony is true or false? If you click on the links provided, you will see the actual scans to the court documents. They were filed in the Superior Court of California, have a court number and were even certified. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

A Reply to Mr Kazlev

Hi Mr Kazlev,

For someone who is watching the whole episode from outside, whatever you have said indeed reflects the state of affairs about this page.

At the same time, you need to look at the history of this page. You can go through how the article started, you can observe the links given, the links that were given to this page from other sites etc... An observation will clearly bring about light on the way this article was placed...

You will also understand how people who try to bring about some amount of factoid to the article (forget about being pro-SSB) has been virtually banned or suppressed.

It was after the entry of people like SSS108 that the article started getting shaped up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.217.99 (talk • contribs) 15:21, May 22, 2006

Hi anonymous poster :-) You should sign your name at the end; even if it's a pseudonym, just so its clear who is discussing things.

Look I'm not denying that the current SSB page is a definite improvement, and the footnotes are informative; it is just the huge amount of conflict required to get it that way. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast; especially if you have a highly polarised and emotion-charged topic; I've noticed the Prem Rawat page is similar. And this is just with controversial gurus; i can imagine there are heaps of fights like this all over wikipedia; politically charged subjects, craetion vs evolution, wheerever humanh beings have disagreements on their understanding things. I was just making a humorous comment on the inefficiency of the whole process. Actually after I posted my complaint it seemed that there was much less quibbling, and more doing, so maybe it's okay anyway. M Alan Kazlev 00:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Alan, you just happened to make your post when there were negotiations with the mediator in process and a breakdown in that process. The reason why the conversation died down was not due to your post. Just letting you know. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! Yeah I thought it seemed strange that my irreverant post would make a difference! M Alan Kazlev 22:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Kazlev

Hii Mr Kazlev,

This is the anonymous poster. Hope you are doing well.

By the way, due to your suggestion, i've selected a pseudonym which will be "Mad".

I also agree with your comment on the inefficiency of the whole process of the endless argument and fights to get over a point. Many a times i've thought about the amount of time people spend on this page about editing, reverting and what not...

And used to think that if the people over here click on the link www.thehungersite.com during that time or send that link to other people they know, more hungry people will get food.

At the same time, till now, i haven't seen anything that would not lead me to a conclusion of not supporting what SSS108 has been doing. If everybody left this page thinking that its difficult to face the bickerings, onslaught of edits (covert and overt), then this page would certainly wouldn't have improved. This is more important when there has been "co-incidence" edits at many a point of time whenever there comes a report which is pro Sathya Sai.

So while i would prefer to spend my time clicking on www.thehungersite.com, i would like to extend my support to SSS108 with the work he is doing.

Mr Kazlev, so we can join up together to increase the number of clickings on www.thehungersite.com

Hope you accept my invitation.

"Mad"

=DID YOU KNOW

Question:

Did you know the significance of the December issue of the India Today Magazine Article which had allegations against Sathya Sai?

Answer:

The India Today Magazine December issue which had the article, cited as a source of reference when comes to allegations about Sathya Sai, was the 25th anniversay issue of the magazine.

In a world driven by impact marketing, especially when it comes to media, what better cover story than that of allegations against Sathya Sai Baba for a magazine that is known to promote the flashy lifestyles (Hope you will go through the issues of the last one year to have a gist of the content of the magazine).

What is your point? Are you suggesting that the India Today article cannnot be used in the article because it is too sensational? Andries 14:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding The Trouw Reference

Andries, regarding your want to include the Trouw reference, it needs to be referenced to an anonymous person using the pseudonym "Leo", who stated that SSB prohibited looking at the internet. Of course, I will add that despite these claims of prohibition, the Sai Org runs and operates several international websites. We also agreed that all links from your site would be placed on the non-partison site. which was created for this purpose. I can't help to wonder why you are adding links to your site once again, subverting our agreement? I can't read you mind. You need to let me know so I can add relevant references to the non-partison site. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I already wrote that I never agreed with this, but I do not object if you want to put the Trouw reference on a neutral website. Also it is not Leo who wrote that SSB prohibeted to take a look on the internet. It is the journalist of the newspaper. Feel free to replace the link to exbaba with a neutral website. And even if you object to linking exbaba in the reference then it is not a valid excuse to remove a well-referenced assertion from a reputable source. Andries 12:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Andries, then I suggest you translate more than just that one section so I can see what it really says. We will have to attribute your quote to the Journalist of the article then. Regarding agreements made about placing material on a non-partison site, you did agree: (Ref). That's why the non-partison site was created in the first place. Why create a non-partison site if you are not willing to use it? The text reads:

"BostonMA, if Andries agrees, I will create a free geocities site to host the references on. I would name the site something along the lines: sathyasairefs and the pages would simply contain a referenced title with referenced text. If Andries agrees, I will create the account. This way the refs are hosted on neither site and would contain no external links. There would be no way to trace this site to either Pro/Anti Sites. I think this is a fair way to deal with the problem. SSS108"'

"I have no problem with this proposal. Andries"

SSS108 ^talk-email 15:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that the Trouw articles are already listed on the non-partison site: (English Version) & (Dutch Version). Andries, however, since you yourself said that the English version is not a very good translation, then I suggest you translate it. Either that or you link only to the Dutch version with a translation to the relevant section. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You requested yourself a translation of fragments of that article and I used the new translation that had been checked by several Wikipedians. Feel free to replace the old translation with the corrected translation on the geocities webpage. I really do not understand any of your complaints in this respect. Andries 16:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC

I do not maintain the article on geocities and I cannot find anything on that website and I am unwilling to do the effort to find it. I do not have to do the effort because it is neither demanded by Wikipedia policies and guidelines nor by any agreement between us. However if you can easily find articles on that website then it will also a piece of cake the links to exbaba with a link to geocities. Andries 16:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Andries, if you disagree, then we should take it to mediation. The fact that you are refusing to take it to mediation puts you in a rather awkward bind and gives the valid perception that you are trying to circumvent the issues by pushing forward with your agenda. If you are now saying that it is okay to add external links, as references, that go to your Anti-Sai Site (after you agreed to host the links on a non-partison site), I think you are wrong. This discussion was a topic in mediation and you had no objections to it. Now that you are tossing it aside. Either you abide by your previous stance or you accept mediation. The options are simple. Tell me your decision. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with mediation. I continue to think that you are misinterpreting our agreements: I had and have no objections when when you replaced links to exbaba or saiguru in the references with the link to geocities. I did however never say that I would help you in this matter and I never agreed not use links to exbaba in the references. Andries 18:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are flip-flopping. If that was your position, why didn't you ever say that to BostonMA? Instead, you accepted my proposal. Now, you are tossing it aside. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any contradiction in the statements that I made regarding this subject. Can you please explain? Andries 23:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you accepted my proposal to put references on a non-partison site (as discussed in mediation) so that no one would solicit his/her personal homepages. You, as the former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest Anti-Sai Baba site on the internet, are now trying to include links back to your site and the site of your Anti-Sai Activist friends at saiguru.net. There is the contradiction. If you can't see it, you never will. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have always said that I did not objeect to your proposal. Feel free to replace links to exbaba or saiguru with links to geocities. I really do not see a contradction. Andries 00:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

User 209.200.60.200 is vandalizing and wantonly editing the article. The user's ip resolves to Webair Internet Development Inc. located in New York, but also extending into Canada. Thaumaturgic 18:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this is vandalism, but someone who agrees with the opinion expressed by Jossi and me that a self-dismissed court case is not a reputable source for a Wikipedia article. Andries 18:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you have yet to show me the Wikipedia policy that states that court records are not reputable sources. And I have asked Jossie to clarify and he has not done so thus far. So I would not be so quick to say Jossie agrees with you. Futhermore, the person who is vandalizing the article is removing the link to my site and is substituting links to your Anti-Sai site and removing the links to the non-paritson site. This is highly suspicious activity that insinuates that one of your Anti-Sai Activist friends is helping you undermine the article. Apparently, you think this behavior is justified and you are refusing to correct that vandalism. If you do not accept mediation, I am going to make an request with the Arbitration Committee. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that this is vandalism. I do not have to and will not "correct" edits that I agree with, such as removing references to the self-dismissed court case. I will endorse your request for mediation.Andries 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, the vandalism of removing a non-parison link and substituting it instead a with link that went directly to Andries Anti-Sai Site, as well as removing Kreydick's deposition and the self-dissmissed court case were done prior to Andries edit and Andried did not revert those acts of vandalism at all. Proving that Andries is promoting this type of vandalism. See first edit of removing court case: (Ref); second edit removing sworn deposition from Kreydick (Ref); third edit changing the non-partison link to Andries Anti-Sai Site (Ref). Andries made his edit after these edits and did not revert them. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that nobody in Wikipedia has the obligation to revert bad edits.Andries 20:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Especially when those "bad edits" happen to argue in your favor. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Self Dismissed Court Case

Andries, show me how court case records are not reputable sources. You have failed, on all counts, on making any statement in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Court Records ARE reputable sources and the comment about the Self-Dismissed court case comes directly and exclusively from these court records. You are trying to remove this content because it wholly undermines your case against Sai Baba and you know it! Reverted. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Deposition From Kreydick: Actual Court Records
• Dismissal Records: Actual Court Records

Court records may contain simple assertions by witnesses or parties to a case. The records may be a reliable source for the fact that the assertions were made, but the assertions cannot be deemed to be true just because they are in a deposition or similar filing. -Will Beback 22:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, nobody is stating that the comments are true. These court records are simply being cited to support the assertions made in the article. These court records are reliable references to support the attribution of the comments mentioned in this article. Show me where they are not being used as such. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Will. You can use the court records to make assertions on what the witnesses or deposed persons said, but you cannot make assertions to validate any claims made by other persons on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, that is what was done. The court records were used to assert what Kreydick testified about. What other assertions are being made about the suject? And what about the dismissal records? Why this court case was dismissed is relevant information. Why did you make a comment suggesting they may not be citable? SSS108 ^talk-email 00:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

In reading the material added based on these court papers, I would argue that these ar cirrectly used and in accordnace with WP policies. The text can be written an little more neutrally, though. I will attempt to do this. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, there are cited references (in the article itself) for these court papers and Kreydick's testimony. These cited references show the actual words used, in case you needed to see the original wording. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I only replaced the use of "testimony", as a deposition is not considereded as such (to differentiate it from testimony given in court, which is the common use of the term), and made some other small adjustments for neutrality. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that this deposition was taken in the context of a civil suit. If it was a criminal suit, you may use the term testimony, I think. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, that is not correct. A deposition IS a "testimony" taken under oath: (Ref 01) - (Ref 02) Kreydicks deposition was a sworn, attested and videotaped testimony. The court records even used the term "testified": (Ref 03): "Kreydick produced as a witness by and on behalf of the Defendants, and having been duly sworn by the Certified Shorthand Reporter, was examined and testified as follows". Also: (Ref 04): "The said deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness and all objections made at the time of the deposition." He testified, under oath with the plaintiffs lawyer present and making objections. Therefore my original wording is correct. Should I revert it? SSS108 ^talk-email 02:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, not to "revert" it literally, just to change the words "said" back to the words "testified" and "testimony". Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how I got into reading this, as I have not read nor do I know anything about the article in question. Therefore, I have no interest in the particular debate here. That said, testimony can be in civil or criminal court. It is merely a witness statement under oath. A deposition is testimony, but one would ordinarily refer to a deposition as a 'deposition'. I don't know if this confuses or clarifies, but I hope it helps. MollyBloom 04:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a fine point, SSS108. The important thing is that what he said was recorded and can be cited in the article. I would not argue against the use of "testimony" although that term is preferably kept for testimony given in court in front of a judge, and not out of court (as in the case of a deposition in the State of California). Your call. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, that's the reason why it's called a deposition. Kreydick lives in India, not the USA. So he could not stick around while other witnesses were gathered in the legal process of discovery. Therefore, his testimony was videotaped in a deposition, with both lawyers present and with the Plaintiffs laywer making objections, just as would be done in an actual court proceeding. That's why they obtained a deposition from him instead of waiting for the actual trial. SSS108 ^talk-email

We generally describe depositions as depositions and testimony in court as testimony. What is the problem with using the word deposition here? Just curious. Just zis Guy you know? 09:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Activity

• Revision as of 05:03, 8 May 2006 First added references to Kreydick's sworn deposition and Self-Dismissed Court Case from Alaya Rahm. These Court Record references were left untouched and unchallenged for 17 days. On the very same day that 209.200.60.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) started deleting the Court Record references, so did Andries.
• Revision as of 18:15, 25 May 2006 by 209.200.60.124: First removed reference to Self-Dismissed Court Case.
• Revision as of 18:46, 25 May 2006 by Andries (31 minutes later): First removed referenced to Kreydick's deposition.

I think this is more than just coincidence. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

New Mediation Request 2

Since Andries said he would accept the intervention of mediation, I made another request: Mediation Regarding The Sathya Sai Baba Article SSS108 ^talk-email 20:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Recent Edits By Andries

Andries recently edited the article with controversial edits that he agreed to wait for until mediation stepped in. Instead of waiting for mediation, he went ahead and edited the article including material that has been controverial since the time the last mediation ended. Therefore, Andries is not acting in good faith and I reverted the article. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As so often you misinterpret our agreements. I agreed with mediation, but I never agreed with not making edits that you consider controversial. Andries 06:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, the edits you are now making have been the subjects of mediation (as can be seen on this page as well as in the archives) going back to February and April of this year. You agreed to have a mediator resolve these controversial edits and despite the fact that you recently agreed to resubmitting a new mediation request, you are proceeding with your edits anyway. It is strange that you (and I) have waited one and a half months to have these controversial edits resolved and now, all of sudden, you are attempting to circumvent the mediation process by proceeding with your highly contoversial edits that I do agree with. You have a choice to either wait for a mediator or circumvent and undermine the process. The choice is yours. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How can this article be subject to mediation when there is no mediator assigned? Can you please refer to a wikipedia policy or guideline or an agreement between us that you think that I break with my edits? I wil continue with my edits unless you refer to that. Andries 14:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, please don't play dumb with me. You know fully well that your controversial edits were brought to BostonMA just prior to his being inable to mediate. I submitted a request for mediation knowing that you would not drop these controversial edits and you refused to sign it. After arguing with you a second time, you finally agreed to a second request. From what I can tell, the mediation request form was accepted. All we need to do is wait for a mediator. You can continue with your edits as you like. However, there is plenty of evidence that I have dissented with your edits and you agreed to taking these edits to a mediator due to the fact that we cannot reach an agreement on them. Therefore, my action of reverting the article is justified. You will have to be doing more explaining. Not I. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting without an explanation why edits are not good is not considered acceptable behavior. Please understand that there are no agreements between us or any wikipedia policies and guidelines that say that I cannot make the edits that I make, at least not that I am aware of. If I am wrong then please refer to them. If you cannot and still revert my edits without explaining why they are bad then you are disrupting Wikipedia. Andries 14:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And besides it is not true that the edits that I made today were all brought to be mediated. For example the contradictory claims about Shiva Shakti were never brought to mediation. Andries 14:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I am not going to argue with you. You are choosing your plan of action. I am choosing mine. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So what are we going to do now? request wikipedia:arbitration? Everything else is pending or has failed. Andries 14:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely agree to arbitration. If you like, go ahead and submit a request. However, I doubt they will accept it since the mediation form has been accepted and we are simply waiting for a new mediator. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Guru Tag Insert

I noticed that Andries is going to add a tag for "Guru" for the Sathya Sai Baba article. In order to maintain transparency, I am duplicating my post made on the Guru Talk Page under the topic Removal of critical websites.

I just wanted to bring to everyones attention how Andries contacted the Guruphiliac Blog webmaster and complained about an attempt to remove Sarlo's website from the external links: Reference. The relevant text reads:

It appears there's some wacki-folks attempting to whitewash the Wikipedia of guru criticism: link 1 There are attempts to remove Sarlo's website from the external link section in Wikipedia. Please let the Wikipedia editors know what you think about that at: link 2. Press the edit button. Also there are many attempts to move or to reduce criticism and assessment of gurus. Please let the Wikipedia editors know what you think about that at: link 3 Press on the edit button. Thanks to Andries K.D. (Link: Andries) for bringing this to our attention. Now go let those lamers know you want the contrast afforded by both sides of the story rather than just being force-fed the hagiographic nonsense that passes as reliable information for some men and all sheep about the lives of gurus.

Just for everyone's info the attempts of Andries to polarize the opinions expressed in this article by contacting a person who is not only very good friends with Sarlo, but also blatantly lies about Gurus: Reference.

This type of behavior from Andries proves that he will go to great lengths to push his Anti-Guru POV by soliciting the assistance of someone who is Anti-Guru. This type of behavior also proves that Andries agenda on Wikipedia is not to maintain a Neutral POV, but to push his POV. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It is also clear that either Andries, or someone in his group of Anti-Guruphiliacs, is/are contacting various people to attack me on Wikipedia. Someone contacted Robert T. Carroll and gave him my name and misleading information about me: Reference. Also, a vandalizer using the IP 209.200.60.200 also attacked me using my name and citing misleading information about me. User 209.200.60.200 started deleting material the very same day Andries did: Reference (after a 17 day period of silence from Andries on the article). Therefore, there is a valid suspicion that Andries is going around contacting various people to push his POV. The facts are just too eerily similar to dismiss. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Continued Attempts To Cite Original Research

For the record, Andries is still citing the original research of Alexandra Nagel ("Sai Baba, from Avatar to Homo-paedophile") on other Wikipedia articles discussing Sathya Sai Baba as recently as today: Reference. In mediation, it was established that this article, by Nagel, was never published by reputable sources or cited by notable media: See Mediation Thread About Nagel. Just more proof that Andries is secretly attempting to push his POV on other articles that discuss SSB. The list keeps building for Andries POV Pushing. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I expected this complaint from you, but I think that you are misinterpreting Wikmipedia policies about original research. I cited the article "A guru accused " by Nagel only because she in turn cited a book that is not original research. Andries 06:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I explained this issue more extensively at Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults and reverted your edits there because they do not follow the guidelines wikipedia:cite sources. Andries 10:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, oh that made sense. Now you are stating that it is OK to cite non-reputable sources just so you can cite a reference that was used by that non-reputable source! Such are the low standards you are using on Wikipedia. You are digging a deeper hole for yourself. SSS108 ^talk-email 12:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule

Andries complained to Freakofnurture about someone (implying me) that was breaking the 3 Revert Rule: Reference. Anyone who knows how to count can see that I made 2 reverts. Not 3. More confirmed lies from Andries. See History tag for proof. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not write that you broke the three revert rule. Andries 06:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I clearly said you "implied" I broke the 3 Revert Rule. A simple answer will resolve this issue. Whom were you speaking about if not me? I was the only person who made reverts besides the one revert by Thaumaturgic. Whom were you referring to? SSS108 ^talk-email 12:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I spoke of you, but I did not write that you broke the three revert rule. I merely wanted to draw attention to the article by stating that disputes are completely unresolved and that as a consequence I think that the three revert rules will likely be broken in the future. Andries 12:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, thank you for admitting that you were speaking about me. Now let us look at your post. You specifically said: "I am afraid that you will have to block somebody again for violating the three revert rule on that article." The fact remains that since you just admitted you were talking about me, you were wrong when you claimed that "I am afraid you will have to block somebody again for violating the three revert rule...". Nobody violated the three revert rule. I most certainly did not violate it. You have been caught, with your pants down, telling your untruths and still you try to squirm your way out of it. So once again, whom were you talking about when you told Freakofnurture that he was going to have to ban someone for "violating the three revert rule"? You just said you were referring to me but I didn't violate it. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a clarification at User_talk:Freakofnurture#Reverts_on_Sathya_Sai_Baba_are_starting_again Reference. Andries 18:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, that made sense. Pester a very busy moderator because you anticipated the 3 Revert Rule would be broken. Stop wasting Freakofnurture's precious time with your clairvoyant guesses and instead inform him when the 3 Revert Rule is actually broken. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Lenght of footnotes

The length of footnotes is way too big. These need to be shortened to a sensible size, keeping just the material needed to support an edit, but no more. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Before the footnotes are shortened, it should be discussed to prevent un-necessary reverts. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why shortening footnotes is important. I think that long footnotes help to verify the reader that the references and sources do not take assertions out of context. Andries 09:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If editors are not willing to reduce the size of citations I will comment them all out until such time in whioch editors will do the pruning. The current version is bordering on the ridiculous with more text in the footnotes than in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Do I understand it correctly that you want to remove all comments and expect other editors to restore some of it only because you consider the citations too long? Removing all comments would be overdoing it and I think that such an action would be highly unconstructive. Please do not expect other editors to do all the work. Shorten the comments if you like yourself. Andries 21:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that the ArbCom has accepted to hear this case, I will wait until the completion of the process, before I attempt to undertake such task. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nagel Citation

Andries, regarding the citation you requested about the "hermaphrodite" issue, you were the one who wrote that. So you should be able to provide the citation since it was material added by you. As you can see, I did not edit that particular sentence: Reference SSS108 ^talk-email 21:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove that I added that? I do not remember that I ever wrote that. I do not remember that Nagel wrote that in her article "Sai Paradox" Andries 21:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Attribution

Andries, you are claiming that you can cite references without attributing it the person who wrote them. When I included references to the non-diminishing of Sai Devotees, you argued relentlessly for attribution: Reference. Now you are saying attribution is not needed. I disagree. Why are you attempting to withhold relevant information about the person who made the claims against SSB? Instead you are trying to attribute the claims to newspaper outlet! Explain.

Facts do not have to attributed. In contrast opionions have to be. Andries 21:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What Kevin Shepherd stated was not a fact. It was a piece of information he attributed to Robert Priddy. Therefore, citing him as the source is 100% relevant. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but of course it is a matter of fact what Robert Priddy did or did not write. It is not a matter of opinion. Andries 21:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer my question: Why are you trying to hide the fact that this attribution came from Kevin Shepherd? SSS108 ^talk-email 21:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is what Priddy writes "Therefore he must be regarded as a willing accomplice to the events allowed to happen therein on 06/06/1993, including the following cover-up of these events." It is not a matter of opinion what Priddy wrote. It is a matter of fact. Andries 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I know all about Robert Priddy and his allegations based on information that he says came from V.K. Narasimhan (a devotee of SSB to his death) who cannot deny or confirm Priddy's attributions to him. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

IT IS A MATTER OF FACT WHAT PRIDDY WROTE OR DID NOT WRITE. FACTS DO NOT HAVE TO BE ATTRIBUTED AND SHOULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED. I DO NOT TRY TO HIDE ANYTHING. READERS CAN SIMPLY CHECK THE REFERENCE AND FIND SHEPHERDS NAME. Andries 21:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that facts have to be attributed then start writing in the article New York that according to geographer McGarden, New York is a city in the United States of America. Andries 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. Will ask others for their opinions. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You must attribute a POV to the person making the POV, as per WP:NPOV. If you don't, you are asserting a POV as it was a fact. Example: The sun raises from the East is a fact. The sun is brighter in California is a POV. I can assert the former as a fact but not the latter. Now, If I write a book in which I say that the sun is brighter in California, it is a fact that I wrote that. But that does not make the sun to brighter in California a fact, only that I wrote that in a book. So, when citing the quote about the sun being brighter in California, it needs to be preceded by "According to Jossi, in his book about 'Best places to live', the sun is brighter in California". It is easy, really. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jossie. That was exactly what I thought. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Jossi in this respect and I think that his explanation supports my edit. Andries 17:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How? The statement needs to be attributed to the person making that assertion. We are splitting hair here.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a fact what Priddy wrote or did not write. Here is the evidence. Here is what Priddy writes "Therefore he must be regarded as a willing accomplice to the events allowed to happen therein on 06/06/1993, including the following cover-up of these events." It is not a matter of opinion what Priddy wrote. It is a matter of fact. Andries 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What? That is not a fact as we are citing another person making that claim. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

May this be an issue with your understanding of the English language? Some nuances may be missed here. I am not sure. But your interpretations sometimes are hard to understand otherwise.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My version "Priddy wrote that SSB is an accomplice (ref Shepherd)"

SSS108's version "According to Shepherd, Priddy wrote that SSB is an accomplice (ref Shepherd)"

Is it a fact what Priddy wrote or is it just Shepherd's opinion what Priddy wrote? Clearly the former is the case. What Priddy wrote can be verified by reading his books and website. It is not just my, Jossi's, SS108's or Shepherd's opinion Andries 18:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Splitting hairs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert Priddy is not a reputable source. His original research has apparently been published by what Wikipedia would refer to as a "reputable source". Therefore, one must cite this reputable source that makes reference to Priddy. Making reference to Priddy without mentioning the reputable source that referred to him is deceptive. Attribution is needed in the immediate and visible text. Andries is getting really desperate (as can also be seen by his attempts to cite Nagel's non-reputable works in order to cite a reputable reference used by her). SSS108 ^talk-email

Mediation

By the way Andries, the moderator asked you a question is waiting for a reply. Are you going to treat this moderator with the same delays and not answering of questions as you did with BostonMA? I hope not. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, but I continue to disagree. The attribution of a fact should go. Facts should be referenced, of course, but not attributed. As so often you misinterpret policies and guidelines. Andries 05:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Too funny Andries. And which editors are agreeing with you? So far, all the editors have agreed with me about Nagel and attribution. You are alone in you defence of your "misinterpretation" of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I consider this attribution discussion a controversial subject and will list it as one of the issues to be mediated. However, it is very strange that you agreed to submit a request for mediation and now you are telling the Official Mediator that you have not decided whether or not you accept him (Ref 01 -Ref 02)! Weird. SSS108 ^talk-email 13:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, mediation was already accepted by both of you on May 26, 2006. The new mediator is simply stepping-in in replacement of Boston MA that had to widthdraw. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, there is one big difference though. Mediation with BostonMA was voluntary because he was not an official mediator. With the recent request for mediation, we obtained an official mediator. Andries agreed to the request for a mediator and now after getting one, Andries is vacillating on whether or not he will accept an official mediator! This type of behavior, from Andries, really doesn't surprise me. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly... Essjay from the mediation committe agreed to BostonMA's mediation, in fact making it official. See User_talk:BostonMA#Request_for_Mediation ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unmotivated Deletion?

Also, regarding a revert you made claiming I made an "unmotivated deletion" (Ref), I never deleted that in my edit: Reference. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, you did make an unmotivated deletion here [1] You deleted without motivation the contradicting claims about Shiva Shakti incarnations of Shirdi Sai Baba and Prema Sai Baba. Andries 21:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That was on the June 11th 2006. Not today, as implied by your edit summary. You can re-add it if you like. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that I implied that then you are a sloppy reader. Andries 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You said: '"21:19, 16 June 2006 Andries m (→Opposition, controversy, and allegations - revert edit by SSS108: an attribution is not needed and wrong for a statement of fact)" You made no mention to the date of my revert. So you are a sloppy summarizer :-) Oh, and by the way, you just violated the 3 Revert Rule. I'm on my way to report it now. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did I imply that it happened today or that it happened on the same day? I did not ever suggest that. Andries 22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Section neutrality warning

I gave the section "opposition" a neutrality warning because of an attribution of fact regarding what Priddy did or did not write. Only opinions should be attributed. Andries 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a clean up tag?

Can somebody please explain the clean up tag or I will remove it. Andries 06:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that user:Jossi added a cleanup tag, because he felt that the citations in the references were too long. I do agree to some extent with Jossi, but I think this is a minor issue and that a clean up tag falsely suggests there is something seriously wrong with this article. There may be something seriously wrong with this article, but this is not too long citations. Andries 21:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Another Complete Distortion Of Facts

Here is yet another complete distortion of facts by Andries. Refer to this post that references Alexander Deutsch. Andries stated:

The American psychiatrist Alexander Deutsch visited the ashram of the guru Sathya Sai Baba in India and there noted that a group of young followers interpreted disconfirming events as tests of faith, engineered by the guru or as the guru's divine play, just as Krishna's leelas.

Andries summarization and citation is wholly and unequivocally misleading and deceptive. Let us read Deutsch's actual words and context, which is based on his trip to SSB's ashram in the mid 1970's (Andries left out the time-frame as well):

An even more paradoxical example of rebelliousness in cult members was observable in a substantial number of Western followers of Sai Baba. Emerging from the hippie counterculture, they appeared to project their anarchic and rebellious trends on their leader and distorted his teachings which were actually quite conservative. His playfulness, seductiveness, and magic and his controversial and unorthodox postion within his own culture facilitated the projection and distortion. The holy man angrily recounted for me, in an interview, the misdeeds of the Westerners: they illegally overextended their visas; the men and women were too close to each other; they embarrassed him in front of his Indian devotees; they followed behind him in a car when he left the ashram; some women touched him; and so on. The misreading of Swami by the Western devotees is discussed further in the following section...(Following Section)...At Sai Baba's ashram, as I indicated above, the Western devotees flagrantly denied the holy man's growing disenchantment with them, which was cleary shown by his not granting them personal interviews and other indications of unfriendliness. When I told the devotees what Sai Baba had told me about his negative feelings toward them, the characteristic response was that the holy man didn't really mean what he told me, that he was telling me, a Western doctor, just what I wanted to hear, and that the whole episode was meant as a test of their faith in him. (The notion that a disconfirming event is engineered by the leader as a test of faith seems common in cult thinking.) A theological justification for their thinking was readily avaiable here too. Did not Sai Baba proclaim himself as an incarnation of Krishna and did not Krishna play tricks (leela) on his devoted followers?

Andries attempted to infer that Deutsch claimed that "young followers" (an age inference never suggested by Deutsch) "interpreted disconfirming events as tests of faith, engineered by the guru or as the guru's divine play". What Andries forgot to mention was that these "disconfirming events" were actually the Western follower's rebelliousness, their distortions of SSB's teachings and their refusal to accept SSB's negative assessment about them! Of course, none of this is relevant to SSB himself. Therefore, I am removing the entire reference on the Sathya Sai Baba and Guru articles unless Andries can justify including this reference that has nothing to do with SSB himself, but has everything to do with SSB's early Western followers in the mid 1970's. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a minor distortion if it is a distortion at all. Andries 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, what does it have to do with SSB? SSS108 ^talk-email 23:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Deutsch relates the interpretation by the follower of SSB's behavior to SSB's claims ("proclaim himself as an incarnation of Krishna"), so it has a lot to do with SSB. This obsveration by Deutsch is not unique. Similar observations of non-rigorious interpretations by followers of SSB's behavior were made by Tanya Datta and Matthijs van der Meer in reputable sources. Andries 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, that is right. This is all about a segment of early Western followers of SSB from the mid 1970's. Not about SSB himself. Of course, if you want to argue that, according to Deutsch, a segment of early Western followers from the mid 1970's justified their distortions to SSB's teachings, projected their rebellious trends onto SSB and refused to accept SSB's negative assessments about them by using theological justifications, go right ahead. I guess you are now targeting early Western devotees from the mid 1970's? Where does this fit into the Sathya Sai Baba and Guru articles? This article is about SSB, not devotees. The Guru article is about the term Guru (and associated material), not devotees.

By the way, since you are now talking, I filed an RFA involving you: Here SSS108 ^talk-email 23:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Recent Controversial Edit

For the record, I would like to note that Andries is adding a controversial edit that was still listed as an edit to be mediated. Although there is currently a RFA regarding Andries behavior and controversial edits on Wikipedia, he is continuing with his controversial edits despite this fact. One can only wonder why. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know Answer to And

Hello And,

This was your question...

"What is your point? Are you suggesting that the India Today article cannnot be used in the article because it is too sensational? Andries 14:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC) "

What is this Andries? It was never mentioned that you should or shouldn't use those articles. The India Today reference was meant to indicate the way a media house used Sathya Sai to promote the sales of their copies, especially when it is their 25th anniversay issue.

i thought that it is necessary to bring that perspective into the discussion room too..., considering the fact that India Today is cited as a reference from India whenever there is a discussion.

Am not able to understand how the thought came to your mind that i objected to somebody using that article...

Have you become so obsessed with the anti-Sai progaganda that you are reacting to each and everything?

"Mad"

Editors, please note how Moreno replies to a question with a derogatory diatribe and an assertion of "madness! Who is most obsessed with propaganda, Andries or Moreno, is as clear as day to those who read even a fraction of the endless Morenos' web pages and postings and the comparatively very few by Andries.--ProEdits 14:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Not only has ProEdits (Robert Priddy) lied about Freelancresearch being banned from Wikipedia when she was not, he also blatantly lied about me and erroneously accused me deleting information on Angela's talk page View My Response. Now, ProEdits (Robert Priddy) is accusing me of having made the post above when I did not write it. It was written by 210.210.37.103. This from someone who claims that he is honest and knows how to check his facts. I suggest that ProEdits perform some remedial research before he jumps the gun and begins defaming others with his erroneous, unsupported and spiteful accusations. This is a very troubling pattern that is emerging with ProEdits and I suggest someone talk to him about it. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

This article is the subject of wikipedia:arbitration between adversaries user:Andries and user:SSS108 Abritration is the last step in wikipedia:dispute resolution and leads to binding solutions.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba main page with the following subpages
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/Evidence all editors of Wikipedia are welcome to give evidence
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/Workshop
  • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Proposed_decision

Andries 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)