Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives
01 — 02 — 03 — 04 — 05 — 06 — 07 — 08

To-do list for Sathya Sai Baba:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Add some more info from Erlendur Haraldsson's book, e.g. M. Krishna (partially done) Add some more info from the book "Love is my form" (the book cost USD 99.00 and it may be difficult to order) Write about the Prashanti Council in the section organizations Add more information in the Teachings section about the great value Sathya Sai Baba places on women and mothers in shaping society.

[edit] Number of adherents? and a more general complaint

Yeah, Wikipedia tries to take all sides of an issue into account, and cites as many sources as possible, but a little bit of my respect for Wikipedia dies when I see phrases such as the one that describes the number of Sai Baba adherents. It says that he has between "6 million and 100 million" adherents... I don't see how the people who said 6 million could accidentally miss 94 million, or the people who said 100 million could really blow the numbers that far out of proportion. Maybe we could find a more definitive source and agree on a number?

(BTW, the thing about a little bit of me dying and all of that was a joke)

The other thing I wanted to say was that I have no idea who Sai Baba is. I read the first paragraph, and was so overcome by how cumbersome it was, that I gave up and went home. Go to a GOOD article, and see how their introduction is written. What has happened in this article happens in a lot of religion-related articles- the first paragraph is so dense that I have no idea who this dude (no offense) is. This usually happens because of combined editing by NPOV people and supporters/followers of the religious figure in question. A good example of how this paragraph could be structured(IMHO) would be:

Sathya Sai Baba is a ____. He is also the head of ___, and has been involved in _____. He has written/contributed/appeared in _____. He has also raised some controversy because of ______.

If I saw a paragraph written like this, then I might actually have an idea who this guy is, and Wikipedia would have succeeded in its goal to make the world a little smarter.

Thanks,

Arjun Sharma

I agree with Arjun's comments. Regarding the number of followers, my guess is that the difference of 94 million people is due to which people are being counted as followers. It may be that there are 6 million members in his organization or on his mailing lists, and there are 100 million people who are followers in the sense that they generally agree with some or all of his teachings without belonging to his organization. My point is that there may not be a single correct number, so the appropriate way to deal with it is to put the different ways of counting followers in a footnote. HeBhagawan 15:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the numbers of followers between 6-100 million, I see no solution for it because that is what the sources say. If you ask me, one million at maximum would be closer to the truth. And I agree with HeBhagawan that the answer to the question who is to be counted as a follower is not clear and that this one of causes of the widely divergent numbers. Andries 14:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the a lot of information is cramped into a few sentences which may be wrong, but the other side of the coin is that this is an encyclopedia in which we try to convey as much relevant information as possible. I noticed that other encyclopedias are also dense with information. Andries 14:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC) amended 14:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the number of adherents is generally agreed to be around 30 million, according to most of the articles cited. There is a single reference to 6 million, which came from Nagel's article. Needless to say, Andries wants that figure in there. If we go on what most of the articles say, the number is given as between 30-50 million. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salon.com References Removed

The Salon.com article by Michelle Goldberg has been removed for several key reasons:

First: Goldberg's article is exclusively an internet article that has never been published in hardcopy form by reputable or reliable media.
Secondly: David Talbot (founder of Salon.com) described Salon.com as a "progressive, smart tabloid" [2].

Therefore, Salon.com, as a tabloid and exclusive internet reference, is not a reliable source as per WP:RS SSS108 ^talk-email 05:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Tabloid does not mean intrinsically unreliable. Salon is often regarded as a reliable source. JoshuaZ 05:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So what if a source is not on paper? I cannot find that WP:RS dismisses internet only publication. Andries 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, by who? Wikipedia states: "We are not tabloid journalists, we are an encyclopedia." You cannot use a self-professed tabloid as a reliable reference. You will have to rely on reputable and reliable media. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, the question whether Salon.com was a reliable source was extensively discussed in mediation between you and me and you agreed that it was a reliable source. In addition, salon.com is generally regarded as a reliable source in various articles in Wikipedia. As such your attempts to remove salon.com have no merit and are disruptive. Andries 06:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, see tabloid. I think that the lack of common sense when interpreting source can also be found on SSS108's website regardig SSB. 06:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not know then what I know now. Therefore, my opinion has changed with this new information. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you file a new complaint to the arbcom. If you will not do it then I will do it. Andries 06:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. And we must follow the steps in dispute resolution first. You know the procedure. It's RFC first. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the next step after mediation is arbcom. We do not have to go back to RFC Andries 09:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has been looking over this article as a mainly uninvolved but interested admin, I a) don't think this is ripe for any for even an RfC yet but b) if it does require more issues it should go straight to ArbCom. There's no point going through the long drawn out process when the ArbCom has already looked at this issue once. JoshuaZ 06:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, the question whether salon.com is suitable as a source was discussed extensively in mediation. We (SSS108 and Andries) then agreed that it was fine. The question whether it is suitable as source was not discussed in the arbcom case regarding Sathya Sai Baba. According to Wikipedia:dispute resolution the next step after mediation is arbcom. Why do you then suggest to file an RFC is something I cannot understand. Andries 09:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

They have not made any ruling about this particular reference, JoshuaZ. So what do you suggest? SSS108 ^talk-email 06:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, when Andries had grievances about the article, he filed a request for clarification with ArbCom that was ignored. The request was dropped as "stagnant" finally. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Then file an RfC. However, to be blunt, I find it hard to believe that any of the editors here intend to pay much attention to it. JoshuaZ 06:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Filing an RFC for this case is not in correspondence with the procedure as described in Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Andries 09:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, then is it fair to say that you agree that removing this reference is within Wikipedia policy? Thanks SSS108 ^talk-email 08:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Under what logic? JoshuaZ 08:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com is a borderline source. As a tabloid,it cannot be considered a reliable source. But if their reporting has been picked up by mainstream media, and the same stories found resonance in other media, it may be OK to cite from them. If this is the only source for a highly controversial piece of information, editors should exercise caution when using it, or avoid using it, in particular on BLPs. If they information was accurate, it would most probably have showed up on other media. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What proof is offered that Salon.com is an apparently unreliable-tabloid ? Or can you point to the policy that says all tabloids are unreliable. I would note some of the most read newspapers are in tabloid format. Wjhonson 15:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, I provided the link earlier. The founder of Salon. com (David Talbot) himself called Salon a "progressive, smart tabloid" [3]. When it comes to Biographies Of Living People, the standards are higher and stricter when the material in question is critical and potentially libelous. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that Salon.co is unreliable. I am just saying that editors should excercise caution when using a tabloid in BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Jossi, salon.com is widely regarded as a reliable source throughout Wikipedia. Andries 17:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Then there is the very disturbing an hidden bias used by Goldberg in the article. She collaborated with critics and wrote the article with the sole purpose of bringing "much attention to your struggle". Any Google search for "Michelle Goldberg bias" will reveal the relevant results. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, please cite references to support your claims that salon.com is used as reliable source on Wikipedia for Biographies Of Living People? SSS108 ^talk-email 19:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com is for example used as a reference in the article Osama bin Laden. Check here for more Special:Whatlinkshere/Salon.com 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com References Been Re-Inserted when I looked. I don't understand what is going on here, or what principle is at stake. There will never be an article on this man and his movement that is acceptably WP:RS for inclusion. All the encyclopedia can do is summarise his claims and provide references (with a few minimal details) of his critics. The Salon.com article may or may not be reliable, but none of us is really competent to decide. The likelihood is that some reference to it should be included. PalestineRemembered 16:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salon.com

Salon.com is undeinably and inarguably a reliable source. Arguing otherwise borders on evidencing bad faith. JBKramer 22:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If that is true JBKramer, then other reliable media sources should have made reference to the same material published on Salon.com (which they generally do). However, this particular article is only available on Salon.com as an internet resource and contains potentially libelous information against SSB. Therefore, it's reliablility is suspect because no other reliable media has made reference to it. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com is regularly referenced in other print media. That other print media did not pick up on this story in no way makes it a non-reliable source. JBKramer 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider salon.com one of the best available magazines, both online and on paper. Andries 23:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the discussion should be centralized here talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. Andries 23:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, please support your comments that Salon.com publishes a magazine in paper. Where did you get this information from? SSS108 ^talk-email 00:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to say that salon.com is published on paper. Andries 00:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Then what did you mean to say? SSS108 ^talk-email 00:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say that I consider salon.com one of the best available magazines including both paper and internet magazines. Andries 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That is only your opinion, Andries. My opinion, is that Salon.com is a tabloid and when I read it I read it with trhat in mind. Their articles read more as op-eds, or advocacy journalism, and I would be very surprised if they have the editorial control that mainstream newspapers have. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

They do. See Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. Let us leave a message at all articles in which salon.com is used as a reference (or linked to in the external link section) and let us have a centralized discussion here. Andries 00:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The question that no one is addressing here is: "Is Salon.com a reliable source for material that has not been published anywhere else?" ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I had addresse that question and I think the answer is yes. Andries 00:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the question is: Are ALL of Salon.com articles to be considered reliable despite the fact that they refer to themselves as an online tabloid? It is clear that when it comes to critical, negative and potentially libelous information, WP:BLP and WP:RS lay out specific guidelines to determine the reliability of an article. I think it is abundantly clear that this Salon.com article does not fulfill Wikipedia's requirements because: 1) The online article in question has never been referenced by other reputable media; 2) It was written like (and sounds like) a tabloid article and 3) It contains negative, cricital and potentially libelous information (which would require multiple sources to establish its reliability). Just because Salon.com may generally be considered reliable does not make ALL their tabloid articles reliable. This article, in my opinion, falls into the category of unreliable articles. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest strongly that you not remove references to the Salon.com article again without first seeking consensus on this talk page. JBKramer 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salon.com (2)

The inclusion of Salon.com has not been resolved by ArbCom, but an opinion was given by Fred Bauder about this issue and he said that Salon.com could be mentioned without mentioning specifics. Reference to Salon.com is in the aricle, but the specifics were removed in accordance with the opinion expressed by Fred Bauder. What further consensus needs to be obtained? SSS108 ^talk-email 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not REMOTELY what he said. JBKramer 19:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Specifically "I would not use material regarding any particular allegation." JBKramer 19:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's right. That is why that material was removed. Reference to Salon.com IS included in the article as per his advice [4]. Are you aware of this fact or are you blindly reverting? SSS108 ^talk-email 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JBKramer that SSS108 removal of information sourced to salon.co, i.e. kundalini awakening defense is not in contradiction to Fred Bauder's opinion on the matter who wrote "I would not use material regarding any particular allegation. That relies only on the victim's testimony." By the way the Kundalini defense by devotees can be verified in seconds on the internet, so I do not understand why the sourcing to salon.com is controversial. I had such bizarre rationalizations for some time myself too. Andries 19:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The following sentence is inclued: "A number of allegations were published in an article by the liberal, on-line webzine Salon.com." According to Fred Bauder, the citation of Ram Das can be just as false as the citations to allegations. Neither can be used. Maybe you should seek clarification again. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How can this be reasonably false? It can be verified in seconds with google. Andries 19:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? That's almost precisely what Fred suggested it say. What's the issue? JoshuaZ 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, It is also about Ram Das Awle's kundalini defense sourced to salon.com that SSS108 repeatedly removes. You can find it with google. ( I do not whether I am allowed to link to it here). Andries 20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no justification to remove the sentence that reads "According to an article in salon.com in the year 2001, a great part of the Findings contains testimonies of sexual harassment and sexual abuse." There is no justification to remove the stentence that reads "According to the journalist Michelle Goldberg of salon.com the fact that the Baba has high ranking Indian politicians as his supporters and the charity works done by the various organizations associated with the Baba help to explain why he has not been brought into a court of law in India. The Indian consulate website states that crime victims must file charges with the police." These are not allegations of a specific individual sourced only to Salon. Honestly, it is transparently obvious that this is bad faith edit warring. I, however, could care less about this article, and as such, I disengage. May you all get exactly what is coming to you. JBKramer 20:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to involve more detail than Fred advocated. JoshuaZ 20:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon is a good source for the fact that there are a number of allegations of sexual misconduct. Fred Bauder 20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fred's concern (as expressed here) was obviously that the allegations of some kid who had his penis touched was going to be included in the article sourced to Salon - I agree this would not be acceptable. These are not statements by some kid who got penis touched - they are real investigative and summary work done by a reliable secondary source. One discusses what a BOOK says. The other is about criminal law and Indian politicallegal whatevers.JBKramer 20:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, JoshuaZ. Although Andries is aware of Fred Bauder's comments, he reverted the article, keeping the refences exactly as they were before and is wanting to add more information from the Salon.com article. Just look at his recent edit.

Fred, your statement is obviously ambiguous. The reference to Salon.com is included but Andries wants to include specific information from it. What exactly are you saying? Can specific information be cited from the Salon.com article or not? SSS108 ^talk-email 20:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends on where Salon got it. It is a matter of editorial judgement. Is it just he said, or is it more substantial? Fred Bauder 04:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm following this discussion but it doesn't look like anyone is talking about the material in the article except to fight about its reliability as an article or a magazine. What is the problem with the article exactly? Ekantik 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

JBKramer, The Finding's was not a book It was an internet document circulated by ex-devotees that contained mostly anonymous accounts from alleged victims as well as other criminal allegations that have never been taken to any court of law at any time past or present. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So? Salon.com, an unquestionably reliable source, summarized it. JBKramer 20:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

JBKramer, no one has ruled that Salon.com is "unquestionably" a reliable source. That is your opinion and others disagree about it. Especially when Salon.com is a fine example of advocacy journalism, which Wikipedia frowns upon. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing more for me to discuss with you at this point. If you play revert games on the article, I will respond in kind. If you gain consensus from other editors on the article, I will abide by it. JBKramer 20:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

JBKramer, there are editors both for and against the inclusion of this article. No one has reached concensus and the only Arbitrator who was willing to respond gave his opinion. I asked him for further clarification. The consensus you demand has not been responded to by ArbCom and it appears they are not going to respond to it. So Fred's comments are all we can go on for now. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The kundalini defense by Ram Das Awle is not unique and not rare and hence should be re-inserted. It was also voiced by Wim van Dijk in the offical Dutch magazine for members of the Sathya Sai Organization. Andries 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I.e. in the article by W. van Dijk “Onderscheidingsvermogen is nu heel belangrijk”, in Op de hoogte nr 3, oktober 2000, pp. 7-8. (plagiarized from Nagel). Andries 21:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The majority of editors involved in this discussion have opined that Salon is a reliable source for this article. This is important. Ekantik 02:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not allowed on Wikipedia. Andries even claimed that he got his ideas and inspiration from non-reliable sources and plagiarized them [5]. What more can I say?

SSS108, To answer your question, you could give context for what I wrote there. See user:Andries/Wikipedia:plagiarism. I admit that I have plagiarized Steel's and Nagel's writings for this article. Andries 18:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, I think ArbCom needs to rule on this. There is simply no way that a self-admitted liberal, opinionated, tabloid-like webzine is an indisputably reliable source for Wikipedia. Even more the case when it publishes stand-alone articles. People keep saying that Salon.com is generally considered reliable. However, no one says according to whom and by what policy. Especially when a majority of what Salon.com writes would qualify as advocacy journalism. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't need ArbCom rulings for every little thing because ArbCom is a last-resort dispute resolution process and should be reserved for issues of ultimacy. Through this whole discussion the topics have flitted between the reliability of Salon itself and the reliability of Michelle Goldberg's article in Salon. The majority of editors who've been involved in this discussion agree that Goldberg's article is a reliable source for this Wikipedia article. Please maintain focus. Ekantik 14:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, from the discussion had, editors were arguing more about Salon.com's overall reliability than Goldberg's article. Neither they or you have made a convincing argument about Salon.com's reliability as it pertains to BLP. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Fred for your further comment. Like I said I'm following this discussion but it doesn't look like anyone is talking about the material in the article except to fight about its reliability as an article or a magazine, no one has explained the exact problem with the article. Ekantik 07:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SSS108 Please stop removing well-sourced relevant info

Journalist Sacha Kester wrote in de Volkskrant 7 Jan, 2003

"the sorrow of those who after years of devotion saw through his deception is indescribable. The jewels and watches that he materializes are hidden in his chair. Followers who make large donation are given preferential treatment. He advises ill people not to take their medicine. He invites good looking young boys for a private interview to grope in their underwear and then to invite them to satisfy him orally.""

I made a comment at the BLP notice board about this. [6] Andries 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I already told you that this violates WP:BLP#Writing_style. Stop trying to make this article into an Anti-Sai expose, like you do on your website against Sathya Sai Baba. It is supposed to be an encylopedic article. SSS108 ^talk-email 07:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We are only following what the sources say. Please stop removing well-sourced information that is relevant to the person's notability. I will revert. Andries 11:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What she said has been documented in a neutral, understated, factual way as per WP:BLP#Writing_style. Stop trying to push your Anti-Sai Agenda on this page. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article in question is not even about Sathya Sai Baba. It is about Indian Gurus and only one small paragraph mentioned SSB (half being the quote attributed to Kester). It did not provide pro/con POVs or anything else for that matter. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SSB is India's most prominent guru, so of course an article about spiritual seekers looking for a guru should treat SSB. I see nothing wrong with using a concise summary from a reputable newspaper article for this article. In addition, the writer made several allusions to SSB outside of the paragraph. Andries 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I filed a request for comments. [7]. Andries 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Some questions that may help:

Does the journalist explain where did he get his information from?
Is he describing his opinion, or the opinion of others?
What type of article was this, an op-ed, a column?

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If I remember it well, she read the website, but she was not very clear about it.
~~his~~ her opinion
not an oped nor a column. It was a lenghty article about spiritual seekers who go to India to find a guru and how this can go terribly wrong.

Andries 20:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sacha Kester was the correspondent of de Volkskrant in India, I just found out. Andries 20:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Which website did she read? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

She quoted Hans de Kraker's story from what she wrote was a website of former followers. Andries 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)amended 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sory, but I do not follow. You said that she is expressing her opinion. Was she? Who is Hans de Kraker, then? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a longer excerpt for clarity

Ticket naar Nirvana”/”Ticket to Nirvana”, in the Dutch Newspaper De Volkskrant 7 January 2003

“Those are according to most Indians real holy men. Lonely souls who retire in the Himalaya, or who wander with their shabby possessions and live from the alms given to them by believers. They do not perform trick, like materializing ash out of nothing, and they are not looking for followers who can pay a lot of money to reach nirvana.

Not only hippies travel to India. Nurses, bank clerks, managers, and house wives: everybody who is looking for spiritual food, who has not managed to process the loss of the church or who has devoured books like the The Celestine Prophecy, everybody can buy a ticket to India.

(..)

But where to start among the many holy men? There are naked men who stand near a temple and whisper a mantra into your wear if you give them a coin. And there are celebrities who travel through the whole world and have a small office in every big city.

But here too, answers are difficult to get. “You westerners always get it wrong”, Suranya Chakraverti says. “Either you ridicule a real guru and say that it is all hogwash or you do believe in spirituality and then choose for a swindler”

A good example of the last category is Sai Baba: the man with the hair cut that would have made the Jackson Five jealous. He has million of followers who believe that he is god himself and the sorrow of those who after years of devotion saw through his deception is indescribable. The jewels and watches that he materializes are hidden in his chair. Followers who make large donation are given preferential treatment. He advises ill people not to take their medicine. He invites good looking young boys for a private interview to grope in their underwear and then to invite them to satisfy him orally. ’Devastation. Devastation’, writes Hans de Kraker on a website where former follower have published their to stories as warning to others. ‘The facts, the truth, that for which we all travelled to India, is calling us now. The truth is calling for help’

Thus finding a guru is a precarious matter. In the book Karma Cola a German economist tells author Gita Mehta, “It is my opinion that quality control has to be introduced for gurus. Many of my friends have become crazy in India.” “

Andries 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Andries. By the look of it she took what she read on the former follower's website and reproduced it verbatim. Otherwise, as she does not describe where she got that info, we can only assume that is her opinion. How reliable that opinion is? Not for me to judge, but I would argue that there is something about the BLP writing style, that should be taken into consideration. Maybe summarizing her opinion and adding the necessary context, such info about the allegations she found in a former follower's website, and some information about what the the article was about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OTOH, quotes do not violate Wikipedia policy as I understand it. There is no harm against the inclusion of quotes and using WP:BLP#Writing_style is superficial. Ekantik 13:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The writing style for WP:BLP is different than other articles, Ekantik. The quote in question is not any ordinary quote. It is an opinionated quote from a wholly critical article against SSB. Therefore, its inclusion should follow WP:BLP#Writing_style. You might dismiss the policy, I don't. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

BLP or no BLP, there are plenty of BLP article sout there with opinionated quotes. They cannot and should not be dismissed out of hand. Opinionated is POV and judging by Andries extract its more of a general article on SSB than a specific attack. Ekantik 05:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, I do not consider Kester's quote an opininionated one because the evidence against SSB is so big. Andries 16:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

We should obtain consensus. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, As if you ever waited for consensus to implement your favorite changes. If you consider concensus so important then shall we revert back to versions before your broke concensus? Andries 16:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, the record clearly shows that you rarely waited for consensus. You have often filed requests for comments and then revereted the article before any comment was made. The archives show my numerous comments pointing this out. I have observed the consensus regarding Salon.com. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus should be gained on the talk page of WP:BLP, not here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and policy must be followed. Seek consensus on the policy page. Consensus was not gained on the Salon issue and that is still pending. Ekantik 01:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries I also do not consider Kester's quote to be opinionated. It should be allowed and I think removal of it was on superficial reasons. Ekantik 01:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Kester formulated an opinion based on an unnamed Anti-Sai website she read. She did not personally hear stories or obtain first-hand testimonies. Therefore it is her unsourced and personal opinion. Do show us, Ekantik, where Kester said she personally obtained that information, was directly told that information or that she researched it first-hand for herself? She never said any of that. She only made reference to what she read on some unnamed website. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, following your way of reasoning shall we then remove all opinions voiced by SSB apologists who do not write explicitly that they have spoken to men and boys who said that they were sexually abused by SSB? Andries 08:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This type of discussion would shut down immediately on other disputed articles, example Judaism. Please refrain from pointless and argumentative reasoning that does not help this article or the Wikipedia project. It matters not if Kester's quote is opinionated, it is published in reputable media and can be included in the Opposition section of this article. Period. Ekantik 15:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, to the contrary one can argue that you are using Wikipedia as a soapbox. After all, you are the trying to make the argument that what Kester wrote was not an opinion. If you cannot logically defend your position, don't blame me.

Andries, please stop attempting to pigeon-hole my comments. The only reason you want that poorly supported quote in the article is to push your POV, which violates (in my opinion) WP:BLP#Writing_style. Andries, also show me where quotes (like the one's you are attempting to use with Kester) are included in the article in association with SSB apologists? SSS108 ^talk-email 17:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with Kester's quote? That it is explicitly states that he invites young men for oral sex? We could reword that sentence a bit. But your selective summary of the quote omits relevant well-sourced cinformation (such as hiding objects in his chair). So I see your reverts to your selective summary of the quote as POV pushing, not as an attempt to maintain BLP writing style. Andries 17:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this rewording

The journalist Sacha Kester wrote in 2003 an article in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant about spiritual seekers who go to India to find a guru. In that article Kester wrote that SSB is a good example of a guru who is a swindler. Kester further wrote in the article that "the sorrow of those who after years of devotion saw through his deception is indescribable. The jewels and watches that he materializes are hidden in his chair. Followers who make large donation are given preferential treatment. He advises ill people not to take their medicine." She further wrote that he "invites good looking young boys for a private interview" and then explicitly described SSB's sexual habits with these boys.^[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andries (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Andries, you are going from bad to worse. Her views are to be summarized just like everyone else's. You are POV pushing, as usual. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not object to a summary of Kester's quote if that summary is accurate and does not omit information. Until now you have not made such a summary. Andries 21:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just did although it still needs to be reworded to divulge the bias in that the segment about Sathya Sai Baba was wholly critical about him. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree with your edits Andries. It still violates writing style for BLP. You are not summarizing. You are taking everything she said and putting in there anyway. So I am going to work on a neutral and understated summary. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of information is contained in a few sentences, so shortening without omitting information is very difficult. That was one of the reasons why I preferred to quote Kester instead of summarizing. Andries 23:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you are pushing your Anti-Sai POV. It can be summarized quite well and easily. You just refuse to do it because it undermines your Anti-Sai stance. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded that particular paragraph. It was very badly written (like most of the entire article) and removed POV references. Ekantik 01:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, wikipedia reveals all forms of bias. If an article is wholly critical on a person, not mentioning this fact is POV. The fact remains that Kester's article contained nothing even remotely resembling fair and balanced. This bias need to be divulged and it is not POV to make this statement of fact. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Andries providing the extract above the article does not appear to be wholly critical of SSB, this is your opinion. My edits were made on the basis that your grammar was very bad. Please stop reverting people's edits before proper discussion. Ekantik 18:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that it takes two to tango. May you consider that you are doing the same with reverting other people's edits? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I also made other gramamtical edits that were also reverted. Do not revert wholesale but re-edit the points under dispute. Ekantik 18:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, do show me what Kester about SSB that is not critical? The section pertaining to SSB is wholly critical and she mocked his hair, etc. Something a neutral and non-biased journalist would not do. If you want to correct my grammar, you should do so by divulging the fact that Kester's article is wholly critical on SSB. To withhold this information is pushing an Anti-Sai POV. Discuss your edits on the talk page or expect your POV edits to be reverted. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, am I not making my point clear enough? The whole article suffers from bad grammar which I intend to cleanup. The disputed section of Kester's quote is also suffering from bad grammar. I have not removed anything that refers to Kester's opinion, but have simply corrected the grammar. SSS108 is reverting my edits which have corrected the bad grammar and also removed POV references to the article being "wholly critical" when Andries extract above shows nothing like that. If it takes two to tango, then take into consideration that I have discussed all my edits before making any changes while others have not done so.

SSS108 I repeat, please stop reverting this article before' discussing them on this talk page. Kester's opinion has been correctly noted by my edit so please stop inserting your POV into the section. And please stop removing cosmetic edits related to bad grammar. Ekantik 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

According to ArbCom, SSS108 is an advocate of SSB and is POV by default. Please stop accusing me of having a POV. Ekantik 19:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits prove you are POV pushing. Your complaints and attempts to get Freelanceresearcher banned also points to that end. The material you seek to exclude or edit deals solely with opposing content. Your actions speak louder than your words. And you should practice what you preach about discussing your edits before reverting the article. I have done exactly as you have done. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain which of my edits count as "POV-pushing". I've already explained that I got involved with this article because of the various RFCs filed and associated talk pages (Salon as a source) and am devoted to NPOV. I have better things to do than be accused of having a POV by editors who have a POV by default. If editors here have a problem with edits made by invited ad uninvolved editors then stop filing RFCs. If users here disrupt the article or the talk pages in any way I will have no hesitation in filing a complaint. Ekantik 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that talk pages are meant to discuss the subjects of the article, not to evaluate each other's editing abilities. The example cited from Talk:Judaism is a pointer for how elongated argumentation should be shut down and nipped in the bud. Ekantik 16:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, I am not going to endlessly engage you in these disputes. The fact remains that all of your edits deal with opposing material. There are voluminous sources of information about Sathya Sai Baba and your only concern appears to be in the controversy and increasing the discussions towards that end. Show me any of your edits that have been otherwise?

Andries, I am not going to reword the section in dispute. Until you re-word the relevant section neutrally, the disputed tag is going to stay in place. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 that's nice, because I am not interested in engaging in disputes either. Please take the time to study WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. This article has spent too long under the control of POV editors and will not remain so for much longer. Ekantik 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Who are these POV editors, Ekantik? And, do you consider yourself one of them as well? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Ekantik 17:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you do not consider yourself to have be a POV editor, fair enough, the proof will be in the pudding, as they say. You still have not responded to the first part of my question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is exactly comments like Ekantik's that prove that he has some sort of POV to push. Obviously Ekantik doesn't know that this article was under the full control of Andries (the former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba website on the internet) for over 2 years. Ekantik does not care about this, but he cares about any attempt to neutralize the clearly POV comments in the controversy section. Ekantik, I think you have a lot to catch up on. If you don't even know the basic history of this article, how can you plan to take it forward and make a sober argument about POV editors? SSS108 ^talk-email 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section Sizes

The Opposition and Controversies section is way too shorter than the earlier sections and should be expanded with more information. Because this article is already oversized then some of the other sections will have to be shortened. Why are there so many references, wasn't it agreed to shorten the number of references? Ekantik 05:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, what do you mean we should expand the controversies section? That section is already disproportionately long. It should be summarized, if anything. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The references were cleaned up long ago by Pjacobi. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is still too long. References are only needed for facts that may be disputed or where particular sentences warrant expansion. References for every little information is unnecessary. Ekantik 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, this is not the generally accepted practice in Wikipedia. See also the recent peer review on SSB. Andries 09:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, instead of making general comments, perhaps you can give examples of references that need to be excluded. On the peer review, it was stated that more references were needed. The fact remains that if many of the points are not referenced now, they will be disputed in the future. Which references do you think are unnecessary? SSS108 ^talk-email 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK the Peer Review is a little long, I will go through it later. However I still think that many sections are too long making the article oversized. We may need to think about splitting into several different articles as advised by the message at the top of the page whenever it is edited. Ekantik 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

60KB, of which a large portion are footnotes, is not a long article. Also note that a few months ago many sub articles where merged back into this article due to duplication of material and redundancy. You may want to look back in the history and read the archives. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. What I have read of the archives show that the wrangling disputes continue even today. I only got involved with this article because of its appearance at ArbCom and the talk page about Salon being a reputable source. SSS108 and Andries were forgiven of all offences by the ArbCom decision and I would prefer to work with the article as it is now.

Thanks for saying that a 60kb is not long, this was my original point that the Opposition section should be expanded with more information as the treatment so far has been sparing. Ekantik 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, the reference of him being born in the Ratnakaram family was an example of information and references that I considered unnecessary. You have already removed that anyway, thanks for excercising good judgement. But now there are seven references to account for his miraculous powers, isn't this over the top? Ekantik 18:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The section that discusses SSB's miraculous powers is summarized to reflect the content taken from 7 references. By removing one of the references, some of the content in the summary is going to be removed. If you insist on pushing this, I will elaborate on the miracles and then reference each instance. The choice is yours. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The seven references are each for different statements in the sentence. One refences for the family name Ratnakaram. Two references for the two different birthdates. One reference for the word miracle worker. Two references for the word "Godman". One reference for the word controversial. So this means that only one reference (for Godman) is redundant and could be removed. Andries 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, as long as you follow Ekantik's advice and explain your edits fully, with refs, before making the edit so we can agree on it. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand. What advice of Ekantik should I follow? I am not going to explain Ekantik repeatedly extensively the need for sourcing which is a generally accepted Wikipedia practice. See Wikipedia:cite your source. Andries 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik suggested that we discuss our edits before making them. I am more than willing to follow this proposed guideline if we all agree to it. This is not about citing sources, it is about removing reference material. If you want to remove reference material, please explain why you are going to remove it and cite the reference so we can agree on it first. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries I see, good idea.. But it still makes the lead paragraph look a bit untidy. Wouldn't it be better to expand on those statements (keeping the references) later in the article (excluding Ratnakaram reference)?

SSS108, I was following the guideline given by the neutrality-disputed tag in the Opposition section. Bold edits can be made as long as there is adequate referencing but there is little call for explaining every single edit. Ekantik 16:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My comments pertain to controversial material. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UNESCO Removal

I have removed the sentence about the UNESCO statement being removed from their site. This gives the impression that the removal confirms or implies that they have retracted their views on SSB, which they haven't. Unless UNESCO release a statement that confirms this then this shouldn't remain in the article. Agreement? Ekantik 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, readers should be informed that UNESCO removed that media article. Not including this statement gives the impression that it is still on their site. It isn't. It is a factual comment. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, you are also wrong that UNESCO has not retracted their views on Sathya Sai Baba. Just ask Andries (former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest Anti-Sai Site on the internet). Anti-Sai Activists, ex-devotees and critics (who formerly praised Unesco for the withdrawal that they boasted on accomplishing through an "e-boming" campaign) are now attacking Unesco for removing the release on their site. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please take the time to study WP:NOT. It was a press release and not a media article, UNESCO have not retracted their views on SSB. Until they do, including a reference to its removal gives readers the false impression that they have retracted their views. Discuss? Ekantik 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, please follow your own advice about Wikipedia not being a battleground. Nowhere does the article say that UNESCO retracted their views. That is your inference and your perception. The fact remains that by excluding the sentence you want removed, there would be the perception that the press release is still on their site. It isn't. Therefore, your proposed edit would give a false impression to readers. And the "press release" was not an official press release published in a newspaper. It was exclusively published on their website. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, if you continue to treat Wikipedia as a battleground then I will file a complaint. This is because from what I have seen of the discussions here and on related pages, almost all of your edits contain some form of dig at other editors. Your recent comment against Andries in this section is the most recent indication of this. I am not interested in your petty battles nor am I interested in argumentation over little issues. Please stick to discussing topics related to the article.

There isn't a pressing need to include the sentence of UNESCO's removal from their website. Including it gives readers the impression that by removing the press release they have retracted their position. They haven't. Can other editors contribute their views on this? Ekantik 17:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, file a complaint. I am not going to bullied by you. You can not even follow your own advice on how the article should be edited. I will gladly point out how when you were not even involved in the discussion, you attempted to get Freelanceresearcher banned behind her back and in secret. This shows whom is taking a "dig at other editors". Whether you know it or not, Andries is a the self-admitted former webmaster and current "Main Reprsentative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba website on the internet.

There isn't a pressing need to remove the sentence about UNESCO. Contrary to your claims, Anti-Sai Activists and critics believe that UNESCO has withdrawn their position against Sathya Sai Baba because they are currently attacking UNESCO. You can keep parroting your claims as you much as you like, your proposed edit would give the impression that the press release is still on their site when it isn't. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not notable or even relevant that a press release is removed from a website of the original publisher. I am not aware that I believe that UNESCO has withdrawn their position against SSB, nor I am aware that I am currently attacking UNESCO. SSS108, May be you can help to refresh my memory. Andries 20:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the preferred source for this or any article when multiple sources are available are secondary souces. Not primary sources such as the press release. As far as I am aware secondary sources did not report that the press release is not available on the UNESCO website. Andries 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny Andries, because you even once linked to Barry Pittard's article about "Does UNESCO Really Protect The Young?". This article is a direct attack against UNESCO for removing that media release from their website. You know it and I know it. And if you want to get technical, no secondary sources printed the quote that you are attributing to UNESCO, therefore if we remove that disputed sentence, we will have to remove the quote as well because it was never published by a secondary source. SSS108 ^talk-email 08:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The importance of the UNESCO development warrants its being quoted in part or in full. The statement about it being removed from their website is of lesser importance and does not reflect their position on SSB. Keeping the disputed sentence contributes to the impression that they have retracted their statement and changed their position when they haven't. ekantiK 16:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giving context in the wrong way?

SSS108 has given "context" to Kester's statement by writing that Kester did not mention her sources and that she was critical about SSB. I have some understanding for this but this can be done for other statements too. I mean revealing bias and context should applied consistently. For example, we can change the following statement

"SSB said in a speech that people tell lies about him because they have been bribed."

into

"SSB said in a speech in which he praised his own deeds and in which he was completely critical about his detractors that people tell lies about him because they had been bribed without mentionings sources."

Will this improve the article?

Thanks in advance. Andries 20:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I would write: "SSB said in a speech in which he praised his own deeds and in which he criticized his detractors, that people tell lies about him because they had been bribed. He did not mention details about these bribes or the provenance of that information."≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you were the one who added the comment about "without providing sources". That was your edit, not mine. I added the sentence that her comments were based on an unnamed website that she made reference to. So your entire argument is moot. SSS108 ^talk-email 08:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you both agree, then why is the ridiculous clause "without providing sources" still in the article? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Savidan, since Andries made that edit, I will have to let him resolve it. In my opinion, there is a systematic attempt to slant this article with a critical POV, hence all these propositions by Andries to reword statements toward that end. As stated before, Andries maintains a high position on a website that directly attacks Sathya Sai Baba. His presence here is not as innocent as he would like for others to think. This was discussed during the ArbCom phase [8]. Sincerely, SSS108 ^talk-email 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for referring me to the ArbCom. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Editor?

Ekantik, can you please explain this edits by Gaurasundara: Refs: 01 02? Why are you using two names? For those who may not know, Gaurasundara is not a neutral party in the Sai Controversy and even attempted to get his profile deleted for some unknown reason [9]. He is one of the most vocal opponents of Sathya Sai Baba on the internet (otherwise known as Sanjay Dadlani) and is notorious for his shameless defamations against him. Not only did Gaurasundara's first edit on his userpage come from Ekantik's page [10], Ekantik was the very first person to greet him [11]. You need to come clean about your association with Gaurasundara and your alleged statements about being a neutral editor. SSS108 ^talk-email 08:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place for such remarks. You can make leave a message at User_talk:Gaurasundara or User_talk:Ekantik or at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet. Andries 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Andries. I will follow your suggestions. However, since Ekantik has posted on this page that he is a neutral editor who does not POV push, I think these comments are entirely relevant on this page. I also put messages on both talk pages. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik admitted he is Gaurasundara. Once this issue is fully resolved, I will give a full disclosure here. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 will do no such thing. Any disclosures related to my editing of this article will be made by the appropriate person - myself. I did not get a chance to answer Jossi's question before SSS108 registered his complaint of alleged sockpuppetry. I agree that this is not the proper arena to discuss such things but just for the record, I have responded and clarified my intent here. I trust that this will answer any questions. Further requests for clarification may be made on my talk page instead of diverting the discussion here away from subjects related to the article. - Ekantik 16:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Your sockpuppetry is wholly relevant on this article considering your extensive and vicious attacks against Sathya Sai Baba on the internet and you superficial claims to not engaging in POV pushing. If you think your behavior outside of Wikipedia is not relevant to your presence on this article, you are wrong. Feel free to challenge me. I will gladly provide a list of your 22 blogs against SSB, devotees and proponents and your 35+ online names as well as links to your numerous defamatory posts on yahoo groups and on the quicktopic forum. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in your opinion, as I can similarly provide a list of your several adoring blogs and websites in favor of SSB as well as your numerous defamatory blogs against critics and apostates of SSB and discussion forum posts also. But I have no interest in doing so because your continual tendency to use Wikipedia as a battleground is hurting the project rather than helping it. It goes without saying that one might similarly note your off-wiki behaviour in relation to this article. You are also mistaken, my alleged sockpuppet behaviour is not relevant for this article because my legitimate sockpuppet (Gaurasundara) is stated to be in connection with articles of Hindu religion, which has nothing to do with SSB and will not be edited as such. Take the time to study this carefully.

SSS108, by continuing this argument you are in violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and persistent disruption. You have already been told that this not an appropriate venue to continue your vendetta here. I only registered my response to this section of the talk page because I was asked to do so. If you have any further (relevant) concerns, register them on my talk page or another appropriate venue. Now enough. ekantiK 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is clear from all the exchanges above that most, if not all editors of this article are "closely" involved with the subject, and may have difficulties in maintaining a neutral attitude (see WP:COI#Close_relationships). Once all those editors accept the unavoidable fact that they are quite biased either pro or con, they could try and put all that aside as much as possible and discuss ways to improve the article, rather than discuss each other. Discussing each other does not help much, the proof that we can put Wikipedia aims above out viewpoints, is in the pudding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, and this is consistent with my stated aims to improve this article in general regards to spelling, grammar, cleanup and maintenance, and inclusion of facts that are reliably sourced. ekantiK 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It would have really helped, ekantiK, if you would have been forthcoming with a statement about your POV when asked above. Now it will be quite difficult for your opponents to accept your comments in good faith, so please be patient and build some good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said above, I didn't get a chance to answer your question before SSS108 registered his complaint. I hope that everything is clarified now, and I have no problem with building good faith as I believe that a large amount of my edits so far (conservative estimate 97%) have been made in good faith and I am confident that the same will apply to this article and all others. ekantiK 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, it is not possible for me to build good-faith with Ekantik when he specifically created a public blog attacking me and my work here on Wikipedia. Not only did Ekantik (xxxx xxxx) create a blog criticizing everything I do on Wikipedia, he also attacks me on Yahoo Forums and expresses nothing but condesecending, snippy and wholly POV comments against me and my edits here. Ekantik would like for others to think that he is here to build consensus and maintain a NPOV. His extra-Wikipedia internet activities speak loudly for him to the contrary. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to inject myself in this personal dispute, but I would advise Ekantik and you to read WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks, and to avoid making negative comments on editors, or Wikipedia, while actively engaged in editing these articles. That should be a pre-condition to establish the necessary good-will and be able to accept contributions in good faith from both sides of the dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject, I'd like to ask SSS108 to refrain from using my real name on articles and talk pages. ekantiK ^talk 01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, since your identity has been revealed, I can refer to you by your real name, Sanjay Dadlani, if I so choose. As you already know, Priddy and Andries referred to me by my real name and see no problem in doing so. However, I will refer to you henceforth by your wikiname and will only mention your real name if you incite the issue enough with your superficial claims of neutrality. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not particularly concerned about what Andries or Priddy have done in relation to this. I have expressly asked that my identity/real name not be divulged and I expect you to honour that request, especially when I have extended that same courtesy to you despite my knowing your identity. If you fail in this then I will treat it as a violation of WP:WQT. ekantiK ^talk 03:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, revealing another user's real name is a blockable offense. You kept on revealing your real name yourself and hence I see no problem to use your real name. Andries 06:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not be intimidated by either of your threats. The fact remains that "ekantiK" / "Gaurasundara" had every opportunity to choose usernames that would not identify him with the Sai Controversy. Unfortunately for him, he choose to use the name "Gaurasundara", which directly links him to the Sai Controversy because he uses that very same name on the internet (which he recently changed then re-changed on one of his blogs in an attempt to suppress this fact). Since my claim of sockpuppetry has been filed, ekantiK has admitted that he is the person I accuse him to be, i.e., Sanjay Kishore Dadlani. Since he wages a vicious Anti-Sai smear campaign against Sathya Sai Baba on the internet, his presence here and his attempt to prevent other's from knowing his true identity is dishonest and deceptive at best.

When Robert Priddy (aka ProEdits) came in here making personal attacks against me and Freelanceresearch, not only did Andries say and do absolutely nothing about it, he said nothing when ProEdits revealed Freelanceresearch's real name (which she has not divulged on Wikipedia as far as I am aware of). When it comes to ekantiK (a Sai Critic that Andries openly endorses, promotes and publishes on his Anti-Sai Website) he threatens me with Wikipedia policy. Where was Andries adherence to Wikipedia policy when his Anti-Sai friend came here revealing other's full names and making personal attacks? Andries does not care about Anti-Sai Activist's violation of Wikipedia policy because he was the former webmaster and is the current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest website on the internet opposing Sathya Sai Baba [12].

This article has been under the direct influence of Anti-Sai Activists for years. As one can see, more critics associated with the Sai Controversy are coming here and are now trying to do so incognito, feigning neutrality despite their vicious and highly defamatory extra-Wikipedia internet activities. If I get banned for divulging the truth about the unremitting attempts of Anti-Sai Activists to dominate the Sathya Sai Baba article with their Anti-Sai Agenda, so be it. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, I never believed that the name that user:ProEdits used for user:Freelanceresearch is a real name. Andries 17:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, it does not matter what you believe. The fact remains that Freelanceresearch's personal information was divulged and you didn't care about it one bit. When it comes to your Anti-Sai friends, your sensitivities all of a sudden blossom and you rush to their defence. It is also important to point out that Anti-Sai Activists do not think I am using my real name either. There is also no supporting information that "Sanjay Dadlani" is Ekantik's real name. Using your logic, I can cite his name with impunity because I believe he is not using his real name. Your standards change with the POV being expressed. You are only out to defend your Anti-Sai Agenda and Anti-Sai Friends. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course my beliefs matter in this respect. I did and do not care if if one internet user name is connected to another internet user name without divulging Frelanceresearch' personal information. That is different from what you are doing with Ekantik. Andries

I would also like to point out that it was the anti-Sais who FIRST mentioned SSS108's name on this site and no one said a word about it when they did that in a very vindictive manner. I'm wondering why the anti-Sais are constantly getting away with stuff they THEN accuse others of.Freelanceresearch 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Could editors consider refactoring the above discussion and focusing on editing an encyclopedic article on the subject, rather than addressing perosnal issues? Wikipedia is not a battleground ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unecessary reversions

I'm just trying to improve the writing style of the existing material in this article and SSS's reversions have been making it a little difficult. The sentence in question is currently of the form:

"X wrote an aritcle. This article was wholly critical of Y, in which X expressed the opinion, without mentioning any sources, that Y is a good example of Z"

And I tried to rewrite it to say:

"X wrote an article which critized Y as Z"

I'd be glad to discuss the wording right here. The first version unecessarily confuses the text and makes it less readable. The first problem is the use of "wholly critical." It's unclear at what point criticism becomes "wholly critical"; it's really not a sliding scale. "Wholly" is just an emotive adjective that doesn't add any content. The reader doesn't need to be made aware of the fact that an article is "wholy critical"; Wikipedia is not a book review and does not need to make these judgements. Second, "without mentioning any sources" is original research at best and point of view pushing at worst. Someone does not need to mention sources to give their opinion. Being as the content of the article is summarized in the next sentence, the reader should be able to judge for themself on both of these counts.

My proposed wording should be obvious given the above. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you example is not clear. It does not take into consideration that the article is wholly critical and this bias needs to be divulged. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my previous post, my version does use the word "critized" and thus does not imply that X is a neutral observer of Y. However, the substance of the criticism should be allowed to stand for itself. For example, "The Baker Report was critical of the Bush administration's Iraq policy" is better than "The Baker Report was wholly critical of the Bush administration's Iraq policy." I think that my version makes it clear to the reader that X is a critic of Y and allows them to discover the substance of the criticism. To go furter, in this case, and use the adjective "wholly" is essentially original research because it purports to present "wholly" as the evaluation of Wikipedia of the article in question. This is unecessary; Occam's razor applies to writing about controversial subjects as well. If the substance can be communicated with fewer emotive words, it must be. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I will agree to the wording you proposed. "in an article critical..." You can remove the word "wholly".SSS108 ^talk-email 21:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least we agree that word has to go. You also haven't disputed the "without citing sources" thing yet. That would leave:

In 2003 the journalist Sacha Kester wrote an article about spiritual seekers and gurus in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant. This article contained a section ~~wholly~~ critical on Sathya Sai Baba in which Kester expressed the opinion~~, without mentioning any sources,~~ that Sathya Sai Baba is a good example of a guru who is a swindler.

However, I think that we should combine these two sentences. Specifically, I think using an active verb ("criticized") is better. The only relevant context from the first sentence seems to be that the article also addressed other gurus. The link to De Volkskrant in the footnote should be adequte:

In 2003, Dutch journalist Sacha Kester, in an article about spiritual seekers and gurus in De Volkskrant, criticized Sathya Sai Baba as a good example of a guru who is a swindler.

I think this can be improved further by leaving the link to De Volkskrant to the footnote. Also, since its already clear that SSB is a guru, the relevant claim made by Kester is that he's a swindler. Hence:

In 2003, Dutch journalist Sacha Kester, in an article about spiritual seekers and gurus, criticized Sathya Sai Baba as a swindler.

Then the next sentence explains this. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"In 2003 the journalist Sacha Kester wrote an article about spiritual seekers and gurus in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant. This article contained a section critical on Sathya Sai Baba in which Kester expressed the opinion..." I agree with. It just seems so strange there is an attempt to summarize the entire sentence when this isn't being done anywhere else in the article or even with Kester's own criticisms. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So your objection is that its only one sentence? I'd work on the rest of the article if I could! I didn't know it would take all day to talk about a sentence. These sentences should be combined because they are packed with info that is not directly relevant to SSB to the point that it slows the text. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, this is almost exactly the same thing I was saying earlier on this talk page and my edit was similar to your original edit. It would be excellent if you could assist with the entire article so as to improve it with reference to well-sourced factual statements that make good reading. ekantiK ^talk 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, then why aren't you working on reducing the rest of the reference? Why only the beginning? Your fascination with only the beginning of this reference boggles me. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. Then I'm going to make these changes then move on to the rest of the article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible legale ban of SSSB in Maharashtra

SSB may possibly banned in Maharashtra due to the new state law regarding superstition. Can we edit this in. See this discussion on youtube[13] does somebody has a date for this discussion? Andries 10:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Youtube is not allowed on Wikipedia. And that law is a proposed law. It has not been passed. SSS108 ^talk-email 11:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is only a copy of a reputable source on youtube. Andries 11:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a comment on the notability of this for the article. But reputable news stations are relevant for Wikipedia. Youtube itself should not be cited of course, but at least that allows other editors to confirm the source. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standardize name

After the intro, Sathya Sai Baba is sometimes referred to by his full name, sometimes as Sai Baba, sometimes as SSB. There might be other variations. I think it should be standardized as "Sai Baba" after the first reference. I'd be open to another option as long as it was standardized. Any thoughts? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I was going to go ahead sometime this week and normalise all references to SSB as 'Baba', since 'Baba' acts as a surname even if it is an assumed name and not his real name. 'Sathya Sai Baba' can be repeated where required but I was of the opinion 'Baba' should be used in the regular references. But you can go ahead with it if you want to. This is one of the problems I had with the article, referencing him as "SSB" everywhere is not professional. ekantiK ^talk 04:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Would "Baba" be regarded as the appropriate surname in India? Some periodicals I've seen call him "The Baba." savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Baranowski

This SSB site describes him as a Professor at Arizona State University. A google search for "Frank Baranowski" and "Arizona State University." Does not provide reassuring results. The closest hit (and this may not be him) is an article in the Phoenix New Times about someone who studied education at Arizona State University. The ASU faculty directory does not list him as a professor.

SSS, does your source say what he is a professor of. In either case, kirlian photography is not considered by anyone in the mainstream to be "science." Going into the merits of that practice in this article, however, would be inappropriate. I think that it is more appropriate to label Mr. Baranowski a "kirlian photographer" (with a link to kirlian photography for readers unfamiliar) rather than a "scientist who specializes in kirlian photography." At the very least, can you provide some non-SSB sites that describe this Baranowski guy. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, you cannot substitute referenced information with your original research. The reliable source in question calls Baranowski a professor and an American scientist. You cannot remove this information based on your opinions. You should also be following you advice about discussing the revision before reverting it. The reliable source in question did not come from a SSB site. It came from a newspaper. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The source in question is obviously not reliable. Newspapers don't create professors; university's do. If the newspaper says he is a professor at ASU and they don't have him in their faculty directory, then that source is incorrect and should not be used. The Island Lanka newspaper isn't exactly the New York Times. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper is one of the largest newspapers in Sri Lanka. Therefore it reliably sourced. If you have a problem with it, file a RFC. I was also sent the following article User:SSS108/Frank Baranowski. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, the source currently used says Arizona University, not ASU. However, they dont have him either. The article in your user space says he is a radio talk show host, not a professor. I don't really see why a RFC should be necessary for this. Any staff writer can falsely claim that someone is a professor; anyone with the internet can confirm that they are not. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that it is sourced, which is all I need to do to support my edit. If you would like, we can add "according to Dr. Gamini Karunanayake..." SSS108 ^talk-email 04:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You cannot simultaneously ignore evidence to the contrary and say that we should blindly follow a source because it is reliable. If a source makes claims which are demonstrably false, it is not reliable. Because being a professor is readily verifiable, these items are not suitable for such attribution. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Coincidentally this was going to be my next topic of discussion. If anyone cares to know, Sri Lankan newspapers/journalism as a whole is well known to be "unreliable" and slanted as many of them are government-owned to push propaganda. Favourable articles on SSB written by devotees that masquerade as objective articles appear regularly in Sri Lankan newspapers. However, this is officially my opinion. I personally do not credit the author or the article on the basis that it seems to be wholly biased in favour of SSB. If accusations of 'whole bias' can be used against Sacha Kester then why not Gamini Karunayake? ekantiK ^talk 04:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The other point I wished to mention is that the article contains factual inaccuracies and is thus not a reliable source. Am I correct in this? The factual inaccuracy is that Kirlian photography is recognised by science and can capture auras. See Kirlian_photography and science of auras - The claim that Kirlian cameras can capture auras is only a claim by the inventor and has not been proved in scientific experimentation. All this may count as "original research" but my contention is that the Sri Lankan article contains this factual innacuracy about Kirlian photography being a scientific way to capture the aura on camera. Other than that, the article is not written in an objective impartial way befitting of an ostensibly highly-qualified contributor and seems to take paranormal events and influences for granted, which is unscientific. ekantiK ^talk 04:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't find it necessary to resolve the truth value of either of these claims. However, a newspaper article is not adequate to label someone a professor or to label a entire subfield of pseudoscience as science. This is especially true for the second point. One person's opinion in one newspaper is not enough to trump mainstream scientific consensus. Wikipedia's policies specifically address pseudoscience on this question. Gamini Karunanayake does not have the authority to make someone a professor or a scientist. There is no reason to attribute either of these facts to him. Why is it not sufficient to label him a kirlian photographer. For readers who do consider that a legitimate form a science, we have just made the sentence more specific; for readers who do not, we have just corrected an inaccuracy. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So what "source" do you consider reliable in order to determine whether someone is a professor Savidan? Because I can cite examples of people who are claiming they were professors (Robert Priddy and Abraham Kovoor) yet there is no reliable documentation available on the internet or otherwise from what I can see, to prove they were. Yet their wikipedia articles state it as fact. Freelanceresearch 05:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A publication is a schoarly journal, their university website, etc. Both of those examples are a) non-US professors b) well before the internet. Also, there is a different standard when its their article. We don't always mention that people are professors when they are mentioned in other people's articles. When that fact is dubious, its best to avoid it entirely. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like an unfair double standard to me, especially considering it looks like Baranowski graduated on the sixties (and most likely started teaching then) when the internet did not exist. But the fact remains that both Baranowski's website, his obituary (which SSS108 linked to above) in the Phoenix paper and other internet resources list him as a Dr. Frank Baranowski and say he was teaching at Glendale Community College.Freelanceresearch 05:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What is Baranowski's webiste that you're referring to? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mysteries Around Us

This is the link to the archived site since he has passed.Freelanceresearch 10:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand, Savidan. You are asking why it isn't sufficient to label Baranowski as a kirlian photographer. I didn't understand at first. I have no problems with labelling him as a photographer even though the subject is pseudoscientific, but I'm still troubled at the inclusion of the topic in the article. ekantiK ^talk 05:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I just took a look at the article in question. It appears as if Karunayake is just paraphrasing material from Sai Baba books and magazines (that can be easily found through a Google search) and himself offers nothing new to be added in the newspaper article. Is this type of thing allowed on Wikipedia? ekantiK ^talk 05:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Even given the obvious unreliability of the sources, I'm not entirely convinced that it should be excluded entirely. I just think we need to be extremely careful not to overstate the credibility of the source. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the information staying in the article just so long as it is properly sourced. I agree with your questions about Karunayake's qualifications and apparent assumption of professorship on Baranowski. ekantiK ^talk 17:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That is why we should say "according to Dr. Gamini Karunanayake...". The fact remains that the info in question is sourced. If we attempted to validate every fact, we would end up removing a lot of information considering that, to date, Sathya Sai Baba has never been proven to be a fraud, has never been convicted of any crime, has never been charged with any crime and has never had even one single complaint lodged against him in India by any alleged victim, first-hand. Not even one alleged victim has even tried. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop being repetitive or this discussion will have to be refactored. Adding According to Dr. Gamini Karunayake is bad English and repetitive given that this phraseology occurs several times in the article. This is one of the things that are pending cleanup. Please consider an alternative way of referencing this information. ekantiK ^talk 17:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik/Gaurasundara, my comments are not meant for you. I am unwilling to work with you and this has already been discussed on my userpage: Response To Ekantik aka Gaurasundara. Ever since you came to this talk-page, you have done nothing but disagree with me and toss Wikipedia policies in my face like you are some sort of Admin. You are not. Those who want to know the truth about you can simply type "sathya sai baba+gaurasundara" into a google search [14] and see for themselves what type of critic you are. Keep talking to me and this is pretty much the response you are going to get. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 like it or not Wikipedia is a community. If you are unwilling to work with other editors on this article then you should consider taking a break, and if you continue to be antagonistic towards your fellow editors then you will be reported. Anybody can put your name into a Google search and see what type of advocate you are, and you still have not removed your privacy violations as you were asked to do. If you are in violation of several Wikipedia policies then this has to pointed out, and if other editors disagree with you then this has to be an occasion for reflection.

Other than that, I repeat my request for you to stop being repetitive and antagonistic to other editors. This article is already controversial and we do not need more people fanning the flames. ekantiK ^talk 15:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And I repeat my request for you to stop engaging in your petty squabbles. The fact remains that you came here incognito to edit and egage me on this article. Turns out you are the same vicious defamer who ceaselessly attacks me outside Wikipedia. You have done nothing but criticize me since you have come here and now the reason is obvious. If you do not want me to be antagonistic towards you, you should delete your blog that specifically attacks me and my involvement on Wikipedia, offer a public retraction and apology on all the Yahoo Groups and on the QuickTopic forum where you attack me (in relation to Wikipedia) and seek to build good faith by stopping your accusations of others of being contentious when you suffer from the very same fault yourself. Simple really. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok this is "off topic" especially since SSS108 keeps bring it up but, hard as it may be to believe, I am here to contribute to Wikipedia including this article. Read WP:WORLD, I am not interested in engaging with you outside the interests of this article and nobody except you has a serious problem with any edits I have made so forget about any "petty squabbles". If you cannot be civil then you will be reported. If you request me to delete anything then you should do the same with your several blogs and websites in relation to me and offer a public apology on all Yahoo and Quicktopic forums where you attack me, what to speak of all the other critics and apostates of SSB that you have publicly attacked and slandered on your internet pages. I am not the only editor who has brought up the topic of your bad faith edits, you have already been asked several times to stop distracting from conversation. If you persist then this talk page will have to be refactored, preferably by admin, and I refuse to engage in your personal tit-for-tat defamation campaign any longer. If you have a problem with my edits, discuss it here. If you have a problem with my conduct on Wikipedia, discuss it on my talk page. ekantiK ^talk 16:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, you are not here to contribute to this article. You are here to water down any view opposing your own. You simply cannot expect me to believe that your presence here is innocent when you are the most vocal critic and defamer of SSB on the internet. You might think you can fool others but you cannot fool me. All of your edits and discussions relevant to this article deal exclusively with the Sai Controversy. I assume that in the near future you will attempt to make a few superficial edits in favor of SSB and then start saying your are neutral, etc. The fact remains that you have made it very clear on the internet how you feel about Sathya Sai Baba and it is 100% negative. Go ahead and file a complaint. I believe I can make a solid case that your interest in this article is nothing even remotely resembling what you are attempting to portray it as. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parliamentary, governmental and political issues and responses

I suggest we merge this section with the controversies section as they all pertain to the controversy and the one paragraph that does not pertain to the controversy has already been mentioned in the article SSS108 ^talk-email 22:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Merge Tag

Savidan, regarding your removal of the merge tag for Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation, I suggest you read up on the past Mediation discussion. That section was specifically tagged due to the disproportionate amount of space dedicated to controversial material. In mediation, a suggestion was made to incorporate material back to the main page. Please find out the reasons for these tags before you remove them. It is something that needs to be worked on. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand why the merge seemed appropriate from a dispute resolution standpoint. However, that article (by its title and its contents) contains material that is not directly relevant to Sathya Sai Baba's biography. I think its important for there to be such a sub-article. It's certainly a better compromise than omiting source material or stuffing this article full of the info. This would be like trying to fit Christianity into the Jesus article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree Savidan. However, until that section is worked on and it is decided what material should be incorporated into the main article, the tag should stay, in my opinion. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of UNESCO information

One of SSS108's recent edits involved the removal of important information about UNESCO (diff1). This was partially discussed earlier on this talk page with regard to a redundant sentence and no consensus was gained. Now the whole section has been removed in favour of secondary sources. Please explain, and if no reasonable explanation is given then I will revert that information to how it was. ekantiK ^talk 15:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, why don't you ask Andries since he was the one who proposed it. The Unesco withdrawal notice was not published in reliable or reputable secondary sources. It simply appeared on the Unesco website. Since Wikipedia states that reliable information must be published by secondary sources, the primary source and quote (from the Unesco website) was removed and the published secondary source (The Telegraph article) was used. An explanation was already given and if you do not understand the issue then I suggest you wait until you do. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop blaming Andries for your edits. Don't push the "save page" button unless you are personally willing to take responsibility for your edits. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries could you please clarify your position?

This may be slightly controversial but a similar discussion on the Sai Baba of Shirdi article states that primary sources are "significantly more desirable". I think this is essential even according to Wikipedia policies:

A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. Experts usually have advanced training, and use as many different primary sources as are available so they can be checked against each other. Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.

As I mentioned before, the importance of the UNESCO development warrants partial or full inclusion of the media release quote. The information from the Daily Telegraph can be added as supplementary information that expands on it. I will have no problem with that. ekantiK ^talk 16:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are going to make this argument since you are a vehement critic of Sathya Sai Baba. Even Andries made the same observation I did. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If that is true then I disagree with the idea. Unless it is being said or implied that the UNESCO development in the SSB controversy was not significant enough to be noted properly? Or the fact that UNESCO is a reliable source for their own statements? And it has nothing to do with my being a "vehement critic" and has everything to do with improving this article. Assume good faith. ekantiK ^talk 17:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that since the statement by Unesco is no longer on their website, you are going to have a difficult time sourcing it without making "interpretive claims". SSS108 ^talk-email 17:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is no longer on their website does not signify a policy shift, and an archived version of the media release is available online. The same standard can be applied to the biased and pseudoscientific Sri Lankan article by Gamini Karunayake, which is no longer on their website and of which an archived version was provided by yourself. ekantiK ^talk 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with your self-righteous adherence to "assuming good faith". Your thousands of defamatory comments against Sahya Sai Baba wholly repudiates your claim to "good faith". I already discussed this before. Once again, the statement is no longer on Unesco's website. Therefore, you cannot currently cite them because it is no longer published. Trying to reinclude a no-longer-existent comment from the Unesco website without published secondary sources holds no water and points to an agenda specifically attempting to make "interpretive claims". SSS108 ^talk-email 17:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your earlier assertion, the article by Gamini Karunayake is sourced to a newspaper. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the Sri Lankan newspaper in question is not a reliable or reputable source. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive sites do not change authorship. There is no basis in Wikipedia policy for your claim that "you cannot currently cite them." savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith in my view refers primarily to edits made on Wikipedia, not off-wiki activities. And I personally do not care for your "good faith" because the same standards can be applied to your off-wiki activites. Now please stop being repetitive and violating WP:POINT.

Once again, an archived version of the media release is available and it is reliable enough to be cited in full or in part. Trying to distinguish between an international organization and a questionable article published in a newspaper is like trying to argue that a flea is stronger than an elephant, not to mention the fact that the media release was reported by secondary sources (Telgraph article) and that is good enough. Both of them can be cited: Partial or full quote from media release and supplementary information from the Telegraph. This is supported by Wikipedia policies and you had no good reason to remove it, it was fine as it was.

Yes the Karunayake article is sourced to a newspaper and which is also no longer online. It contains pseudoscientific information (about auras) in an article that takes paranormal phenomena for granted and which appears wholly biased in favour of SSB. And this is being compared to an official media release from an international organization? That is why I contend that it is not a reputable source. The article, not necessarily the newspaper. ekantiK ^talk 18:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is no longer online, but it was published in a newspaper, unlike the Unesco reference.

And regarding your edits here, they all have dealt exclusively with the Sai Controversy and you continue to act like an Admin, flaunting Wikipedia policy like you know it so well. Luckily, I discovered your sockpuppet before you pushed further with your edits, which (besides a removal of a link) started on December 4th and you were caught on December 7th. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The only reason I am editing the Controversy section is because you are disputing material contained within it. For your information I have every intention to edit the entire article when I get some more time and have already made an edit in the History section. Catch up, please. And what do you mean "caught" regarding my sockpuppet? I openly changed my affiliation with certain Wikiprojects to apply for those of my legitimate sockpuppet. I was doing nothing "illegal" and you might like to stop implying that. If you have a problem with my referring to Wikipedia policies then you might like to adjust your behavior accordingly. Your continuing this irrelevant discussion is violating WP:POINT. For that matter you have violated so many policies (in the short time I've been here) that you may as well go ahead and violate WP:SPIDER too. ekantiK ^talk 19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Could any other editors register their views please? ekantiK ^talk 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the removal of the UNESCO information was entirely inappropriate. UNESCO's website is a reliable source; it's obviously notable information. Just because the statement is no longer on their website is completely and totally irrelevant. It was on their website, not its available on "archive.org" and elsewhere. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, I suggest you file a RFA. I disagree. It was not published in reputable or reliable sources and cannot be cited without naming published secondary sources. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You do not have the right to shift the burden for a RFA to every editor who disagrees with you. If you unilaterally remove information from the article the burden must be on you. I suggest you put the information back in the article, and then file an RFA complaining about it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, you cannot support your inclusion of the past Unesco quote using the guidelines in WP:BLP. If you disagree, then you should request a RFC. Andries rightly pointed out that it is a primary source that was never published in reliable secondary sources. After this was established, now you and Ekantik are disagreeing with it. I wonder why? SSS108 ^talk-email 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And I wonder where you got the idea that primary sources must be backed up by reliable secondary sources? Wikipedia policy specifically states that primary sources can be included if the source is reliable. Your argument is tantamount to saying that UNESCO is not a reliable source for their own media releases and that it should be published by other sources before it can be taken seriously. ekantiK ^talk 00:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, wonderful. Then I will re-include the material about Alaya Rahm's self-dismissed lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba society. These court records are primary sources that were recorded in courts of law. If that is not reliable, I don't know what is. This matter was already discussed. Being that you know Wikipedia policy so well (since you continually flaunt it in my face) you should know this. You want to include primary sources, so will I. SSS108 ^talk-email 01:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for providing me with that link, and I also checked it out in the Talk Page Archives. And no you may not start this again. It seems to me that you are deliberately taking advantage of BLP whenever it suits you, especially when it specifically states that court records published by primary sources should be reported in reliable secondary sources. This issue was not resolved either on your subpage on in the archives, except for a lot of tit-for-tat argumentation. Since you like WP:BLP so much, you should respect it when it makes a point specifically about how to treat court records. The UNESCO press release is not in the same circumstances and is fully consonant with WP:RS.

As you have done far more than your fair share of citing Wikipedia policies in the past, you will know that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and that the spirit - not the letter - of rules should be followed. Wikilawyering is frowned upon. In other words editing of this article should be based on common sense; at the present time the UNESCO statement is suitable for citing. The Alaya Rahm case records are not. ekantiK ^talk 01:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

On a slightly different tack, "Weird Al" Yankovic" was Wikipedia's feature article a few days ago. Check it out, its a perfectly good example of a BLP article that doesn't strictly follow WP:BLP according to SSS108. Yankovic was involved in a certain amount of controversy due to his parodies of well-known pop songs, and there are lots of "opinionated quotes" in it that don't strictly follow WP:BLP#Writing style either. If that's good enough to be voted for Feature Article status then it's also good enough for every article. Remember, an ideal goal for this article is promotion to Feature Article status. ekantiK ^talk 00:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what quotes Ekantik is referring to. Most of the quotes I saw were made by Yankovic himself (which is acceptable on his wiki-page). SSS108 ^talk-email 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IBN Article

This Wikipedia article has been partially quoted or referred to in a recent IBN article. Is this source reliable enough to be added into the "quoted by the media" infobox thingy at the top of this talk page? ekantiK ^talk 17:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "wholly critical"

I've seen SSS try to use this phrase three different times to describe three different sources. It is clear to me now that any criticism of the Baba will warrant this epithet. I propose a moratorium on calling any source "wholly critical" based only on the opinion of SSS. I want to see it discussed on the talk page, and some consensus developed on the nature of the source, before the same tired truisms are tossed into the article again. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The article by Koert van der Velde in Trouw was not "wholly critical". Andries 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, then do tell us which section(s) in van der Velde's article were not critical? I removed the word "wholly" from the summary and left it as "critical". SSS108 ^talk-email 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Even one word that is relatively neutral in the article would be enough to make the adjective "wholly" factually false. Wikipedia is not in the business of determining what percentages of articles are critical. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, Van der Velde simply neutrally described the scandal and its effects without taking a position. If do not agree that describing a scandal in a neutral tone is "wholly critical" or even "critical". Andries

Oh, I edited that sentence before reading this discussion to read in better English, sorry about that. Please feel free to modify what I did with it if necessary, obviously frowning on "wholly critical" of course. ekantiK ^talk 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Never been charged

Looks like another disagreement with SSS108. This time, I removed a reference to SSB never being charged over allegations of sexual abuse (sourced to DNA and Guardian) on the basis that the same information is repeated in the next paragraph (sourced to Daily Telegraph) (diff). SSS108 reverted/edited this back by claiming "old allegations is relevant - numerous references to the same allegations and those are not removed, therefore refs over not being charged is relevant".

I then reverted back to my original edit repeating that the info about not being charged is repeated in the next paragraph with more info from the same source (Daily Telegraph). Now SSS108 has reverted back to his edit, claiming that "the references in question are sourced to support the comment of "old allegations". This cannot be sourced to another reference."

What's going on here? Aren't all the sources referring to generic allegations of sexual abuse or are they being specific about each sexual abuse charge? I think this is redundant because the sources are referring to generic charges of sexual abuse and that the information about his never being charged is repeated in the next paragraph with more information from Mick Brown/Daily Telegraph. To repeat the same information in two paragraphs is repetitive and bad English. Comments? ekantiK ^talk 01:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, in this article, there are allegations made against Sathya Sai Baba that are repeated over and over. Should we removed those redundant references too? If you want to set the standard, it should be applied across the board. There are several sources that state that Sathya Sai Baba has never been charged over these allegations. I think it is entirely appropriate to include this relevant information to show that various sources have confirmed this fact. Not only this, the DNA article correctly stated that these allegations are "old allegations". No other reference has made this important clarification. Since "old allegations" cannot be attributed to Mick Brown (because he never said that), it has be attributed to the DNA article, which has been done and which you are trying to remove. SSS108 ^talk-email 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Then feel free to remove that reference form the section on Mick Brown. You cannot be repeating the same thing over and over. What are you going to do, replace every mention of SSB's sexual abuses with the fact that he has never been charged? How will that look?

Several newspapers worldwide have reported sexual abuse committed by SSB, although he has never been charged...
The Daily Telegraph reported SSB's sexual abuses that he has never been charged with, although...
The Seduced By Sai Baba TV documentary interviewed former devotees who claim to have been molested by SSB, although he has never ben charged with sexual abuse...
The BBC Secret Swami documentary interviewed Alaya Rahm who was on the receiving end of SSB's sexual abuses, although he has never been charged with any offence...
And so on...

Do you have any idea how this type of reasoning makes the article look? In a section specifically dealing with claims of sexual abuse, it is understood that references to the same will be made repeatedly. The fact that he has never been charged need be mentioned only once. That is good English. Now take your pick which one you would like to remove, the DNA/Guardian comment or the Telegraph comment. One of them will have to go. ekantiK ^talk 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And I notice that you are displaying the same kind of reasoning as in the UNESCO discussion. It does not matter if we are referring to "allegations" or "old allegations", this is a meaningless technicality. SSB has been alleged to have committed sexual abuse on young males, period. I'd appreciate it if you did not draw me into making Wikipedia a soapbox but I think that the way you hang your argument on just one word is very troubling. ekantiK ^talk 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, there you go again citing Wikipedia policy and acting like an Admin. I could not have expected a different answer from the most vocal critic and defamer of SSB on the internet. Just about every single negative article ever published against SSB is mentioned in this article (with more and more wanting to be introduced), despite their redundancy about the allegations. When the same is done with factual information that compromises the opposing stance, you want to dilute it and water it down. I suggest you clean up the redundancy in the opposing section first before you attempt to clean it up elsewhere. You have an opportunity to show how truly NPOV you are by first implementing your propositions with the critics section first. Go ahead and do it and stop using wikipedia as a battlegroud and a soapbox for your known POV pushing and highly defamatory position against SSB outside Wikipedia. By reading this article one can clearly see that it is disproportionately slanted to critics, which doesn't seem to bother you in the least. I know why. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/t/Talk%7ESathya_Sai_Baba_317d.html"