Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Statement by non-party Jossi

As presented in the previous ArbCom case, there are substantial secondary sources for a good encyclopedic article, that have not been explored due to the insistence of involved editors to editwar about sources that may not be the best available.

There is a tendency in these articles to base the dispute upon a mistaken need for balance, that attempts to balance the points of view of proponents (in this case devotees of SSB) and critics (in this case ex-devotees of SSB). That is not what WP:NPOV is about. A balanced biographical article is one that presents the viewpoints about a person as described in reputable published sources. Clearly, there is from both sides an intent to advocate their points of view through their contributions, deltions, and overall editing behavior, in violation of WP:NOT.

My assessment is that this dispute raises out of the confusion of attempting to have an article that presents "both sides of the argument" related to the involved editors, rather than researching and presenting the significant viewpoints published in reliable sources. Unless involved editors spend more time researching rather than editwarring, the article will remain in its current messy state. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite comments by Andries to the contrary, I am still of the opinion that not all sources available have been explored. Here is a partial list previously submitted:

  • New Religious Movements in Western Europe: An Annotated Bibliography, Elisabeth Arweck, Peter B. Clarke; Greenwood Press, 1997
  • Hinduism in Modern Indonesia: Between Local, National, and Global Interests, Martin Ramstedt; RoutledgeCurzon, 2003
  • Hindu Selves in a Modern World: Guru Faith in the Mata Amritanandamayi Mission, Maya Warrier; RoutledgeCurzon, 2005
  • Many Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World, Peter L. Berger, Samuel P. Huntington; Oxford University Press, 2003
  • Water, Wood, and Wisdom: Ecological Perspectives from the Hindu Traditions, Journal article by Vasudha Narayanan; Daedalus, Vol. 130, 2001
  • Anomalies of Consciousness: Indian Perspectives and Research, Journal article by K. Ramakrishna Rao; The Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 58, 1994
  • Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy, James R. Lewis; Prometheus Books, 2001
  • Media and the Transformation of Religion in South Asia, Lawrence A. Babb, Susan S. Wadley; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995
  • South Asian Religions in the Americas: An Annotated Bibliography of Immigrant Religious Traditions, John Y. Fenton; Greenwood Press, 1995

The article Sathya Sai Baba movement could be re-merged with the main article (Andries un-merged these on October 21, 2006), with the addition of material from secondary sources that are abundant (in addition to the list above, there are 450 books on the subject listed in my local University library search), and avoiding too much reliance in disputed sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional sources
  • Klass, MortonSinging with Sai Baba: The Politics of Revitalization in Trinidad, Westview Press, 1991 ISBN 0813379695
  • The Sathya Sai Baba community in Bradford : its origin and development, religious beliefs and practices, Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Leeds, 1988.
  • McKean, Lise, Divine enterprise : Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement ISBN 0226560090 and ISBN 0226560104
  • White, Charles, SJ, The Sai Baba Movement: Approaches to the Study of India Saints, The Journal of Asian Studies, 1972, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Aug., 1972), pp. 863-878
  • Bann, LA Babb, Lawrence A , Sathya Sai Baba's Magic, Anthropological Quarterly, 1983, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Jul., 1983), pp. 116-124
  • Hawley, John S. (Ed.), Saints and Virtues, University of California Press (1987), ISBN 0520061632
  • Urban, H. B. Avatar for Our Age: Sathya Sai Baba and the Cultural Contradictions of Late Capitalism, Academic Press, 2003, Vol 33; part 1, pages 73-94
  • Swallow D. A., Ashes and Powers: Myth, Rite and Miracle in an Indian God-Man's Cult, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1 (1982), pp. 123-158
  • Sangha, Dave & Kumar Sahoo, Ajaya, Social work, spirituality, and diasporic communities : The case of the sathya sai baba movement, Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work, 2005, vol. 24, no4, pp. 75-88, Haworth Press
  • Kent, Alexandra, Creating Divine Unity: Chinese Recruitment in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia, Journal of Contemporary Religion, Volume 15, Number 1 / January 1, 2000
  • Kent, Alexandra, Divinity, Miracles and Charity in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia, Ethons, 2004, Taylor and Francis
  • Spurr, M. J., Visiting cards revisited: An account of some recent first-hand observations of the "miracles" of Sathya Sai Baba, and an Investigation into the role of the miraculous in his theology, Journal of Religion and Psychical Research, 2003, Vol 26; Oart 4, pp.198-216
  • Lee, Raymond, Sai Baba, salvation and syncretism, Contributions to Indian Sociology, Vol. 16, No. 1, 125-140 (1982) SAGE Publications
  • Hummel, Reinhart, Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder: Sathya Sai Baba, Materialdienst der EZW, 47 Jahrgang, 1 February 1984. available online in English
  • Sullivan, Michael, C., In Search of a Perfect World: A Historical Perspective on the Phenomenon of Millennialism And Dissatisfaction With the World As It Is, Authorhouse (2005), ISBN 978-1420841619
  • Hansen, George P. The Trickster and the Paranormal, Xlibris Corporation (2001), ISBN 1401000827
  • Bowker, John, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions; 1997; (Contains an entry on Sai Baba) (added 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC))
  • Stallings, Stephanie, Avatar of Stability, Harvard International Review, June 22, 2000 (added 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Morton Klass is a good source for the article Sathya Sai Baba movement. Babb (not Bann), Hummel, Swallow, amd Kent are already used to some extent. Andries 09:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I want to affirm what I have already stated before i.e. that books describing the SSB movement in various countries, such as Kent in Malaysia, Klass in Trinidad, Kelly/Van der Veer in Fiji, Babb in Delhi are fine sources for the article Sathya Sai Baba movement. They are probably not very suitable for the article Sathya Sai Baba, because the focus of their writings is on what they have investigated i.e. the SSB movement, not the person of SSB. A book on Christianity in the Netherlands is not a good source for writing a biography of Jesus. Andries 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless someone explores these sources, we will not know for certain. As with most, if not all NRMs, material about the movement includes useful material about the movement's leader. In any case, the above list (excluding these few you mention, that may or not include useful material) is just a short list of secondary sources, most of which have yet to be explored. I would argue that the insistence of some editors around a few sources, rather than properly researching the subject as per what seems to be an abundance of secondary sources, is one of the reasons this second ArbCom case is being heard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
How reputable can this material be if the researchers have not investigated the subject? It does not matter that a book was published by unversity press and peer reviewed. If it is used in Wikipedia for a subject that the researcher has never investigated then this is improperly used. Nevertheless, I have ordered the book by Kent, but could not procure the book by Klass. Andries 21:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand your argument. Are you saying that these scholars and authors have not investigated the subject? I that is the case, how do you think they wrote these books, articles, etc? Your definition of what is proper and what is improper as a source for a WP article, is in complete contradiction with WP content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
These sources have not or hardly investigated the person of Sathya Sai Baba. The focus of their investigation was the SSB movement. Andries 21:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The issue, Andries, is that we are discussing a biographical article, not a piece of investigative journalism. A good biographical article should draw information from the best sources available, and the above list is a but a partial list. There is no need to keep arguing a case against these sources, is there?. They are sources related to the subject and these can be explored and used in the article about this person. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
A researcher who wrote a good source for the SSB article would have stayed a long time at the ashram, know the local language, talked to SSB's friends, older villagers, and (former) associates, (former) members of the Sathya Sai Organization, and Sathya Sai Trust etc. None of this is applicable for the sources listed hereabove. Andries 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That is why in WP we use the best sources that we have available. Not the sources we wish we had. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
And I would venture and argue, that as soon as you accept that fact, most of the problems you are facing as an editor in this project will dissipate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I introduced sources for the article that come closer to the ideal source that I depicted hereabove than most if not all of the sources that you listed hereabove. For example the works by Haraldsson, Nagel, and Arnold Schulman that I introduced to the article did try to investigate the person of Sathya Sai Baba in a more or less objective, serious way. Andries 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I admit that the article is not very well sourced, but the main reason is the lack of reliable sources, not the work of the contributors. It will only improve a bit when the Jossi's above listed sourced are used. Apart from Arnold Schulman, another writer also asserts that there is no reliable information about SSB's life, as I will quote from the summary of a German scholarly book Der Gottmensch aus Puttaparthi: Eine Analyse der Sathya-Sai-Baba-Bewegung und ihrer westlichen Anhänger by Katharina Poggendorf-Kakar (English:The Godman from Puttaparthi: an analysis of the Sathya Sai Baba movement and its Western adherents)
English translation: "From a biographical point of view, he is overwhelmed by legends and miraculous stories that derive him as a person from every historicity."
German original: "Biographisches ist von Legenden und Wundergeschichten überlagert, die seine Person jeglicher Geschichtlichkeit berauben."
Andries 23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The main problem is most definitively the behavior of editors, that seem to prefer to editwar about a few sources rather than researching all sources available so that a well sourced and neutral biographical article can emerge from their efforts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
A few sources? The reference sections lists 87 different sources. Andries 05:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, I received the book by Kent and it is of very limited use for the article Sathya Sai Baba for reasons that I expected and stated. I will not follow your advice anymore unless you will pay the bills. Andries 23:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not know about the Netherlands, but in the US all University and College libraries have free access. As for your comment about Kent's book, I have not read it, so I cannot comment on its usability for the article. Although I will be very surprised if there is no useful material in a book titled ''Divinity, Miracles and Charity in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not see easy for me to get free from my work~, because it is too busy. There is very little information about SSB in the book, but a lot about the SSB movement. Andries 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There are many editors interested in improving these articles, Andries. If you do not have time, others may. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What I meant to say is that I am not able to go university library because they are only open during the day time. There have been only two major contributors of content in all those years i.e. Andries and SSS108, so you remark that "there are many editors interested in improving these articles" strikes me as untrue. Andries 21:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

<<<< Well, I see several new editors involved, and we can be hopeful that other editors will join in once the dust settle in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit that the following source that you listed may be good
Babb, Lawrence A. "Sathya Sai Baba’s Saintly Play", in "Saints and Virtues", J. S. Hawley (ed.), Berkeley, CA: California University Press, 1987, pages 168-186.
Andries 00:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Kent:
    • found only minor inaccuracies.
    • Hardly information about the life of SSB.
    • Book was published in 2005 but research took place between 1996-1998
    • Book has an index
  • Bowen:
    • throughout the whole book SSB's paranormal powers are described as siddhis, though SSB denied in the 1976 Blitz interview that his powers are siddhis.
    • compares and explains Shiva and hence SSB with Dionysos in his conclusion. Implausible and unpractical; it is like explaining contemporary cars with chariots from Ancient. The conclusion is not or hardly suppported by his writings in other chapters.
    • Lengthy and no index
  • Swallow
    • Implausible theoretical speculations about the meaning of SSB's claim to be an incarnation of Shiva

Andries 09:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by non party Dseer

I have a friend who is devoted to SSB and do not consider SSB a fraud. However, I also tend towards an anti-cultist position and believe from experience that ex-followers are not arbitrarily less credible than proponents. Nor do I exclude the possibility of genuine spiritual states being co-mingled with less desireable behavior, as M Alan Kazlev has offered an explanation of referenced in various sites which applies to many, not SSB. My only interest also re the SSB page is that both sides of the argument should be presented, without bias, and there should not be censorship or bullying of any kind. I also have suggested that accepted facts be listed first, and then assertions from the respective sides. This would allow the reader who is unfamiliar with this subject to come to their own conclusions, which may be different in each case. Having corresponded with M Alan Kazlev, I also want to state that he does want both sides to be heard on such topics (this can be proven by looking at his entire website) even when he has formed an opinion, is open to change based on new information. Although SS108 may find the charges against SSB without merit which is his right, and suspects Kazlev is involved in an anti-SSB conspiracy, regardless of whether his charges against the others are valid, I can affirm these assumptions are not true in the case of Kazlev. That does not mean I do not think SS108 is not sincere in that belief, just in error. I also believe this article should be kept structured and concise in the interest of the reader, who needs to make their own determinations, and not become a vehicle for partisans on either side. Wikipedia recognizes that material originating from all sides in a dispute on religious groups must be viewed with caution. --Dseer 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

<--mv from page-->

Due to time constraints until after the New Year, I am reposting my earlier comments for the time being:
I have a friend who is devoted to SSB and do not consider SSB a fraud. However, I also tend towards an anti-cultist position and believe from experience that ex-followers are not arbitrarily less credible than proponents. Nor do I exclude the possibility of genuine spiritual states being co-mingled with less desireable behavior, as M Alan Kazlev has offered an explanation of referenced in various sites which applies to many, not SSB. My only interest also re the SSB page is that both sides of the argument should be presented, without bias, and there should not be censorship or bullying of any kind. I also have suggested that accepted facts be listed first, and then assertions from the respective sides. This would allow the reader who is unfamiliar with this subject to come to their own conclusions, which may be different in each case. Having corresponded with M Alan Kazlev, I also want to state that he does want both sides to be heard on such topics (this can be proven by looking at his entire website) even when he has formed an opinion, is open to change based on new information. Although SS108 may find the charges against SSB without merit which is his right, and suspects Kazlev is involved in an anti-SSB conspiracy, regardless of whether his charges against the others are valid, I can affirm these assumptions are not true in the case of Kazlev. That does not mean I do not think SS108 is not sincere in that belief, just in error. I also believe this article should be kept structured and concise in the interest of the reader, who needs to make their own determinations, and not become a vehicle for partisans on either side. Wikipedia recognizes that material originating from all sides in a dispute on religious groups must be viewed with caution.
As an aside, full disclosure of potential COIs is helpful. --Dseer 23:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Request for clarification

Please have a look at Robert Priddy. IMHO User:SSS108 is boldy misinterpreting [1] the ArbCom ruling. It doesn't apply to the article Robert Priddy (as he is neither Sathya Sai Baba nor an affiliated organization). And if I'm not completely mistaken, the ArbCom ruling only applies to User:Andries and User:SSS108. --Pjacobi 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Robert Priddy is a former SSB devotee who wrote a hagiography, then became disillusioned, left the group, and wrote an attack book. While a typical author's web site might be expected to contain information about past and future projects, a calendar of book signing appearances, etc, Priddy's web site contains attacks on the SSB movement drawn from personal experience and original research and appears to violate the ruling in this case (which I think applies to content, not the editor who adds it). A clarification would be appreciated. Thatcher131 22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This is because Priddy's notability today is mostly rooted in its attack site. Like Tilman Hausherr and http://www.xenu.de or Jack Chick and http://www.chick.com. --Pjacobi 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If Priddy's self-published observations and opinions about SSB make him notable and get a link, does NPOV require that we link to the self-published observations and opinions of a pro-SSB web site that is critical of Priddy? Thatcher131 01:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably, although I would take a look at it first. If it contains plainly false and defamatory material we should probably not link to it. if it just contains assertions that Priddy is a sorehead and exaggerates Baba's faults; it might be OK. I think there is an underlying problem with any of this material being encyclopedia however. A brief note that Baba is suspected of molesting young male devotees ought to suffice as well as a note that it is suspected that he uses slight of hand to produce his miracles. Problem is, like Little, Big the further in you go, the bigger it gets. Fred Bauder 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not comfortable that the anti-Priddy web sites are suitably encyclopedic. Are you saying Priddy's article can link to Priddy's site criticizing SSB? I certainly agree with you about the general direction these articles should go with negative allegations; unfortunately that is not happening under the current decision with the current editors. Thatcher131 14:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher131, if you think that Robert Priddy's criticism of Sathya Sai Baba is not notable then this should be solved with an AFD (the previous one failed). It should not be solved by omitting the one fact which Priddy makes notable i.e. his websites critical of Sathya Sai Baba. Let us follow generally accepted policies and practices for the article Robert Priddy too. Andries 06:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The websites critical of Robert Priddy authored by SSS108 are highly defamatory and contain hardly anything than original research. They should not be linked to because Priddy is not a public figure in the sense of e.g. Sathya Sai Baba who himself blurred the distinction between private life and public life with his claims of being an embodiment of truth, purity, and love and attracted followers with these claims. In addition, it would be at best inconsistent to forbid in the entry Sathya Sai Baba critical websites containing partially original research and partially reputable sources, like www.exbaba.com and www.saiguru.net, while at the same time allowing websites with only defamatory original research at the entry Robert Priddy. Andries 20:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a new case involving these articles is being accepted, so this dispute can be addressed there. Newyorkbrad 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi makes the mistake in that he comparing people who have been referenced in reliable and reputable sources with Robert Priddy who has not been referenced by even one single reliable or reputable reference. Pjacobi attemtped to argue for Priddy's attacks against SSB by citing Indymedia (a public forum where people can post whatever they want whenever the so choose under any name they so choose. This doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. Let these distinctions be known. SSS108 talk-email 04:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, non-notability should be solved with an AFD, not by omitting a website by the subject that makes him notable. I have been saying this at least ten times. Andries 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it correct for me to assume that the current ArbCom case [2] is going to deal with this issue, as stated by Newyorkbrad? SSS108 talk-email 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Priddy has now combined his anti-SSB websites on his other homepage. Clearly he must have been following our discussion. Andries 20:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification on James Randi and Sathya Sai Baba

User:Andries posted [3] a note to Talk:James Randi demanding that the link to James Randi's webpage be removed from the article. Given the threat of banning in the post, I'd like the arbitrators to make clear their opinion on this.--Prosfilaes 13:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My request for an indefinite ban was sarcastic. I think and hope that this case will be decided too in the pending case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision. Andries 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
In context, I agree it's clear that that was not a serious proposal or interpretation. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The point at issue here is whether Andries' interpretation is correct or incorrect. As I understand it, his interpretation is that no site which contains any poorly -sourced criticism of Sathya Sai Baba may be linked to by any article, regardless of the subject of the article. This means, for example, that because a former British Member of Parliament wrote an Early Day Motion criticising Sathya Sai Baba in 2002, and this motion remains on the website of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, that linking to http://www.parliament.uk is not allowed by any article – whether or not that article has any connection to the Early Day Motion or the MP concerned.

I can't believe that this interpretation is accurate, because of its immensely far-reaching implications. The alternative interpretation is that the remedy only applies where the article contains some assertion related to Sathya Sai Baba, and that seems to be what was intended. Sam Blacketer 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any interpretation, because I have become thoroughly confused about what is allowed and not. Andries 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The threat and this request verge on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. This remedy applies to "article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him." The remedy has been extended to Robert Priddy because Priddy's entire reason for importance, according to you, is that he is a critic of Sai Baba. He controls 4 web sites, one of which is appropriate for inclusion in his biography and 3 of which are not, because they deal exclusively with criticism of Sai Baba that is based on personal experience and non-reliable sources. You are in danger of being banned from these articles because you did not change your behavior after getting amnesty in the first arbitration case against you, by edit warring over the inclusion of the negative links. James Randi is not affiliated with Sai Baba or his organization, nor does his fame rest on being a notable Sai Baba critic. Therefore, the fact that you can find two pages of criticism on his website is entirely irrelevant. Thatcher131 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the prompt clarification. I did not edit war on the entry James Randi. So a relevant link to a website with poorly sourced critical information about Sathya Sai Baba is fine as long the entry does not mention Sathya Sai Baba? Andries
Following Thatcher131's way of reasoning, the links to the websites of Basava Premanand (the famous opponent of Sathya Sai Baba) are forbidden too, just like in the case of Robert Priddy. Or am I mistaken? Andries

[edit] Block Log

Just to inform that SSS108 has been blocked for 12 hours because of ongoing incivility, harassment and personal attacks. See SSS108's block log. Perhaps the Log of blocks and bans on the project page needs to be updated with this information? Ekantik talk 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: It looks like SSS108 has now been blocked indefinitely for harassing the admin who enabled the above-mentioned 12-hour block with claims of sockpuppetry. Ekantik talk 00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful. Ekantik, if you avoid escalation and eliciting responses to comments that can be perceived as provocation. These are never helpful in this or in any other disputes in WP. It is messy enough already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I asked several questions in Sept

It is almost February now. Will I ever get an answer? At least one. Andries 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Sathya_Sai_Baba_2_ab5d.html"