Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 8

Bad intoduction
I do not see what is the use of puting information about the number of Sai Baba's adherents in the introduction. User:Kkrystian

Section For Movies
Just curious where a reference to 6 time Emmy Award Winner Rod Serling's "Mysterious Miracles, Vol. 3 - Man of Miracles: Satya Sai Baba" can be placed in the article? Any suggestions/comments? SSS108 talk-email 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could start a specific section for movies and tv ref. shows as both are available. After all, there is a specific section for Nag Campa incense which product line should also include soap and oil which are now being sold. Freelanceresearch 06:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please edit malicious information.
The information under controversies is poorly written. The allegations are taken from few sources, many whom have very little geographical or cultural connection to Sathya Sai Baba, and probably used to generate publicity and for monetary gain. Please heavily this section. However, the rest is written rather well, although some sections need expanding. I believe this has been recognized as a future, ongoing project.

Emperor_ani

Article's lead
The article's lead is way too verbose. As per WP:LEAD (my highlight):
 * "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.

Suggestions on how to make this lead compliant with the Manual of Style, are welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The lead section is four paragraphs long which strikes me as in accordance with the guideline. Andries 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there needs to be an agreement and discussion before Andries removes a large section from the lead (which happens to be material that he, as an opponent of Sathya Sai Baba, would want removed). SSS108 talk-email 02:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's assume good faith, shall we? The lead is too verbose and too detailed. It needs to be a concise summary of the article itself. Either you or Andries should be able to do it. Give it a go, and if it does not work, other editors will surely let you know. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, the lead section has been a source of heated debate for a long time between Andries and I. In my opinion, the last 2 paragraphs primarily need to be worked on. Sathya Sai Baba's humanitarian works are a significant factor in his life and mission and should be mentioned in the lead section. Should I create a sandbox so consensus can be reached? SSS108 talk-email 02:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the sandbox: User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox SSS108 talk-email 03:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SSS108, can you please explain why you chose to violate WP:Lead by reverting back to a lead section that contains five paragraphs instead of four? This was one of the complaints very clearly voiced by Jossi. I did not omit charity works in the lead section, in contrast to what your above comments suggested. Andries 05:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, the lead had 5 paragraphs for well over a year and you never complained about it until now. Therefore, you can wait a week or so until there is consensus obtained about how to reduce the lead article to 4 paragraphs. There is a sandbox for this very purpose. Use it. Simple. SSS108 talk-email 06:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SSS108, I am still waiting for one good argument why you think that your conscious revert to a version that violates of WP:Lead in spite of complaints by Jossi is okay. The important question is not so much whether somebody followed the right procedure but whether an edit makes the article better. The answer to the latter question is that my edit made it better while yours made it worse. Andries 11:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The lead is still way too verbose, in any case (current version and SS108 sandbox version). Aspects of his birth can me all moved to the "History and origins", beliefs can be summarized in one short sentence. Same applies to service projects, organizations and criticism. Basically, a short summary of each one of the main sections in the article is what is needed. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I oppose following the flawed structure of this article in the lead so I oppose summarizing the main sections of the article in the lead. Andries 16:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then, forget about the lead for now, and focus on fixing the article first. When the article is in good shape, you can then proceed to develop a lead. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the lead has had 5 paragraphs for well over a year and Andries never expressed concern about it violating any policy. Now, out of the blue, he is acting as if the situation is a life or death issue. Either you obtain consensus about the lead Andries or leave it as is and let other editors make the calls. You are removing information that is very much a part of Sathya Sai Baba's life without discussion or obtaining consensus. SSS108 talk-email 16:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not out of the blue. I noticed that Jossi's complaint were justified. I am still waiting for your answer to the question that I asked months ago why you very selectively copy just one of the responses of the devotees to the allegations i.e. "Anti-Hindu"? Why not summarize all the responses by saying that SSB said that people are bribed and that devotees either deny the allegations or assert that SSB must have a good reason for what he does. Andries 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I am not sure what you are talking about. Please provide difs. SSS108 talk-email 04:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, you were the one who added the "Anti-Hindu" part in the lead. Jossie said that the lead needs to be decreased in size, not increased. It appears you are intent on increasing the lead's length rather than decreasing it. The point you want to make can be made under the relevant section in the body. SSS108 talk-email 04:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I have objected many times against your insistence of only mentioning the "Anti-Hindu" response of followers in the lead section. Why is the "Anti-Hindu" response more important than other responses and more important than SSB's response? You did not give an answer. You only reverted. Andries 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The intro is far too verbose. You want something short and eye-catching.  Don't make us read 65 sentences to figure out what the article is about. Wjhonson 06:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, once again, I did not include that section. You did. Again, if you don't like it, reword it and include it in the relevant section in the body. You are attempting to make some sort of argument in the section that only you understand. The intro is a summary, not a soap-box for your arguments.

Wjhonson, you edits are reverted because you messed up the article by including an inappropriate section. Please see my sandbox and work on your edits there. SSS108 talk-email 06:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I came in in the middle of Wjhonson's edits. I will wait to see the final result. SSS108 talk-email 06:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've always believed an article's intro should be short and to the point. You should be able to get the message in one breath.  Now the article has a brief intro to who he is, a picture a table of contents.  People don't have to read all sorts of verbage just to understand what the article is about. Wjhonson 06:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Wjhonson, I think your edits do provide a very viable solution to a complex issue, however, I seriously doubt it will be accepted because Wikipedia does allow for 4 paragraphs to be added in the introduction. If others do not object, neither will I. Thanks SSS108 talk-email 06:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not editwar
Edit wars accomplish nothing. If there are disputes about content, place an RfC. Note that the ArbCom does not get involved in content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Filing an RFC for this case is not in corresponce with dispute resolution, because this case has already undergone mediation. The next step after mediation is arbcom where I will thus file this dispute. Until arbcom has given its verdict I intend to re-insert the salon.com as a source. Andries 16:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I filed a request for arbitration here Requests_for_arbitration Andries 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken, Andries. ArbCom does not deal with content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * May be you a right, but I will re-insert the references to salon.con until there is a clear majority in the Wikipedia community that says that salon.com is an unreliable source. This is not the case at the moment. There is a clear majority that says that salon.com is fine as source: many articles use salon.com as a source incl. living people. Check e.g. Special:Whatlinkshere/Salon.com Andries 17:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you have yet to make your case that the salon.com article is admissible using Wikipedia policies. I have made my case and all you can do is say it is reputable without justification. Explain why an internet resource that never been published by multiple, reliable, reputable media sources is a reliable reference? Since salon.com is a admitted tabloid, and the article you are citing is very talboid-like, you need to justify your edits. SSS108 talk-email 19:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You have yourself argued that and why salon.com is permissible as a source. Salon.com is itself a reputable source, so it is irrelevant if and where salon.com is cited. Andries 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I never argued that salon.com was permissable as a source. When it comes to a BLP, critical and potentially libelous internet references (that have never been published by multiple, reliable media sources) do not qualify as reliable sources. Show me the Wikipedia policy that states otherwise. I am not going to be repeating myself and going in circles with you. SSS108 talk-email 21:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Please point to me where WP:RS or other relevant policies say that being published on the internet makes something less reliable? There are all sorts of reliable sources with only a web version. JoshuaZ 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * SSS108, you either have a bad memory, or you are a sloppy writer, or you are liar when you write that you "never argued that salon.com was permissable as a source.". Here SSS108 wrote that salon.com was fine as a source during mediation User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Salon.com_as_a_Source. Andries 22:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC) amended 22:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, please give me examples of "reliable sources" (relating to WP:BLP) that contain critical, negative and potentially libelous content that have been exclusively published by one source alone on the internet. SSS108 talk-email 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A) Not relevant all that matters is that there are reliable sources which are just webbased. My point was that that claim is not justified. But if you did want examples of that otherwise - the Panda's Thumb has been treated as a reliable source for negative information about intelligent design proponents (see for example the article William Dembski). JoshuaZ 21:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, and how does the article you cited deal with critical, negative and potentially libelous information as relating to WP:BLP? The example you cited is an essay. Not a BLP. The standard used is entirely different when it comes to a BLP. SSS108 talk-email 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. You are talking about the site and not the book by Gould "The Panda's Thumb" (which I am familiar with). Those links are not permissible by Wikipedia because panda.org is a blog. Someone violated Wikipedia's policy by including those links. See RS Section SSS108 talk-email 21:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually no. Discussions on WP:RS and elsewhere have agreed that PT constitutes a reliable source since it doesn't suffer from the problems that would normally make a blog unreliable. First, everything on PT is extensively vetted by the various contributors. Second, the writers of PT are known, well established scientists. So it isn't treated as a blog. The bottom line is that by neither precedent nor logic is a websource inherently unreliable and material which is only on a website can be cited even when it is negative and potentially libelous. JoshuaZ 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries submitted a request for clarification so I will leave the decision upto ArbCom. SSS108 talk-email 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Arbcom does not rule on reliable sources. Editors do. You are looking at two editors who have no history on this article at all (myself and JoshuaZ) telling you that you are 100% wrong regarding the reliability of salon.com. JBKramer 22:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit of a straw man argument. The issue we are discussing is not the reliability of Salom.com, in general as a source. That website may be a reliable source in some instances, but not in others. If there is material that is highly controversial that is only available in Salon.com, that is very suspect and should be treated with caution in BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree wholly. We are completly immune from any legal repercussion using Salon as a source. They are reliable. Every uninvolved editor who has reviewed this is in full agreement. JBKramer 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning
To involved editors: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is little to discuss left. Andries 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but that is not an excuse to editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then what should we do? Andries 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Since many of us feel that the salon.com article was very biased and poorly researched, there are two options. Either do not include it at all, or if you do, anti-Sais must allow rebuttal on contentious points. Simple solution. Unfortunately, there a many articles that have been written by so-called mainstream outlets that are really flubbing it. Why this is happening I do not know but it does very much have the appearance of a calculated and biased smear campaign which purposely leaves out very important DOCUMENTED facts. Regardless of whether this is due to bad journalism or not, it needs to be addressed. Freelanceresearch 06:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Prime Minister Vajpayee's Statement:

"We are deeply pained and anguished by the wild, reckless and concocted allegations made by certain vested interests and people against Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba. We would normally expect that responsible media would ascertain the true facts before printing such calumny - especially when the person is revered globally as an embodiment of love and selfless service to humanity. Since this professional ethic has not been observed by a section of the media, we have elected to go public with this signed statement." Freelanceresearch 07:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is already in the article. Andries 14:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article to the talk page
I moved this section (that was originall the lead section) from the article to the talk page, because I think that it made the article worse for the average reader. Please try to add this properly referenced information to the article if it is not yet there. Andries 10:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

redistributed everything below to appropriate sub-section
The most vehement criticisms since the year 2000 are the allegations made by former devotees of inappropriate sexual relations with young men and boys. According to India Today magazine (dated December 2000) no complaints have been filed against the Guru, by any alleged victim, in India. It was also reported, in this same India Today magazine, that the coterie that surrounds Baba dismissed the allegations by denouncing them as "Anti-Hindu" attacks made by foreigners. According to Mick Brown, due to the public disclosure of allegations, there was a rash of defections from Western countries and Sweden. In face of the allegations, the Sathya Sai Central Trust is still the largest recipient of foreign donations (as recently as 2001) and Bill Aitken and Michelle Goldberg both expressed the opinion that the allegations have not seemed to impact the Guru's following.

Inclusion of the legal battles about the name Sai Baba
I will file a request for comment, because I continue to disagree with SSS108. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive7 for discussion. Andries 11:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

List of unresolved disputes
I will make a list of unresolved disputes regarding this article. Please do not assume when there are no reverts or no current discussions anymore that a dispute is resolved. This list is work in progress. Andries 11:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Inclusion of a legal battle regarding the used of the name Sai Baba
See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive7
 * In favor of inclusion: Andries
 * SSS108 wants to exclude this because he states that it is irrelevant.
 * I am in favor of including this, but only so long as it is in the "controversies" section. HeBhagawan 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan, have you read the article in question? It is about Sathya Sai Baba's followers. Not about Sathya Sai Baba himself. It is also apparent that Andries has a poor grasp on what the article actually states. English is a secondary language for Andries and he is drawing all sorts of conclusions not supported by the article itself. If this article was about followers, then it could be included. It isn't. SSS108 talk-email 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The report may be included in the article. Ekantik 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

2. List of books by Sathya Sai Baba

 * In favor of listing: Andries
 * Opppose listing but prefers linking to the list: SSS108
 * Oppose listing; better to link to the list. HeBhagawan 19:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this proposal is about. Please give examples. Ekantik 04:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The list of books is something like 30-40 titles long. Also, Andries was the only person supporting the inclusion of such a long list. No one else supported it. He left off the names of several other people who opposed it. SSS108 talk-email 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A separate section on books by Sathya Sai Baba could be made, but limits for the number of books and feature only the prominent ones. The current book list for the article is way too long so it needs to be shortened to prominent titles. Ekantik 02:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, the current list of books is a conservative list. There are literally hundreds of books about and by Sathya Sai Baba. Of course, if we listed only "prominent books", Steel and Priddy's books would have to be removed because they are not prominent books. But Andries would never agree to that. SSS108 talk-email 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not about what Andries wants or doesn't want and I wish editors here assumed good faith in each other. Prominent books refers to a list of say, five positive books and five negative books, this should equalize the the controversy and give fair view to all. Ekantik 02:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Structure: making one section of the miracles and its controversy
See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive7
 * Initially proposed by Andries and later independently proposed by Pjacobi


 * Support: Andries, Pjacobi
 * Oppose: ?
 * Keep the section on miracles separate from the section on controversies. In the "miracles" section, describe the miracles according to what followers of Sai Baba believe. In the controversies section, give the viewpoint of the people who disbelieve. HeBhagawan 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Ekantik 02:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Structure: making one section of the controversy and responses by followers
Immediately proposed by Andries when Thaumaturgic introduced this subsection, but opposed by SSS108 which led to an edit war See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive7 There was originally a separate page for the controversy and allegations and Andries was the one who vehemently refused to summarize the allegations and controversy on the main page and use the separate page for the controversy. Now, however, Andries wants a separate page for the controversy. One can only wonder why? I would not agree to this unless the controversy is summarized in a paragraph or so on the main page. I will not agree to what Andries originally had, which was 2 pages dedicated to the controversy, i.e., making the full case for each on both the main page and a separate controversy page. SSS108 talk-email 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: Pjacobi, Andries
 * Oppose:


 * This is not an official template. I would like to see Pjacobi sign his own agreements instead of having Andries put his name here. And the people who opposed the long list of books included several other editors Andries. Nice to see how you selectively choose names to mislead others with agreements/disagreements or whatever you are trying to accomplish here. SSS108 talk-email 15:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep the section on miracles separate from the section on controversies. In the "miracles" section, describe the miracles according to what followers of Sai Baba believe. In the controversies section, give the viewpoint of the people who disbelieve. HeBhagawan 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The controversy about SSB is an indisputable part of his life history. Ekantik 02:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of cronyism
Reading abit about the Salon controversy, it appears to be about the bit where it is alleged he has supporters in high places in India who prevent anything being done about him. There appears to be a suggestion this is unique to Salon. However I distinctly remember hearing the same allegations in a documentary a few years back (don't know when, probably sometime 2002 or later but not after BJP lost/Manmohan Singh became PM). I don't know who made this documentary or whether it would be considered a reliable source but it seems to me there is at least one other source for these allegations Nil Einne 15:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nil Einne, not only are the allegations of "cronyism" between Goldberg and Anti-Sai Activists entirely true, it is also true that Andries (former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Contact And Supervisor" for the largest Anti-Sai-Baba Site on the internet) fully conceded that the BBC was sympathetic with and supported an Anti-Sai agenda. Many critics boasted about participating and being prime players behind that documentary. As a matter of fact, you will notice that Andries recently added the reference to The Guardian article by Paul Lewis. Needless to say, Anti-Sai activists are currently boasting (on the internet) about being behind this article as well (claiming prior knowledge going back 6 months). Although none of these findings are allowed on Wikipedia (due to the policy on no original research), the Anti-Sai agenda behind all this media is well known as they boast on their achievements whenever they get a chance. SSS108 talk-email 15:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems irrelevant to the point I was making. The point I was making was about alleged cronyism from the Indian government on behalf of Sathya Sai Baba. If you wish to discuss cronyism between Goldberg and Anti-Sai Activists, please do so under a different topic. Nil Einne 19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning (2)
To involved editors that have reverted three times already: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy's statement belongs in the teachings section
The following statement by Dominic Kennedy describes the teachigs of SSB and belongs in the teachings section. This article should be organized per subject not per POV.
 * Dominic Kennedy, a journalist from The Times, described his teachings in 2001 as "a collection of banal truisms and platitudes."

Andries 13:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See Criticism. Andries 15:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. That section is about Sathya Sai Baba's teachings. There is a section for critical material. Since you cannot find any constructive criticism about his teachings, you are including a one sentence rebuttal in the teachings section. Put it where it belongs. SSS108 talk-email 17:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Kennedy did not describe SSB's teachings? Andries 17:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy did not give any sort of detailed rebuttal to SSB's teachings. Rather, he expressed a critical one-sentence opinion. The section in question is about what Sathya Sai Baba teaches. There is another section for critical remarks and Kennedy's one-sentence statement should go there since you insist it be included in the article. SSS108 talk-email 19:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. He gave a very, very short overview of SSB's teachings. And he is not the only one who holds this opinion, as I know from personal experience. Andries 19:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is what Kennedy wrote in context:
 * " [..]Sai Baba's teachings, however, are a collection of banal truisms and platitudes. The most famous utterances he has made in a six decade-long career as a living god are "Help ever, hurt never" and "Love all, serve all". Few are likely to argue with such a simplistic and universal moral code. He broadens his appeal further by allowing devotees to continue practising their own religion while paying homage to him."
 * Please note that inserting this sentence was partially in response to repeated requests/demands made by user:Jossi for references for the teachings section. Andries 19:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What you quoted has nothing to do with Sathya Sai Baba's teachings. It has to do with an opinion. Therefore, it does not belong in the teachings section. And your excuse of inserting this reference in response to Jossie's comments is absurd. That reference has nothing to do with sourcing Baba's teachings. SSS108 talk-email 20:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is a well-referenced summary of SSB's teaching and hence belongs in the teaching section. Andries 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

One critical sentence is a "well referenced summary"? SSS108 talk-email 20:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Kasturi
I have noticed that there are several mentions to Kasturi's books in this article that pertain directly to Sathya Sai Baba's biography/hagiography. Does this mean that Andries is willing to allow other citations from Kasturi's books in relation to Sathya Sai Baba's biography/hagiography? It is strange that Andries does not want to include biographical information about Sathya Sai Baba from Kasturi, yet cited Kasturi when it came to information that advances his Anti-Sai POV. And before Andries comes back saying it is okay to only take "teachings" material from Kasturi, the material in question is specifically about Baba's biography and not his teachings (scorpion bite, virgin birth, etc.) and it is attributed to Kasturi. Either we can use Kasturi for biographical information or not. So which is it? SSS108 talk-email 02:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hagiographical sources cannot be used for a biography unless backed up by indepependent corroborations or when contradicted in others sources. Hagiographic stories about SSB's youth and life are a significant part of the beliefs and practices of the SSB movement and as such can be used for the article Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries 13:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why is Kasturi selectively being cited on the main page? I am going to cite more references from Kasturi in relation to Baba's life. You can't have double standards. Either Kasturi is reliable enough to reference or he is not. Apparently, you can't make up your mind. You are dictating what can and cannot be used and where and how it should be used. Support your comments with Wikipedia policy rather than pushing your own personal agenda. SSS108 talk-email 16:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The same applies with your selective citation of LIMF, where you left out the explanation given for the alternative birthdate from it. SSS108 talk-email 17:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Attribution
Andries, where did you get that quote from SSB's Nov. 23rd 1964 discourse? Here is the link Ref and it does not make any of the claims you attributed to it. SSS108 talk-email 19:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I copied it from Wikiquote. I will check it, but every committed follower of SSB who has done some reading on the subject knows that SSB has made such claims or very similar claims. Andries 20:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Revelation 17 May 1968 (Sathya Sai Speaks VI, 210-213)
 * "This is a human form in which every divine entity, every divine principle, that is to say, all the names and forms ascribed by man to God, are manifest. ... Do not allow doubt to distract you; if you only install, in the altar of your heart, steady faith in my Divinity, you can win a vision of my Reality. Instead, if you swing like the pendulum of a clock, one moment devotion, another moment disbelief, you can never succeed in comprehending the truth and win that bliss. You are very fortunate that you have a chance to experience the bliss of the vision of the Sarvadaivathwa swaroopam (the form that is all forms of the Gods) now, in this life itself."
 * Andries 20:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The online version of the discourse of 23 Nov. 1964 is explicitly summarized in the beginning denoted with square brackets that most likely contains the quote. I an unconvinced that it is wrong. Can you please check the hardcopy? Andries 20:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. The reference you cited was from the Nov. 23rd 1964 discourse. The information you claimed came from that discourse is not in it. Where did you get that information from? The introduction specifically referenced the Telugu songs that Baba sings. Now you are asking me to look at the hard copy when you never looked at it yourself! Once again, where did you get that quote from if you have not looked at the hard copy yourself? SSS108 talk-email 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I did. Please re-read my answer. Andries 20:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What? You just said you did not get the 1964 reference from the hard copy. Where did you get it from? SSS108 talk-email 20:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From Wikiquote, I wrote already. Andries 20:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And where did Wikiquote get it from? I am removing the 1964 reference and will use the 1968 reference. SSS108 talk-email 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked this out and you're both referring to the wrong speech. Its this one called Keep The Flag Flying. Hope this helps. Ekantik 07:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very helpful indeed. Thanks. Andries 07:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

New request for peer review
I made a new request for peer review WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review. Please do not attack reviewers. Andries 14:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated request for references for the same statement
I am posting this here on the talk page because I notice that several contributors keep asking for references for a statement that has already been referenced. I do not understand this request for references, because this common knowledge for committed followers of SSB who have done some reading o the subject. This is from the 1976 Blitz interview.
 * "Q: Some say that you command invisible spirits which can transfer objects from one place to another on your orders.
 * Answer by SSB: There is no need for Me to command invisible spirits since My own divine will materializes the objects. I am everything, everywhere, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; and so whatever I will, instantly happens. Like the qualities of truth, love and peace, these are things that generate the atmic (godly) or cosmic forces behind the universe. "

Andries 15:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Andries your summary is incorrect or you are using the wrong refence regarding:


 * "He further claims to be that he is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipotent, and able to create matter from mere thought. *ref*Christmas Day Discourse, Bombay 1970. page 136, US ed. of Kasturi's Sathyam Sivam Sundaram Vol 3."God can do anything. He has all power in the palm of His Hand. My Body, like all other bodies, is a temporary habitation; but, My Power is eternal, all-pervasive, ever-dominant."*ref*"
 * I don't see the words "ominiscient", "omnipresent" and "omnipotent" used in that reference. Use the actual words and not your words. SSS108 talk-email 16:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The reference for this statement is also the above mentioned 1976 Blitz interview that does mention "omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent". Please, SSS108 try to be fair. You have done a lot of reading on the subject and you know very well that the gist of what is written about SSB's claims of his powers in Wikipedia is correct. Please do not give me and others unnecessary work by nitpicking on wording (which by the way is very, very close to the source in this case). Andries 16:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct the reference and don't blame me for double-checking them. SSS108 talk-email 16:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Logo
Andries, when did you obtain written permission to duplicate the copyright-protected Sai Org logo on Wikipedia? That image is specifically copyrighted (Ref) and you made no mention of obtainting their written permisssion? Supply the text to their written permission or I am removing it. SSS108 talk-email 16:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a fair use expert, but I do not see why we should take the SSO's retrospective demand seriously. As long as the image Image:Sathya_Sai_Organisation_official_logo.jpg is used in a context describing the SSO then it is fair use, I thought and still think. Andries 01:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My reading of Fair Use is that the image may be used in an article about the organization, but not in an article about SSB. Of course I'm not a lawyer.  --BostonMA talk  01:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * BostonMA, I think it can also be used in a section in this article describing the SSO. Andries 11:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * BostonMA is correct about fair use. As the article about the organization was merged into this one, it could be argued that the logo can be added to illustrate the section. The problem is that the logo was uploaded by Andries without permission, and fair use and copyright should be respected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Andries, I would like for you to clearly state your intention on what qualifies as a reliable and reputable source? You selectively cite Kasturi and then say he cannot be cited. Now, you are citing Steel. By your own actions, you are saying that I can simiarly begin to include material from Kasturi, LIMF, Sandweiss, Krystal, Hislop, etc. These are all POV books and are not allowable, as expressed by past editors. So why don't you come clean and state clearly what your intentions are regarding these sources. Are they all reliable, yes or no? If yes, then I plan to include material from Kasturi, LIMF, Sandweiss, Krystal, Hislop, etc. If no, then why do you selectively quote these authors to push your POV? SSS108 talk-email 18:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Steel describes only SSB's own words about his health and year of death. Andries 18:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer my questions. Until you do, the article is reverted. Steel is POV and is not a reliable or reputable source. Past editors expressed the opinion that these books are POV and cannot be used. SSS108 talk-email 18:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Where? So you think that is wrong to use SSB's own words for this article that has been written down in a secondary source i.e. Steel's compendium? Andries 18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer my questions again. SSS108 talk-email 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of good editorial judgement: I cannot give a general reply to this question. In my edit, I only used Steel's book to describe what SSB has said. I do not use Steel's book for voicing his partisan devotee opinions. Andries 18:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that my edit using Steel's devotee book is in correspondence with what Fred Bauder said during the arbcom case about using the devotee book LIMF as a source: describing facts is okay but do not use it for voicing partisan devotee opinions. Andries 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Steel IS partison. You are using his book to express your partison views. Answer my questions above. Either they are reliable or not. And you did use LIMF as a source. See how you flip-flop? SSS108 talk-email 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I use Steel's devotee book to describe facts (i.e. SSB's own words) which is in correspondence with the remark that Fred Bauder made during the arbcom case regarding the use of LIMF. Reputable sources is not a black and white matter and it depends on the claims being made. Andries 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excerpt from the arbcom disussion Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Workshop
 * "devotee" book is not a reliable source. It is by its very definition biased. Fred Bauder 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Yes, true, Love is My Form is a biased book like all devotee books, but the difference is that this one is well-researched, I heard. I would agree with using it as a source as long as the clearly apologetic and hagiographic comments in the book are not used for the article. Andries 11:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It can probably be used for information that is not in contention. For example the name of the village he was born in, etc. Fred Bauder 12:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)"
 * Andries 18:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Devotee and non-devotee books are, by their own definition biased. There you go. You are using (at the time) a devotee book to argue points on Wikipedia, which Fred said is not reliable. Although he said this, you still use a devotee's book (at the time) in the article. You will twist everything to suit your Anti-Sai Agenda. SSS108 talk-email 19:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All sources are biased in some way. The subject is not physics or mathematics. There is no easy solution. I do not think that quoting devotees' apologetic or hagiographic opinions from books by devotees (in contrast to facts) is a good idea. Kasturi's biography is a very poorly research hagiography (that is by definition partisan and very biased) and should be very suspect for this article. Andries 19:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If Kasturi's hagiography is "very poorly researched", as you contend, then why do you cite from it? SSS108 talk-email 20:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I always objected to using a lot of Kasturi's biography in this article. Nevertheless, Kasturi's stories about SSB's life are an important part of the SSB belief system and as such can be used for the article beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many times you are going to parrot that argument. YOU cited Kasturi on the main page in reference to things that do not pertain to beliefs and practices. Why? You are wholly inconsistent with your standards and you can't even give an answer. There is no rationalizing with you at all. SSS108 talk-email 20:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I just realized what you did Andries and your reference to Steel is nothing more than POV-pushing. You cannot cite Steel's compendium so that you can then cite other books mentioned in his compendium. You either cite the authors directly or not at all. If you continue in this blatant POV behavior, I will file a complaint. SSS108 talk-email 19:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A secondary source such as Steel's compendium is generally considered more suitable for use in Wikipedia than a primary source. And I had and have to use Steel because of Wikipedia guideline Citing_sources that states
 * "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear."
 * Please do file a complaint because I would welcome more people looking at this article. Andries 20:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be joking? Using your logic (illogic) I can cite all the devotee's books because Steel made reference to their titles in his compendium! SSS108 talk-email 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think that that will improve the article? I do not think so. Andries 20:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently so because you are the one doing it! SSS108 talk-email 20:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In this case yes. 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You make edits that suit your whims and fancies and then expect others not to follow in your footsteps. More contradictions and flip-flopping, as usual. SSS108 talk-email 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The policy you cited does not pertain to your edits. Steel does not provide the quotes you made in his compendium. He simply listed their titles. How can you source quotes to Steel's compendium when those quotes are not even in his compendium? Therefore, the quotes need to be referenced to the original source and not some compendium that does not even list the quotes you are trying to include. SSS108 talk-email 20:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Untrue Steel did provide the quotes in his compendium. Andries 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what I found in his compendium: I don't see the quotes you are attributing to it. SSS108 talk-email 23:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Balu, Shakuntala, Living Divinity, London, Sawbridge, 1984. [A devotee from 1976 until her death, the late Mrs. Balu shares her close observations on Baba and interviews with other devotees, particularly concerning miracles. She also offers descriptions and explanations of Hindu ceremonies in Prasanthi Nilayam and Brindavan. The book contains a very useful Sanskrit-English glossary.]
 * Balu, V. and Balu, Shakuntala, Divine Glory, Bangalore, S.B.Publications, 1985. [This interesting book consisting of separate parts by Mr Balu and the late Mrs Balu is full of very special detail and observations, particularly concerning miracles and worship. In their many interviews of Indian devotees, they offer extra detail on Baba's early miracles, updating the accounts of Purnaiya and Kasturi. The book is recommended for both Indian and non-Indian readers.]
 * The quotes are on page 205 as listed in the citations. Andries 05:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC Summary

 * dispute - statement by involved editors:
 * For me, this is a no-brainer. Andries (a critic of the Indian guru) is citing quotes from a fellow critic's compendium, attempting to bypass referencing the quotes to their original book sources. I say reference the quotes to the original book sources and not the compendium (which is not the original source for the quotes to begin with).
 * The following is an example of Andries reference: "Steel, Brian "The Satya Sai Baba Compendium: A Guide to the First Seventy Years" (Paperback) Weiser Books (February, 1997) ISBN 0877288844 page 205 that in turn cites the book by Shakuntala Balu "Living Divinity" London Sawbridge 1984 page 40 Note: Steel refutes his own older writings on his homepage."
 * I say the reference should look like this: "Shakuntala Balu "Living Divinity" London Sawbridge 1984 page 40, ISBN 0907555004"
 * See   SSS108 talk-email 23:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all the reference is from a book by Brian Steel who was at the time when the book was written not a critic, but a follower. I am meticulously following the citation guideline Citing_sources that says that I have to cite the intermediate source i.e. Steel. Moreover I think that Steel is a better source, because it is a secondary source. Steel's book mentions the exact quotes on page 205 in contrast to what SSS108 asserts. Andries 05:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * All what is needed is one editor to confirm that the Shakuntala Balu book contains that quote.Once an editor confirms that, there is no need to use an interme4diate source. That simple. So if an editor wants to quote directly, go to the library, get the book and confirm the quote. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, I confirmed the quotes. The quotes are not in dispute. The way they are referenced are. SSS108 talk-email 16:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then what is the problem? Refer the quotes directly to the sources and not to intermediate sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Jossie. But you will have to have Andries explain it to you. SSS108 talk-email 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you say that you have yourself confirmed that the quotes are on page 40 of the original book, then it is ok to change the citation to refer directly to page 40 of the original book. If you have not actually looked on page 40 of that book and found those quotes, then the citation must be to Steel.  Given the dispute history here, the change should explicitly say, in the edit summary or via "see talk" and a statement here that you have in fact confirmed that the quote is accurate.  Only cite directly those sources that you have in fact looked at and used.  GRBerry 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review comments by Yannismarou
WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review I am slowly implementing some of the suggestions. Thanks user:Yannismmarou. Andries 11:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That link does not reveal any relevant information. The following link does:

WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Sathya Sai Baba SSS108 talk-email 19:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian Article
Andries, please take your edits one at a time. When you make such confusing edits, I can't sift through them all. So please make your edits about The Guardian first, then move on to other edits. I have information to add from The Guardian article even though Anti-Sai Activists are currently boasting on the internet how they were the one's responsible for it and predicted the article's publication 6 months ago. SSS108 talk-email 16:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SSS108, You should restore good contents during or just after you give a revert. Andries 16:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For now, let us work on The Guardian article (which I plan to combine with the DNA article since The Guardian couldn't even cite the State Dept. warning correctly). SSS108 talk-email 19:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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)

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. 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)

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: And I tried to rewrite it to say:
 * "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"
 * "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:

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

"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)

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)

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)

"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)