Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sathya Sai Baba: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:04, 9 September 2006 editAndries (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers27,090 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:35, 26 December 2024 edit undoTrs9k (talk | contribs)286 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Calm talk}} {{Archives}}


{{Skip to talk}}
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Calm}}
{{Indian English}}
{{Article history
|action1=PR
|action1date=14:22, 1 May 2004
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Sathya Sai Baba/archive1
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=3406123


|action2=FAC
{| class="messagebox plainlinks" style="width: 75%; background-color:<!--#e1d1ff-->#FFFAEF;"
|action2date=20:41, 14 May 2004
| align="center"|This article must be edited in accordance with our policy on ''']'''. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to articles or talk pages. If you find any, please remove it immediately. <sup></sup>
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/April 2004#Sathya(Donga) Sai Baba
|}
|action2result=not promoted
{{oldpeerreview}}
|action2oldid=3603139
{{onlinesource2004|section=August 2004 (14 articles)
|title=Botschaften aus dem Jenseits Göttliche Gaben oder Betrug?
|org=Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen
|date=August 4, 2004
|url=http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/5/0,1872,2147109,00.html}}
{{controversial}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
| width="40px" | ]
| This article is a former ]. Please ''''']''''' to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the ].
]
|}


|action3=WPR
<br>
|action3date=17:41, 3 December 2006
{| width="100%" border="1"
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Sathya Sai Baba
!align="center"|]<br>]
|action3oldid=91758662
|-
|
*] : Jan 04 - July 05
*] : July 05 - Jan 06
*] : Jan 06 - March 06
*] : March 06 - April 06
*] : April 06 - June 06
|}
<br>
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #DDDEFF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #0000ff;">
]


|currentstatus=FFAC
Hello,
|itn1date=24 April 2011
|otd1date=2020-04-24|otd1oldid=952518675
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Baba, Sathya Sai|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|old-peer-review=yes}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject India|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Parapsychology|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Mid|NRM=yes|NRMImp=High}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=Low}}
}}
{{Press|year=2004|section=August 2004 (14 articles)|title=Botschaften aus dem Jenseits Göttliche Gaben oder Betrug? |org=Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen |date=August 4, 2004 |url= http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/5/0,1872,2147109,00.html
|date2=November 24, 2006
|url2= http://www.ibnlive.com/news/debate-sathya-sai-baba-godsend/26910-3.html
|title2=Debate: Sai Baba, a godsend?
|org2=CNN-IBN
|year2=2006}}
{{To do}}
__NOINDEX__
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 17
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}


== Why there is no mention of his family? ==
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].


Does he have a wife, kids? Why there is no mention of his family? ] (]) 13:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --] 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
----
]


== Misinformation ==
This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.


The recently added section "Anomalies and possible unnatural death" contains misinformation, based on short-lived rumors and conspiracy theories. Please remove the section. ] (]) 14:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role).
*Information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)
*Andries and SSB108 are forgiven any offenses they have committed by introducing unreliable information into the article and encouraged to edit in compliance with ] and ].


:ALL information is properly sourced and cited. the times of India, Indian express and other sources are reliable and credible.
For the Arbitration Committee. 03:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)</div>
:the title accurately depicts the content. anomalies in the narrative provided by the police, ashram, trust and other agencies in relation to what information was printed or reported on.
<br>
:much like the murders at ashram. facts, narratives and official stories don't add up. yet the various pieces of information are reported and documented. why don't you take down that page?
<big>''''''</big>
:just because its been 13 years and things have been brushed aside and washed cleaned doesn't mean these events weren't reported on.
:they appeared in the times of India.
:this section does not reflect conspiracy theories but reported on events.
:there is a "criticism " section is there not? why are those "events" or conspiracy theories not removed? some scenarios are plain redundant, willful character assassination and unproven lies. yet the section exists.
:why? because it was written about and played a role in the information surrounding Sai Baba. although irrelevant or dated or based on opinion, it was written about.
:as were the anomalies and pieces of information contrary to the "official narrative".
:the section, as the "criticism" section, provides cited information that appeared in reputable news outlets and has a place, is relevant and although, difficult to swallow without getting emotional, it was written about.
:your passions and emotions dont take precedent.
:section is well cited, properly cited and from credible sources.
:it holds the same place as the criticism section. ] (]) 05:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::All misinformation and conspiracy theories on the page need to go, and not just the Anamolies.. section. Why are we hounding someone who spent every moment for the upliftment of humanity? It is not about editors'/readers' passions and emotions, but about truth and facts which a Misplaced Pages article should stick to, isn't it? ] (]) 06:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Sai Baba’s virtues, divinity comment and unfettered devotion to serving humanity is not in question.
:::The section is well sourced, properly cited, and correctly quoted ] (]) 07:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::::The times of India and various other sources are, according to Misplaced Pages, reliable and credible. Criticism section, like I said, has events that are unproven and most likely untrue BUT still are reported on.
::::Therefore, when correctly cited and worded, appear in Misplaced Pages.
::::Same with this section.
::::if you feel all these sections should be removed then the “issue” is with you and your view, not the way it is presented - which as I have stated and also agreed by the person who Undid your edits - which is in accordance with Misplaced Pages guidelines. ] (]) 07:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::please review previous talk page issues. most importantly the criticism section and see how much effort and time, consensus and argument went into getting a phrasing that would satisfy everyone.
:::::try to edit the criticism section and you will find warnings not to edit certain parts because of these efforts...
:::::that being said, emotional responses and opinions of what wikipedia is or is not does not justify removing a section - one that is well cited, sourced and worded. ] (]) 08:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes, the page reads much better now than it did earlier, thanks to the efforts.
::::::Some of the cited sources in Anomalies part have attributed quotes to unnamed/unverifiable sources and have a speculative tone than factual reporting. Unilateral claims, reactions, rumors and speculation can be condensed into a few lines than given so much prominence. ] (]) 02:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::All the information is correctly cited from credible sources. If condensed and left unsourced, it will then look like a story/speculation etc.
:::::which will not hold up to Misplaced Pages standards and decrease the quality of the page. ] (]) 13:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::You can condense the part and still cite the sources.
::::::The problem is not with the citations but giving disproportionate space to ephemeral speculative reports arising in the wake of the confusion following the demise of the Guru. ] (]) 10:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)


== Gunnar Otis, not a real person ==


I've removed a paragraph from the article, citing "Gunnar Otis, professor of psychology, University of Reykjavik" as an authority, from a book by Paul William Roberts. The encounter between Roberts and "Gunnar Otis" is said to have taken place in 1976, but the University of Reykjavik was founded in 1998. No professor of psychology with that name has ever existed in Iceland. ] (]) 03:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)


:From what I’ve been able to find (ie. nothing), ''no person with that name has ever existed on Earth.'' ]]]™ 08:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

{{todo}}



==Why is there a clean up tag?==
Can somebody please explain the clean up tag or I will remove it. ] 06:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

==Another Complete Distortion Of Facts==
Here is yet '''another''' complete distortion of facts by Andries. Refer to that references Alexander Deutsch. Andries stated:
:''The American psychiatrist Alexander Deutsch visited the ashram of the guru Sathya Sai Baba in India and there noted that a group of young followers interpreted disconfirming events as tests of faith, engineered by the guru or as the guru's divine play, just as Krishna's leelas.''
Andries summarization and citation is '''wholly''' and '''unequivocally''' misleading and deceptive. Let us read Deutsch's '''actual''' words and context, which is based on his trip to SSB's ashram in the mid '''1970's''' (Andries left out the time-frame as well):
:''An even more paradoxical example of rebelliousness in cult members was observable in a substantial number of Western followers of Sai Baba. Emerging from the hippie counterculture, they appeared to project their anarchic and rebellious trends on their leader and distorted his teachings which were actually quite conservative. His playfulness, seductiveness, and magic and his controversial and unorthodox postion within his own culture facilitated the projection and distortion. The holy man angrily recounted for me, in an interview, the misdeeds of the Westerners: they illegally overextended their visas; the men and women were too close to each other; they embarrassed him in front of his Indian devotees; they followed behind him in a car when he left the ashram; some women touched him; and so on. The misreading of Swami by the Western devotees is discussed further in the following section...(Following Section)...At Sai Baba's ashram, as I indicated above, the Western devotees flagrantly denied the holy man's growing disenchantment with them, which was cleary shown by his not granting them personal interviews and other indications of unfriendliness. When I told the devotees what Sai Baba had told me about his negative feelings toward them, the characteristic response was that the holy man didn't really mean what he told me, that he was telling me, a Western doctor, just what I wanted to hear, and that the whole episode was meant as a test of their faith in him. (The notion that a disconfirming event is engineered by the leader as a test of faith seems common in cult thinking.) A theological justification for their thinking was readily avaiable here too. Did not Sai Baba proclaim himself as an incarnation of Krishna and did not Krishna play tricks (leela) on his devoted followers?''
Andries attempted to infer that Deutsch claimed that ''"young followers"'' (an age inference '''never''' suggested by Deutsch) ''"interpreted disconfirming events as tests of faith, engineered by the guru or as the guru's divine play"''. What Andries forgot to mention was that these ''"disconfirming events"'' were actually the '''Western follower's''' rebelliousness, '''their''' distortions of SSB's teachings and '''their''' refusal to accept SSB's negative assessment about them! Of course, none of this is relevant to SSB himself. Therefore, I am removing the entire reference on the ] and ] articles unless Andries can justify including this reference that has nothing to do with SSB himself, but has '''everything''' to do with SSB's early Western followers in the mid 1970's. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:I disagree. It is a minor distortion if it is a distortion at all. ] 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Andries, what does it have to do with SSB? ] <sup>]-]</sup> 23:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Deutsch relates the interpretation by the follower of SSB's behavior to SSB's claims ("''proclaim himself as an incarnation of Krishna''"), so it has a lot to do with SSB. This obsveration by Deutsch is not unique. Similar observations of non-rigorious interpretations by followers of SSB's behavior were made by Tanya Datta and Matthijs van der Meer in reputable sources. ] 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

By the way, since you are now talking, I filed an RFA involving you: ] <sup>]-]</sup> 23:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

==Regarding Recent Controversial Edit==
For the record, I would like to note that Andries is adding a '''controversial''' edit that was still listed as an edit to be mediated. Although there is currently a RFA regarding Andries behavior and controversial edits on Misplaced Pages, he is '''continuing''' with his '''controversial''' edits despite this fact. One can only wonder why. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 00:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


==Did You Know Answer to And==

Hello And,

This was your question...

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

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

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

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

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

"Mad"


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

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

==]==
This article is the subject of ] between adversaries ] and ] Abritration is the last step in ] and leads to binding solutions.

*] main page with the following subpages
**] '''all editors of Misplaced Pages are welcome to give evidence'''
**]
**]
] 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

==Regarding Kreydick's Testimony==
Andries is requesting a citation stating: ''"Kreydick's statement cannot be retrieved from the clerk of court and hence breaks wikipedia policy verifiability."'' It is not my fault if Andries cannot obtain these public court records. I obtained them: . As one can see, these are '''actual''' scans to '''actual''' public court records. Therefore, I suggest Andries take out his request for citation. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 00:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:How did you get them then? If they can only obtained from a lawyer, but not from court records then they are not public records and this breaks ]. Please give a contact address where I can get these records. ] 03:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
No lawyer can give out court records that are not public. I obtained them the same way I obtained the self-dismissed court records. You do the homework yourself. I provided actual scans to these public court records and if you do not accept them, that is your problem. Not mine. Remove your demand for a citation or I will. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 03:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:If you refuse to to provide an address where I can obtain Kreydick's statement from public records then I will remove it because this would break ]. ] 03:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC) I amended 03:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you get the opinion of other editors. I already provided scans to public court records that come from a certified shorthand reporter for the court. That's all I need to do to support this reference. You have the scans in front of your face and deny them because you couldn't obtain them. That is your problem. Not mine. Ask the court how to obtain them. I am not your secretary. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 03:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:Do you mean that you refuse to give an address where I can retrieve the statement from Kreydick from public records? It is your problem, not mine, to give an address, because information in Misplaced Pages needs to be ]. If I used information from a book then I also have to give at least a book title and author name and preferrably ISBN nr. This is the responsibility of the person adding contents to the article, not the responsibility wishing to verify what is written. ] 04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Andries, do you have problems reading? The name of the court is clearly stated on the records. They have a website. Do the research yourself. 1+1=2 ] <sup>]-]</sup> 04:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:Okay, others have tried before to get Kreydick's statement from the court but failed, nevertheless I will try get it too from the court . ] 04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Court records are easily accessible in the US, Andries. You just contact the court clerk. and ask You can do that online at: https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/OnlineServices/CivilImages/index.asp. Concerning your tone of voice, and given the ArbCom case, I friendly suggestion would be that you guys disengage until the ArbCom case makes its ruling. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 05:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:What is wrong with my tone? I did not use not a single unfriendly word. I used the word ''please''. Why do we have to disengage until the arbcom makes a decision? I sincerely cannot understand. ] 05:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC) amended 05:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Andries, so you have '''not''' attempted to get the court records yourself, contact the court or make '''any''' other basic enquiries about the court records '''before''' accusing me of violating ] policy?

The scanned copies clearly show: 1) The name of the court; 2) The court case number; 3) The date; 4) The place of the deposition; 5) The time of the deposition; 6) The name of witness; 7) The name and signature of the certified shorthand reporter; 8) The name of the plaintiff, 9) The name of the defendent and 10) The name of the court case. The reference on the SSB article clearly states: ''"Alaya Rahm vs. Sathya Sai Baba Society, filed in the Superior Court of California on January 6th 2005, County Of Orange - USA, Case No. 05cc01931"''. Despite '''all''' this easily verifiable information, Andries has the audacity to state: ''"If I used information from a book then I also have to give at least a book title and author name and preferrably ISBN nr"''. All the relevant information needed is provided on the scans and on the Misplaced Pages reference, contrary to Andries assertion.

Therefore, the citation is being removed pending an actual inquiry not based on speculation or un-named ''"others"'' questionable efforts. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 05:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:SSS108, others have tried to verify the court record and they were unable to do so. ] 07:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Andries, usually when someone blames another person for breaking Misplaced Pages policy, they cite factual data (including names). Care to tell me the name to these ''"other people"'' and how they allegedly tried to verify the court records? ] <sup>]-]</sup> 07:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


I subscribed to http://www.courtca.com/home.html - which website claims to be the No. 1 search facility for all US Court Records and I searched extensively for any depositions made in the Alaya Rahm case. My username there was dc98fd. No record of any deposition by Lewis Kreydick was found, not any reference whatever to the name of Lewis Kreydick. I contacted the support service of Court Records at detective@supporthelp.net for assistance, but they were also unable to find the materials I was seeking.
Further, the data is not available on any other website found where US Court Records are available, such as at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search.cfm?dist=0 when the correct case number is entered (i.e. 05CC01931). None of the Keydrick materials are formally available court documents, since - as is clear from the Court Record of self-dismissal by A. Rahm - they were not presented in court and the case was dropped. Therefore they are privy to the plaintiff and defendents and their lawyers, which means they are not official, independent sources. A signed statement from the Clerk of Court that these depositions can be regarded as official and public would otherwise be required. All these references should therefore be removed from the Sathya Sai Baba Wiki page. ] 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
:ProEdits, did you request the actual court records? I did and I got Kreydicks deposition with my request. Therefore, your internet search is trumped by my actual request, which included Kreydics video-taped deposition. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 15:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
::In order to maintain transparency, ] is ], an Anti-Sai Activist who happens to be a very close associate of Andries . ] <sup>]-]</sup> 15:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It appears, once again, that I have to do the footwork since Andries and Robert Priddy (aka ]) do not know how to properly search for court records. Go to the → Click on → Click On "Case" → Enter the Case Number: 05cc01931 → All of the pertinent information about Alaya Rahm's self-dismissed court case are provided. No ''"subscription"'' needed. Using Priddy's faulty method, one cannot get '''any''' court records whatsoever. I would duplicate this information, but it is prohibited by the terms and conditions on the court case website. I hope this puts to rest Anti-Sai Activist's relentless attempts to remove this information even though actual scans to actual court records have been provided by me to back up this . ] <sup>]-]</sup> 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
:] did very serious effort to verify Kreydick's deposition and was unable to do so, incl. extensive e-mail correspondence to the court archive contact persons. Therefore the Kreydick's deposition breaks ] and I have given the article a warning. ] 16:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
:SSS108, Kreydick's deposition is not listed with the method that you described hereabove. ] 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
None of the court records are provided. You have to pay for them and request them to see them. I got the records and provided actual scans and you still say they are not verfiable. That is your problem, not mine. Robert Priddy made great efforts and ended up empty handed. I found the relevant information within a couple of minutes. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 16:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
::ProEdits did pay for access to the court archives and was unable to verify Kreydick's deposition. ] 16:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Based on ProEdits comments, he was unable to verify any court records. Not just Kreydicks (take a look at the link he provided). And as I said before, I have the actual court records. I scanned them and provided them here and you '''still''' say they are unverfiable. Of course, you are upset about this because it argues against your POV. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
:I also want to point out that using the method listed above, under ''"Register Of Actions"'', there is a ''"Stipulation - Other"'' that happened on 3/16/2006, which happens to be the '''exact''' date for Kreydick's deposition . ] <sup>]-]</sup> 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
::User:ProEdits had extensive communication with the court clerks but he was unable to retrieve the depositions from them. How did you retrieve the deposition? ] 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
ProEdits did not have extensive communication with the court clerks. He tried to obtain the court record information from court-record sites and apparently failed. As I have already shown, the court-record information '''exists''' and can be requested because they are now public record. I have already given you all the information you need to obtain the records. Next, you'll be asking me to purchase them for you. I have provided all details and even scans and you demand more. This is your problem, not mine. If you think you are right, time to get opinions from other editors and find a consensus. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 04:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:No, you did not provide enough information to retrieve the deposition. ProEdits did serious but unsuccessful efforts to get it. I am still waiting for an answer from you to my question how you got the deposition? ] 07:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Gerald ‘Joe’ Moreno (SSS108) makes links to highly slanderous pages against me. It is fair to point this out, because I basically agree with jossi’s comment under ‘Tone of this Conversation’. However, since I have been attacked heavily here and Misplaced Pages is chronically unable to remove such texts or block the slanderers once and for all, I feel I do at least have a moral right to refute arguments directed against me, not least also in defense of one who have suffered terribly at the hands of Sai Baba (Alaya Rahm). So here goes:-
I gave a link to a Court web page, but never suggested that it contained the text of the court records – I gave the link PRECISELY to show that those records are NOT available on that website! See this once again: "At this time documents imaged or electronically filed are not available via this application.”

== The Times reference ==

The reference provided for the last edit is from Rick Ross' website and does not have any information about the original source. The citation is referred to be from The Times, but The Times archive does not have such article. See: . ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
:It really was an article in ], see e.g. , and ] 22:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC) amended 22:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
:In addition, the article itself meantions the names of ''The Times'' three times. ] 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
::As the link from The Times is dead (see: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,7-2001295208,00.html ), then we need to use the proper format for the cite as per ], as you do not seem to have seen the original article. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 01:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


I searched the Times archives for the year 2001 under Dominic Kennedy's name and it appears the Suicide, sex and the guru article was either misnamed or it was a subtitle as the articles I found for that date by Kennedy were as follows:

The Times
MON 27 AUG 2001
Ed: 4M
Pg: 3
Word Count: 872 'I sought peace and couldn't find it'
Michael Pender, a student, hoped that Sai Baba would be able to cure him of HIV. Like thousands of devotees from around the world, Mr Pender went on a pilgrimage to Sai Baba's ashram in Puttaparthi, southern India, expecting to find magic and divinit...

The Times
MON 27 AUG 2001
Ed: 4M
Pg: 3
Word Count: 652 Three died after putting their faith in guru
Three British men have died mysteriously after becoming followers of an Indian mystic famed as a "god man" and miracle worker. Sai Baba's activities are being studied by the Foreign Office which is considering issuing an unprecedented warning against...

Very odd that there appear to be two articles listed on the exact same page for the exact same date, one article having 872 words and the other, 652.

] 09:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

::Fascinating.... What should we do about that article? It may not cross the threshold for ]... ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 15:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:::what do u mean not verifiable? U can check the hard copy of the Times of that date. ] 16:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::::How? Let's ask Freelanceresearch. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 17:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It's true. That article is not listed in ''The Times'' archive. Only two are: . Do a search for ''"suicide, sex and the guru"'' and nothing shows up. Therefore Andries, unless you can provide a verifiable reference, it is going to be removed as per ] (which you should have no problem with considering your standards in upholding ]: . ] <sup>]-]</sup> 02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:it can only be removed it if you or somebody else was unable to find it in the hardcopy archives of the Times. ] 05:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:Verifiability does not mean that it has be accessible online. ] 05:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:If you google on the name of the article then it is clear that it used to be available online. Online copies can be found e.g here. ] 05:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The Times provides summaries to archived articles. That article is not listed. The other two are. So it not in their archives and you cannot prove it exists. The links you cited do not provide a means to verify the article. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 06:31, 1 August
2006 (UTC)
:I do not have to prove its existence. The article only has to be verifiable You can verify its existence and contents by checking the hardcopy of the Times. ] 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::You are right, unless its existence is disputed. In which case the burden to provide a way to verify the source is on the editor adding the material. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 16:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:::No, you are misinterpreting policy. I gave a date, name, publication, and author. This makes it verifiable to anyone who is willing to do the effort. ] 16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SSS108. The two articles listed for that date do not match the title of the one claimed so we have no proof of the actual date of that article. The url date (2001295442) looks like it may have been the 29th of May, not 27th of August but since it is not in the archives it cannot be proven and why it is missing is a mystery, if in fact it existed. Contacting the author may be the only way to find out the true status of that article. ] 08:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:I am not inclined to believe Andries. After all, he got the name to Premanand's book completely wrong and left it that way for many months. The fact remains that 2 out of 3 of Dominic Kennedy's articles '''have been''' and '''can be''' verified by ''The Times'' archive. One cannot. That means it is not in their archive which casts doubts on it's origins and verifiability. How to request the article from ''The Times'' to verify it when it is '''not''' in their archives? When it came to Kreydicks deposition, Andries immediately wanted it removed based on the word of his cronies (he didn't even research it himself) even though I provided all the relevant information and '''scans''' to the actual documents. Now he is arguing for the inclusion of an article that cannot be verified from it's alleged official source (i.e., ''The Times''). This shows how Andries flip-flops on the standards he uses when it comes to material that argues in favor of his POV. It is my intent to remove the source unless Andries can provide information that verifies it. So far, the title, date and newspaper name have yielded '''no''' verifiable results. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::The burden of proof that the article exists is only on me when other editors did serious but unsuccessful effort to verify it. Please contact the Times first or check the hardcopies of the Times. I read the article when it came out and there are several independent sources that mention the article without disputing its existence. ] 17:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the burden of proof is on you. Why aren't '''you''' attempting to get the hard copy? '''Once again''' (not sure how many times I have to say this) one '''cannot''' request the hard copy from ''The Times'' because it is '''not''' in their archives to request. Maybe we need a Dutch translator to make it clearer? ] <sup>]-]</sup> 19:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Just go to any decent University Library or major Public Library and you can verify the hard copy version. Or one can write to Dominic Kennedy, c/o The Times, and he will verify it himself. But perhaps Lisa and Joe think he is a '''blatant liar''' who pretends he has written this article and that it is only his 'original research' or that he is 'only' a journalist? --] 15:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

==Hindu ritual oiling genitals?==
I removed the statement that oiling genitals is a Hindu ritual. This has been discussed many times outside of Misplaced Pages and proponents are always unable to back up this statement with clear reputable sources. ] 16:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Andries, this disgusting practice has no reputable authority in Hinduism and would horrify 99.99 percent of all Indians.-- ] 21:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Hey , what the hell happened to this section!!! Some vandal took it away. Don't worry folks it will be back and better than before. Count on it! --] 22:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Sorry but I haven't seen any proof from credible sources that Sai Baba is "oiling" genitals. Credible sources I know say oil is put below the navel (emotional center) and that is all. Many healers use oil. I use it in healings all the time. Message therapists use it. It is well known that oil has conductive properties. Only people with dirty minds want to make something sexual of it.] 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:There is some proof voiced in reputable sources. Even the Dutch SSO admitted it (in an article by Wim van Dijk) in their offical newsletter for members. Oiling gentitals by SSB of young men is so common that it cannot be seriously denied anymore. ] 09:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Andries but unless a witness was "there" when it happened, it cannot be verified from a second-hand source. Just because a person makes a statement doesn't mean he was there when it happened or even knows what the actual truth is. Your standards of proof are VERY flimsy and would NOT hold up in a court of law. Not to mention you continually change your standards of proof to suit your anti-Sai agenda. Your documentation in this regard is VERY flimsy to say the least. ] 23:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

==Footnotes and refs==
Any reason that takes up half the article? Can the notes be summarized?] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:I will try to do it a bit, but I have been repeatedly accused of selective and out-of-context citing. Selective and out-of-context citing can be verified and corrected easily if the citations are long. ] 08:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

== Let's engage the emergency break and shorten the article now! ==

Starting with a reversal of SSS which introdudes a giant citation into the article and broke the references.

And archiving the talk page seems also needed.

] 16:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
:Why don't you reference your comments, Pjacobi? Most of the "giant citations" were added by Andries. I also noticed the broke refs and was going to try to remedy it when I had the time. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
::Please note that I enlarged the citations to counter the repeated accusations against me of out-of-context and selective citations. ] 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
And for the record, I did not break the references as Pjocobi implied. It was done by Askolnick . ] <sup>]-]</sup> 19:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

==May be the lawsuits should go out of the article==
See ] ''"Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publicly available '''and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source'''.''"] 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think so. Andries specifically has an agenda to remove any information that argues against his Anti-Sai POV. This self-dismissed legal suit compromises many of the arguments made in other references in the article and I will not agree to its removal. The court records are reliable sources. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
::Where have they been reported by a verifiable secondary source? ] 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
They don't have to be. They are publicly available and verifiable. Court records are cited throughout Misplaced Pages without being referenced to a secondary source. You will have to seek a change of policy first. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 19:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
:What do you mean? You mean that you do not want to follow ]? ] 19:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I know what you are trying to do Andries. I think we need other editors to weigh in before you attempt to interpret Misplaced Pages policy to suit and push your POV. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 04:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::Okay, I made a ] about this dispute. If this yields as usual no result then we can try mediation again and then an arbcom case again, though the previous one has not yet ended. ] 09:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So, what's the specific issue in question here? --] 10:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:The inclusion of the lawsuit by Alaya Rahm versus the Sathya Sai Bookshop. This may not be in accordance with ], because it has not been reported by verifiable secondary sources. The information is only sourced to the court recorrds. ] 10:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:Here is the court case ]. ] 10:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
See how sloppy Andries is with his facts? He and his group of Anti-Sai Activists have tried to '''change''' the facts and push their bias by saying ''"Sathya Sai Bookshop"'' instead of the actual name cited in court records ''"Sathya Sai Baba Society"''. The Society is more than just a bookstore and Andries is trying to push '''the very same bias''' on this site that he and his associates push on their Anti-Sai-Baba sites (proving once again that Andries cannot '''factually''' relate information without slanting it with his own POV). Alaya Rahm made very serious allegations against Sathya Sai Baba in the following references: ''Divine Downfall'', ''Secret Swami'', ''Seduced'' and ''India Today''. It is relevant that a lawsuit Alaya Rahm filed and pursued for 16 months was self-dismissed by him with prejudice. Despite rampant claims by Anti-Sai-Baba sites (like the one run by Andries) to there being numerous victims, '''not even one''' single victim came forward to support or defend Alaya Rahm. His legal suit belly-flopped. Therefore, this information (taken from actual court records) is wholly relevant to the serious allegations made in the Sathya Sai Baba article and it should be included on the premise that these court records are reliable sources and verfiable. Andries and ProEdits (both Anti-Sai-Baba Activists) want this information removed because it severely compromises the agenda they wish to push on Misplaced Pages and on their Anti-Sai-Baba Sites (ProEdits has no less than 3 Anti-Sai Sites to his name and had 6 others deleted for defamatory content). ] <sup>]-]</sup> 12:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:The difference is that the accusations by Alaya Rahm have been reported by verifiable secondary sources unlike the court case that you want to include has not been. Interpreting primary sources is a difficult matter and should be left to responsible persons. It will be clear that I consider you highly incompetent and irresponsible in interpretating information related to SSB.] 12:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This from someone who's website was threatened with a lawsuit for defamatory content (admittedly: )! ] <sup>]-]</sup> 13:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:What has this to do with the dispute or the article. ? ] 13:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It has to do with your personal attack against me, i.e., ''"I consider you highly incompetent and irresponsible in interpretating information related to SSB"''. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 13:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:It is closely related to the dispute in question. You should not include primary sources in the article for stated reasons. ] 13:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
If that is the standard that will be implemented, it will be implemented across the board. Including the removal of the reference to Priddy from the primary source Kevin Shepherd, which has never been referenced by reliable secondary sources. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 13:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:No, Shepherd is a reliable secondary source reporting on Priddy's writings. ] 14:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Kevin Shepherd, author of 'Investigating the Sai Baba Movement' Dorchester, 2005. ISBN 0 9525089 3 1 deals there with four main Sai Baba related figures: Shirdi Sai, Upasani Maharaj, Meher baba and Sathya Sai Baba. His publisher states among much else: "His Gurus Rediscovered (1968) was the first book to stress the Sufi background of Shirdi Sai Baba, and also the sequel of Upasani Maharaj. He has also written nine other various works..."
These monographs include:
Psychology in Science: Towards a Universal Science of Human Progress
A Sufi Matriarch: Hazrat Babajan
Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal (Cambridge 1988)
Gurus Rediscovered: Biographies of Sai Baba of Shirdi & Upasni Maharaj of Sakori
From Oppression to Freedom: A Study of the Kaivani Gnostics (Cambridge)
Meaning in Anthropos: Anthropography as an Interdisciplinary Science of Culture
The Ressurection of Philosophy (Cambridge)
Meaning in Anthropos: Anthropography as an Interdisciplinary Science of Culture (Cambridge)
Minds and Sociocultures Vol. One: (Zoroastrianism and the Indian Religions)
and Vol. Two: Zoroanstrianism, Ishraqi philosophy, Sufism, Ramakrishna, Tantric Buddhism, Vogelin, and other subjects.
Some Philosophical Critiques and Appraisals
Pointed Observations
(see also http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/Shepherd,%20Kevin)
In short Kevin Shepherd has all the marks of being a real 'expert in comparative religion'! Of course, his book is a primary source on the Sathya Sai Baba article. The reason Moreno disputes this is simply because he desparately wants to remove my name as quoted by Shepherd from the article at all costs. Moreno is still pushing his agenda and POV!--] 16:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)



=== RFC Response ===
I don't see in the current version citations to the court records, nor have I found such in the history I've reviewed. We have instead citations to California statutes - those do not prove that the court case even happened. To cite anything based on the court cases, we need citations to the court case records. Per ], "'''We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher.'''" <nowiki></nowiki> Unless/until the court documents and records are published by a reliable publisher - which for legal records would be a publisher that publishes all cases for a given jurisdiction, we can't use material from the court documents. As there is no such citation ''at this time'', the relevant clause of ] is "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion." I will therefore remove the material as not adequately sourced. Should citations to the court records, as published by a reliable publisher, become available, this evaluation will no longer be relevant. ] 13:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:GRBerry, actual scans to the court records have been referenced here for others to verify: and . These were obtained from the Court itself. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 13:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::Again, can you please tell me how the the court records from Kreydick can be obtained? Serious but unsuccessful efforts were undertaken to verify the information. ] 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Those links are not to a reliable publisher of court documents, they are to an activist site. Look for a site like ].com, ], or a print media court record like the ] that covers a wide array of cases. That is what a reliable ''publisher'' means in this context, especially since ] says to "Be very firm about '''high-quality''' references". Other reliable secondary sources could be cited, if there was press coverage. When I removed the material, there wasn't even a reliable citation to prove that a court case occurred. ] 21:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud, Andries. I have told you '''numerous times'''. I am not going to repeat myself yet '''again'''. ProEdits did not even ask for the records from the proper court! He attempted to get it from secondary sources, i.e., online court-record sites. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 13:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:Even if the material was obtained from the court, that copy in an editors hands would not be "published by a reliable publisher" as required by ]. ] 21:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the explanation, but there was extensive communication with the court but the court was not able to provide Kreydick's deposition. What is the name of the court official (and e-mail address) that I should contact? ] 14:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Andries, do you have a mental block or something? There was NO ''"extensive communication with the court"''. ProEdits cited the sources for his alleged investigation and they are NOT from any ''"actual court"''. They are from online court-record '''websites'''. Get your facts right and stop trying to distort the facts with inaccurate statements. The court record number on Kreydick's deposition is '''exactly''' the same as the self-dismissed lawsuit from Alaya Rahm. It is part of the '''same record'''. If you don't understand English, I suggest you have someone translate this for you. I already provided the link to the court site in question and I will not spoon-feed you. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:No, I e-mailed with ProEdits and others and he told me that there was extensive communication with the court. Can you please tell me whom from the court I should contact to get Kreydick's deposition? ] 14:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Once again: . And if Priddy really had extensive communication with the court, you should be providing me with information that Priddy sent you to see if he really did. Apparently, neither of you know which court to talk to. That much is clear. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 15:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:Once again, Kreydick's deposition cannot be verified with that information and hence should be removed for violation of ]. ] 15:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

:To answer your request about verifiable attempts at verification from e-mails the following. The clerk of court that that had been contacted and was present during the case was A. Du_bois. (without the underscore)] 15:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, please do not let your frustration get the best of you. Please remain ] in addressing fellow editors. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 15:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:Jossie, how would you suggest resolving this issue? Andries is repeating himself like a broken record, saying that the court records are not verfiable when neither he or ProEdits has even contacted the correct court! Despite providing full information about the court records, Andries just sits there demanding information, ad nauseam, that I have already provided to him over and over again. I have contacted the court, got the records, provided full scans. How much more do I have to do to verify the material? The citation of these court records fulfills the requirements as described by GRBerry. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::No, SSS108 you misrepresented the matter. The court was contacted by ProEdits and others and the deposition cannot be verified with the information that you provided. ] 15:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::SSS108, please tell me how and whom you contacted in the court to get the deposition. ] 15:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Say what you like Andries. The fact remains that I could not have obtained these court records except through the court. I made the effort and got the records. You have not. Period. End of discussion. ProEdits never mentioned contacting the court directly. Now you are claiming he has although you cannot even tell me the name to the correct court (as evidenced by your ceaseless requests for contact information). ] <sup>]-]</sup> 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:How did you contact the court? We were unable to verify the deposition. ] 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

:Another person apart from A. Du_Bois (remove the underscore) who was contacted in our unsuccessful attempts to verify Kreydick's deposition was A. Mara_villa (remove the underscore) of the Orange County Superior Court. ] 15:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Several persons have contacted the Clerk of Court directly on our behalf at Orange County Court. A former devotee living in California visited the Orange County Court in August (2006) and obtained all the available public documents relating to the Alaya Rahm self-dismissal case. They are:-

-CASE ID 05CCO1931 REGISTER OF ACTIONS REPORT - PAGES 1 TO 5 [RUN DAT 21-JUN-2006 RUN TIME 11.26 AM

-PROOF OF SERVICE (c.c.p. SECTION 1013 (A),2015.5 (REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL)

-APRIL 20 2006 FILED =- SELF-DISMISSAL - COURT CONSENT

-SERVICE LIST

Not one of these documents includes any depositions by the Sathya Sai Society, OR ANY REFERENCE TO SUCH A DEPOSITION. Lewis Kreydick was not named in any of the documents. I have scans of all the documents, as paid for to the Clerk of Orange County Court. ] 03-Sept.-06

Concerning ''' Bill Aitken ''':
I find no independent, recognised sources on comparative religion recognising Bill Aitken's work, not to mention acclaiming him as an expert. He is simply a writer with personal opinions. Since there is no such public evidence that Bill Aitken is recognised as an "expert on comparative religion", other than that he called himself this in an article written by himself, I am also removing this unwarranted claim from the main page. ] 03-Sept.-06

ProEdits, your personal attacks comprised of defamatory and slanderous comments against me have been removed. If you persist in these defamatory attacks, I will file a complaint againt you on Misplaced Pages. I suggest you talk to Andries about reliable sources. It does not matter what your original research allegedly uncovered about Bill Aitken. The fact remains that a reliable source published information stating that Bill Aitken is a expert on comparative religion . Therefore, it can be referenced as such. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:If there is one person who has no right to complain about slanderous attacks then it is SSS108. Your whole website consist of slanderous ad hominem attack. ] 18:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlike your site, my site has never been threatened with legal action for defamatory content. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored the statement by user:ProEdits that user:SSS108 inappropriately removed under the pretext of removing a personal attack against him hereunder. ]
:Not one of these documents includes any depositions by the Sathya Sai Society, OR ANY REFERENCE TO SUCH A DEPOSITION. Lewis Kreydick was not named in any of the documents. I have scans of all the documents, as paid for to the Clerk of Orange County Court. The person who provided them withholds his name because he does not wish to have it defamed on the web and Google and elsewhere on the web by Gerald Moreno - as is constantly being done by him (see http://www.saiguru.net/english/articles/130serious_defamation_attempt.htm) to other critics of Sai Baba.
:Despite his protestations, Moreno has almost certainly been provided the depositions - and not least the video materials with Kreydick he has also posted - by persons (such as their lawyers) acting on behalf of the Sathya Sai Society, probably the Sathya Sai Society's member and chief lawyer - Robert M. Baskin - who is also on record as referring to the matter in very similar terms to Moreno (see Radio Sai's page at http://media.radiosai.org/Journals/Vol_04/01JUL06/collapse-of-calumny.htm) On the other hand, if Moreno has a signed receipt proving that he obtained these documents from the Orange County Court, he should provide a scan of it. The scan will then be sent to the Clerk of Court, with whom we are in touch by phone, for verification of its authenticity. Until such time as genuine proof is provided that these depositions are independently available from the Clerk of Court, the references to Kreydick will be removed. ] 03-Sept.-06
::Since Andries restored these personal attacks against me, I will defend myself: . ] <sup>]-]</sup> 19:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

::This talk page has not yet fully degenerated into to making abuse into an art form as is the case in yahoo group sathyasaibaba2 but we are almost there. Keep trying. :) ] 19:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You have had every opportunity to keep the discussion on course and you have instead chose the path of personal attacks. You have no one else to blame but yourself. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Moreno began his defamations and attacks on me long before I even responded to him, which I then did over 2 years later with a single paragraph. He continues his defamation here, with the link which he had to remove from my Robert Priddy Wiki page (see his slander-related link at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Priddy&oldid=58646403). where he also began his defamation specifically on Misplaced Pages against me many months ago. He avoids the issue, that he has NO PROOF that the Kreydick material is in the independent public domain. Therefore I shall continue to remove this material in accordance with Wiki policy on sources. --] 19:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bill Aitken's status is not that of an 'expert on comparative religion' - there is absolutely no proof. Moreno has no answer to this fact, so it has been removed again, and will continue to be removed until any reasonable proof may be forthcoming.--] 19:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Moreno persists in posting unverified materials about the Kreydick deposition. He thereby demonstrates his complete inability to prove that this deposition was obtained by him from Orange County Court and is available as an independent public documentation. Depositions are not handed out by the Clerk of Court or other Court officials for free, they have to be paid for, and a signed receipt alone can prove this occurred. Otherwise the only conclusion is that the materials wer supplied to Moreno by persons belonging to or acting on behalf of the Sathya Sai Society.
Therefore continued removal of this material.--] 20:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This appears to me to be an attempt to remove information on a technicality, a technicality which actually warrants the ''inculsion of this material''. It appears to have been cited by a secondary source. Anything not verified to the above mentioned sources should be pruned mercilessly, but attempts to remove the cited material are little more than vandalism. ]<sup>] ]</sup> 20:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:what secondary source? ] 21:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that Priddy and Andries are "demanding" documentation concerning the court case (which has been provided and according to the Calumny article verified by Robert Baskin, a licensed attorney) when we have been asking them to provide documentation concerning the alleged affidavits they've been claiming to have and chiming about for years but can never come up with! Talk about duplicitous and hypocritical. Let's see you guys walk your talk for once instead of trying to have it all your way and playing your continuous mind games with regard to the rules.] 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:Andries, I suggest you talk to Priddy about reliable sources. Be very careful about letting Priddy set a precedent about trying to remove reliable sources and substitute it with his original research. I can similiarly make arguments against many of the Anti-Sai references in this article. If Priddy wants to set a precedent, then it should be applied to other references as well. Priddy should also not be editing this article so arbitrarily without any form of consensus from other editors. The comment about Aitken was not made by me. It was made by ''"The Week"'' article . Priddy is not a journalist and he cannot cite any reliable sources to counter the views expressed in this source. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 04:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


More red herrings from Moreno: I have never tried to substitute anything for the removed subjective materials of Kreydick. I am not presenting any 'original research' on the article, where I have only inserted about 4 words in all!--] 14:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a journalist - though I do write for newspapers and journals and am on the board of a quarterly cultural magazine distributed nationally in Norway - but I am a professional academic researcher since decades. I do not need to prove that the view expressed in the source 'This Week' is other than a self-made claim by Bill Aitken himself about being "an expert in comparative religion" Go to the source article and you will notice that it is part of his article, hence attributed to him, not to the editors or to anyone else. Besides this source is merely an on-line journal and as such should be eliminated according to the arbitration recently received. It has to go.--] 13:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also going to be contacting the court myself on Tuesday. Monday is a holiday here in the USA. I also want to point out how Andries has no problem when ProEdits (Robert Priddy) removes referenced material but raises a huge fuss when others do it with his sources. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:I attributed the statement about Bill Aitken. ] 04:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::Well Andries, the article is going to be reverted. I will not leave this issue alone. Your reason for removing the Court Case information is contrary to GRBerry's statements. You, as an Anti-Sai Activist who is the ''"Main Representative, Contact and Supervisor"'' for the '''largest''' Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba website on the internet have an agenda to push on Misplaced Pages. I have fulfilled all of GRBerry's criteria and provided actual scans to actual court records. Just becuase you and ProEdits have not been able to verify the records (in the last 2 days or so) is no reason to remove it. I have been able to verify it and provided scans to back it up. Neither you or ProEdits can provide any attested statements from anyone from the court stating the documents '''do not''' exist. They do exist and here they are: & . ] <sup>]-]</sup> 04:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::As usual you are completely wrong. You did not fulfill GRberry's criteria of providing secondary verifiable sources reporting on the court case: it has never been reported by reputable sources other than the court. It is also untrue that we have been only busy with trying to get the court data for the last two days. We have been trying this for months. ] 05:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Weren't you just arguing that you wanted to include an article about Sai Baba even though no one could verify its existence in online documents, Andries?
Now you are arguing that you want to remove data because you cannot find the documents online? You continually want it both ways as long as it benefits you. I looked at the Superior Court page on Alaya Rahm's case and it CLEARLY shows that Alaya asked for a dismissal of his case. Now are you going to argue that? The court disclaimer says that some documents may be missing.

" Information Disclaimer
The information provided on and obtained from this site does not constitute the official record of Orange County Superior Court. This information is provided as a service to the general public. Any user of this information is hereby advised that it is being provided "as is". The information provided may be subject to errors or omissions. Visitors to this site agree that the Court is not liable for errors or omissions or any of the information provided. Visitors further consent to access the record only as instructed by the Court and consent to the Court's monitoring of access to the records. Copyright and other proprietary rights may apply to information in a case file absent an express grant of additional rights by the holder of the copyright or other proprietary right. Use of such information is permissible only to the extent permitted by law or court order, and any use inconsistent with proprietary rights is prohibited."

Please let us know when you decide to be consistent with the rules Andries. ] 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


As the above 'Information Disclaimer' points out "Visitors further consent to access the record only as instructed by the Court and consent to the Court's monitoring of access to the records." Where, therefore, has the Court instructed and given consent on the monitoring of access to the Kreydick deposition record? I am acting within the guidelines of Misplaced Pages in removing reference to this and will continue to do so until independent and controllable proof is provided that the Clerk of Court can provide such documents, in which unlikely case I shall require that exact information on how such documents were provided, so that I can also obtain them. I am interested in the result of Moreno's contacts with the Clerk of Court and expect him in the interests of truth to provide documentation of the response he gets, whether pro or contra his case.
The fact STILL remains, there is no independently sourced information about the Lewis Kreydick deposition.
Andries is evidently acting consistently with the rules now, whatever he may have argued in the past. SSS108 (Gerald 'Joe' Moreno) is an extremely active pro-Sai activist with four pro-Sai websites containing altogether many hundreds of pages pushing his POV wholly one-sidedly (as witnessed here on Misplaced Pages) as he also does on several blogs and numerous bulletin boards, most especially and in sexually-explicit language on Yahoo Groups sathyasaibaba2. He writes all those pages and entries himself, whereas Andries has written less than 5% of the materials on ExBaba.com. Apropos, for the record, ExBaba.com was indeed threatened with legal action by someone who was unable to proceed because the entire threat was an empty bluff. This speaks rather in favour of the website's integrity. --] 07:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh give us a break Priddy. Are you going to nit-pick us to death with your avoidance tactics now? Since WHEN were most of your sleazy accusations EVER independently sourced, much less corroborated? All public records can be posted for public viewing. If you don't believe me go to the smokingun website and look at all the court documents and public records they have there. What's wrong, are you afraid people might find out you guys are all bluff and no buster? Better be careful, people are getting awfully tired of your "any sleaze goes" attitude and like David Icke, someday you may have to pay the piper. ] 10:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


It is not our business - a SSS108 sophistically claims - to provide any attested statements from anyone from the court stating the documents '''do not''' exist. We do not deny their existence, but we assert they have not been released as public information BY THE COURT, hence as independent sources (i.e. not as Sai Baba propaganda on Sai-devoted web pages). Even so, the deposition of Kreydick is not even central to the case. and played no part whatever in the decision to drop the litigation - the fact is that it was discontinued voluntarily due to what can be termed legal technicalities. The real 'smoking gun' in the Alaya Rahm lawsuit is found at http://www.saiguru.net/english/news/060730_Alaya_Rahm_lawsuit.htm where the real reasons for the self-dismissal are stated. So far I am still unconvinced due to lack of reliable evidence that the depositions made by the Sathya Sai Society are independently available as public documents. THAT is the entire issue... it is quite simple to understand if one is not blinded by bias and wilful obstructionism. IF they have been released by consent of the judge as is required according to the Court website, then they are public documents. They are NOT available on the Internet according to the statement "At this time documents imaged or electronically filed are not available via this application." A representative of the exposé visited the Court and obtained on payment of a fee what he understood was ALL the documents concerning Alaya Rahm available there (as already stated above). We are not the ones who need to be careful - empty threats are not the stock in trade of Sai critics - as we do not break the laws on slander as Freelanceresearch has done on Yahoo groups sathyasaibaba2 endlessly(as conscientiousobjector2000)... As usual, she makes big claims without anything that can be called supporting evidence - circumstantial or otherwise, as is seen above. I am stating fact, not slander without using derogatory terms like 'sleazy'. My web pages shows masses of independent sources - see http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/index.htm --] 12:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish to correct my former statement that Lisa de Witt was banned from Misplaced Pages. I find I was misinformed by someone who commented thus, but - having checked thoroughly - I find no evidence of it. I am removing my unfortunate mistake. Interesting that Lisa de Witt admits that she and Moreno are co-responsible for the mean-spirited atmosphere here - this was also obvious long, long before I entered this page with some fairly restrained comments about them. However, Moreno was banned, n'est ce pas? Now Moreno and de Witt can rail on here and on Yahoo groups about how Priddy actually made a mistake and admitted it!--] 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I have NEVER been banned from using wikipedia! See what I mean Piacobe (or however your name is spelled). Joe and I are not the ones responsible for the mean-spirited atmosphere here. Wherever the anti-Sais travel their toxic behavior and agenda of hate and lies goes with them. When is wikipedia going to stop these hatemongers from trying to use wikipedia for their own personal soapbox?] 23:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


. Freelanceresearch has '''never''' been ''"banned from Misplaced Pages"''. Another shameless lie from ProEdits (Robert Priddy). ] <sup>]-]</sup> 03:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


: (aka ProEdits) gets his facts wrong, once again. The link cited does not provide the text to any of the court records. As stated before, under ''"Register Of Actions"'', there is a ''"Stipulation - Other"'' that happened on 3/16/2006, which happens to be the '''exact''' date for Kreydick's deposition. I will contact the court myself tomorrow (today is a holiday). In 's (aka ProEdits) response (under the guise of ''"JuST"''), he gets the facts completely wrong about and I have given a . ''"JuST"'' '''never''' said anything about Kreydick's deposition not existing or being part of the court record (unless the article was updated). As a matter of fact, the Rahm Family treated my comments about Kreydick's deposition as if he actually gave testimony and the deposition existed. The Rahm's '''never''' said anything about Kreydick not giving a deposition. '''Not even one word.''' More lies from Anti-Sais. For example, Priddy (under the guise of ''"JuST"'') said the court case was heard by the Judge on April 28th 2006 despite the fact that the case was '''self-dismissed''' by on April 17th 2006 (). Just one of many significant errors and untruths propagated by ProEdits and Andries. I would also like to point out that neither Andries or ProEdits () made '''any''' reference to the County Court Of Orange before I provided the link (which occurred a couple days ago). Before I posted this information, the cited references were to online court records that did '''not''' mention the County Court Of Orange. Therefore, they have not been in contact with anyone from the County Court Of Orange for ''"months"'', as Andries erroneously contended. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 15:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


I gave a link to a Court web page, but never suggested that it contained the text of the court records – I gave the link PRECISELY to show that those records are NOT available on that website! See this once again: "At this time documents imaged or electronically filed are not available via this application.”

Why Moreno also repeats his argument about the existence of the Kreydick deposition is beyond me – I have to my knowledge never denied its existence. The question is whether it is available to the public as a document from the independent County Court. Let us see whether this – despite all our efforts to obtain it – nevertheless can be proved.
Moreno has not – as requested – proved that he obtained the deposition from the County Court, such as in the form of a signed receipt for payment… rather than from the defendants or their representatives. This is a crucial fact as to sourcing this material. Who told him of the existence of this case and the materials so quickly – when only the lawyers, the judge and the plaintiffs and defendants knew about it? Nothing was printed about it or found with any obvious search terms using Google. Was he not informed of it and how to come by the court documents by the Sathya Sai Society or their proxies? It is fair to comment here too, that – as the Sathya Sai Society is well aware - Moreno has from the start gone to great lengths to attack and undermine Alaya Rahm’s allegations of being sexually abused by Sai Baba, also defending Dr. Goldstein and the Society. Yet Alaya Rahm’s allegations stand as ever, and the BBC has promulgated them worldwide without Sai Baba’s supporters being able to raise a case against them, though they tried legal threats to broadcasters in the US and Canada.
I am a member of the International JuST Group, and was not acting “under the guise of JuST” – there was a JuST working committee of 9 persons, conferring with the Rahm family and their lawyer, Brelsford. The date of the court case given was not provided by me. I can’t be bothered to check it even as it is of so little significance, except to Moreno and Co., of course. Moreno is trying to minimise the major import of the statement which shows that the Kreydick evidence was totally irrelevant in the decision to dismiss the case. Moreno and the Sai authorities are trying to make out that this was so – it is a clever ploy, no doubt. But is not truthful and certainly not proper material for an encyclopedia, in my view. What does jossi say to that?
As to the exact date of the first approach by our team to the County Court, it was about two months ago, despite Moreno’s false conclusion from the fact it was not mentioned here earlier. This is no big deal. --] 11:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

== Tone of this conversation... ==

...Is way off:
# Misplaced Pages is not a battleground of ideas or opinions. See ];
# we deal with each other with civility and respect. See ];
# and we do not engage in personal attacks. See ]

If you are unable to abide by these policies, you would be better off not participating. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 03:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I basically agree with jossi’s comment here. However, since I have been attacked so heavily here and on other Wiki talk pages, - with repeated links to utterly slanderous pages made against me by Gerald ‘Joe’ Moreno (SSS108)- and since Misplaced Pages is so far chronically unable to remove such texts or block these attacks once and for all, I feel I do at least have a moral right to refute arguments directed against me, and not least also in defense of one who have suffered terribly at the hands of Sai Baba (Alaya Rahm) and will be further injured by a subjective account by a Sai follower, if it is not truly an independent public document. Is it not fair - under these circumstances - to point this out? --] 11:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:Robert Priddy has not been attacked any more than he has attacked Sathya Sai Baba. Priddy completely discounts his utterly slanderous pages against Sathya Sai Baba and fails to mention that the '''only reason''' my link was added to his page was because of his defamatory link about Sathya Sai Baba. Since the link to his defamatory website has been removed, I have not attempted (not even once) to re-add my link. Priddy also '''lies''' (again) about me being a follower of SSB (very much the way he '''lied''' about Freelanceresearch being banned from Misplaced Pages). This is the type of shady, garrulous and whiny character who is trying to present himself as honest and fair-minded. Kreydick and (more recently) Rye both knew Alaya Rahm very well and were with him during the time of his alleged sexual abuse. Alaya '''never''' related anything but positive things about Sathya Sai Baba (even writing SSB a '''love poem''' after allegedly being sexually abused '''dozens''' of times). Furthermore, Alaya conceded, out of his own mouth, that he suffered '''no''' psychological trauma that warranted a therapist or doctor of any kind and could not identify to the court having seen any therapist or doctor for his alleged abuse. Alaya also admitted being a decade-long daily user of illegal street drugs and withheld his promiscuous sexual activities from his parents. All these facts have been '''purposely''' withheld from the general public by Priddy, Andries Rahm & Co. until now. That is why they are fighting tooth and claw to remove this information. It utterly compromises the poster child (Alaya Rahm) for their movement. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 21:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Yet again, despite jossi’s comments – Moreno goes on the rampage with more slander against me and Alaya Rahm.
I have already posted a withdrawal of my erroneous statement that de Witt had been banned, but he still maintains I was '''lying''', when an e-mail sent me mixed up de Witt and Moreno (the latter having been banned). This shows his entire approach towards me and also towards any criticism of Sai Baba. Moreno calls every clerical error or minor mistake - and also almost any statement he does not like - '''a lie'''. ‘Blatant lie’ is a term he and de Witt favour a lot too in their baseless and/or trivial allegations. Nowhere have I called Moreno a follower of Sai Baba (though I originally thought he was two years back), but he is most obviously and blatantly a defender of Sai Baba and his Organisation – going to enormous lengths to blacken every ex-follower who criticises Sai Baba - calling out of hand all the brave young men who stood forth liars, stalking them and posting dirt about them. He also adds every adulatory source - invariably biased pro-Sai sources - that he can find to the SSB article. He has also praised Sai baba on his website for giving him 'wonderful experiences', including his account on his website of having his pants taken down and being oiled by Sai baba on his the 'lower stomach' during his private interview. What does all that make him, I wonder? Is it not just a question of definition!
Please take note carefully again that the above is entirely facts not slander, nor '''lies'''. He also distorts other facts. The Kreydick testimony in no way affects the truthfulness of Alaya Rahm’s claims of sexual abuse by Sai Baba, considering Alaya could not even tell his own parents for ages, so why would he tell a self-appointed ‘advisor’ when even Sai Baba had warned the family not to associate with him! Alaya was in a tremendous dilemma and suffered greatly, which he had to hide for the thousands of sycophants surrounding him, which he has explained adequately on the BBC film ‘The Secret Swami’.
As an excuse for his constant attacks on my person, note that Moreno again claims I have slandered Sai Baba! What kind of defence is that! I maintain I have not slandered Sai Baba, of course, because in every case I am most careful on my web pages to weight every statement with exactness, and I invariably have sound backing – either documentary, testimony or from personal observation or overwhelming circumstantial evidence. I am willing to stand for my writings in any court of law – where dozens of allegedly sexually abuse victims, including genuine Indian ex-students who have contacted me with their experiences - would be put forward under court. In view of realising this, no official in the Sai Organisation or any Sai Baba related institutions has ever accused me of slander against anyone. Another sound reason for their reticence in not making any kind of formal complaint against my writings, is that they can’t stand the revealing publicity that would ensue, such as world media attention (especially in the UK due to the apparent royal connections) and a close follow-up BBC World documentary!--] 14:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

==]==
This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

*Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role).
*Information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)
*Andries and SSB108 are forgiven any offenses they have committed by introducing unreliable information into the article and encouraged to edit in compliance with ] and ].

For the Arbitration Committee. 03:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

== How to proceed? ==

Is there anybody, who is just a Misplaced Pages editor, watching this page and interested in turning this article in an encyclopedic article, like something that a real encyclopedia would write? Then I would ask all apologetics and apostats to step aside and perform major surgery. But I'm not masochistic enough to proceed alone. --] 07:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I understand why you would not like to be in the firing line for the kind of slander I am subjected to, but rest assured you would receive no personal attacks from me if you were to try. But correction of provably wrong facts, yes. However, the question is how anyone can write an objective article on Sathya Sai Baba who has not studied his words fully and deeply, or had direct experience of his life and activities, which are a subject of the greatest controversy? My view is that the article is not too bad considering the situation (if it does not include the highly subjective and speculative Kreydick deposition materials) ... both sides of the controversy are represented and at least one is not fed a seemingly 'neutral' package of what would surely be largely superficial materials. --] 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Wikipiedia is not a place for advocating either pro or con viewpoints, to convert neophytes, to discourage followers, or to "alert the public". For that you have the pro sites and anti websites. To describe your "direct experience", publish a blog or a website. Misplaced Pages is not a place for ]. Involved editors, unless they come to terms with this reality, will continue to suffer aggravation and stress that leads to poisoning of these discussions and to unavoidable personal attacks. The next steps should be to cleanup the article by applying the resolution of the arbitration committee as described above, and applying our content policies. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:: ''However, the question is how anyone can write an objective article on Sathya Sai Baba who has not studied his words fully and deeply, or had direct experience of his life and activities, which are a subject of the greatest controversy?''
:: Ahem, I assume you were too busy editing this article to learn something about what's Misplaced Pages is about, for example in the ]: ''Misplaced Pages is an ]...''.
:: And an encyclopedia not only doesn't do original research, it abhors all creativity, direct experience, and then some. Good, and ''concise'' style would be welcome, and that's most lacking here.
:: In a nutshell, an encyclopedia article has to reproduce something that is ''already written elsewhere'', and this doesn't mean a newspaper clipping here, a blog posting there and some court proceedings to top it.
:: Were it not for problems of copyright infringement (and for balancing, if even the scholars disagree), you should be able to pinpoint ''one'' book or ''one'' article in a scientific journal, of which the entire Misplaced Pages article is summary.
:: Every attempt to create something better, than any existing book or article, however well-meaning it may be, is totally misguided. If you aiming for this, you have to publish elsewhere, e.g. in ] or on your own homepage.
:: In short: Don't connect the dots!
:: <small>Reality check: Yes, I know, there is plenty of stuff on en.wikipedia which is in violation of those principles of encyclopedic writing, but I will not tolerate this as an excuse. Even I cannot fight in 1,5 millions articles simultanously.</small>
:: ] 15:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Pjacobi, There is not a single reputable source that reports on SSB's life with any depth. Please first try to find one book or find one article of which this article can be a summary. I have tried but not succeeded. The closest comes A. Nagel's 1994 Dutch language article ''The Sai Parodox'' published by the Free University press. Or ]'s article both of which are used as a source for this article. Yes, there are a lot of hagiographic sources or material based on hagiographic sources. It is true that this article is a mix of all kinds of sources and it cannot be anything else. I thought that Misplaced Pages encourages this, though of course it is easy to see to which kind of problems this leads in practice. ] 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::::As presented in the ArbCom case, there are other sources that have not been explored:
::::* ''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
::::] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::I do not think that is worth the effort of trying to get those sources. I expect them to have only a few words about SSB in thoses articles. ] 18:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::The first source, includes 50 or more books and articles on the subject. I only mentioned a few. There are others such as Bowen David. ''The Sathya Sai Baba Community in Bradford: Its Origins and Development, Religious Beliefs and Practices''. Leeds: The University of Leeds, Community Religious Project, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, 1988: pp. 412; Clarke Peter B., ed. ''The New Evangelists: Recruitment, Methods and Aims of New Religious Movements. London: Ethnographica, 1987: pp. 160.''; Haraldsson Erlendur. ''Sai Baba - ein modernes Wunder'' . Freiburg, 1986; Krystal Phyllis. ''Sai Baba: The Ultimate Experience''. 2nd ed. Longmead, Shaftesbury, Dorset: Element, 1990: pp. 272; Taylor Donald. ''Sathya Sai Baba Movement in Britain: Aims and Methods.'' In The New Evangelists: Recruitment, Methods and Aims of New Religious Movements. P. B. Clarke, Ed. London: Ethnographica, 1987: pp. 77-93. And many others. I would argue that researching and summarizing these sources will lead to an encyclopedic article. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:If there are experienced editors who want to work on the article, then I would step aside. However, I must say that Pjacobi's comments about me have not helped in obtaining my full confidence in him. Not only he is sympathetic with Andries, he also '''wrongly''' accused me (apparently '''not''' researching the matter whatsoever) of introducing a ''"giant citation into the article"'' and breaking the references when I simply reverted the article. This revert did '''not''' break the references as he falsely accused me of: . Even after pointing this out, Pjacobi refused to retract his comment.

:Far be it for ProEdits to accuse others of ''"slander"'' when he has done the very same with Sathya Sai Baba, devotees and proponents (including myself). Unlike him, I can fully substantiate my claims with his actual words, links, references, caches and screen-captures. I don't engage in conspiracy theories, unverifiable speculations and presumptions of guilt as he has done. I do not wish to prolong this off-topic discussion and I will end it here if ProEdits agrees. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 15:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:: In fact I'm sympathetic for Andries, but by now I judge him (as well as you) as effectively unable to contribute to this article, as can be seen by my (late and unheard) appeal .
:: In the question of giant citations, ''fortunately'' (for some very strange value of "fortune") both the pro and the con side have contributed equally to this problem. So the first strike of the axe would hurt both sides.
:: ] 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::The giant citations are a response to repeated accusations against me of out-of-context and selective citations. Having long citations prove that I do not do make such citations and in the case I have made them anyway then long citations give others the chance to easily check and correct this. ] 16:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::: Andries, that would be good work, but for another project. Since I've stumbled into this battlefield by accident, I was thinking long and hard, how to handle these articles. By now I'm of the opinion, that sticking to a very strict definition of ] is the best way to go. If you start collecting evidence, that noone has perviously collected, weighted, summarized ''in print'', you are overstepping the strict definition of enyclopedia.
:::: And seriously, even if one feels tempted to blink an eye, there is no way to disagree with Jossi that ''Wikipiedia is not a place to convert neophytes, to discourage followers, or to "alert the public"''. We have the ] and the ]. Do we need a ''religious disclaimer'': "WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. Don't choose your religion based on material in Misplaced Pages alone!"
:::: ] 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::So you are basically saying that is not okay to use newspaper articles as a source for these kind of articles? ] 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::I mean, I understand all the rest of what you say and I have heard it before, but if you do not want contributors to "collect" and "weight" evidence then may be it is better not to allow newspaper articles as sources for this article but confine ourselves to academic sources. ] 17:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Pjacobi, thank you for your comments and clarifications. I find them honest and forthcoming. As I said before, I will step aside if experienced editors want to take over.

Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned about Andries selective reinterpretation of Misplaced Pages policy, saying that sources must be referenced by reliable secondary sources, yet he sees no problem with citing primary sources (as in the case of Kevin Shephard's reference to Robert Priddy). Until Andries steps aside, neither will I. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:You simply do not understand that the case of Kevin Shepherd reporting on Priddy's writings is not comparable to the court case. In the case of Priddy there is a secondary verifiable source (i.e. Shepherd) that reports on Priddy. None of this exists in the case of the court case. Were is the the verifiable secondary sources that reports on the court case? ] 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC) amended 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Priddy is NOT a reliable source Andries. Very little of his information can be verified because it is SECOND-HAND (otherwise known as gossip). Unfortunately, you do not seem to understand the difference between gossip and a credible source whose statements can be verified. just because someone claims something doesn't mean they are telling the truth. ] 23:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Unlike Lisa de Witt (alias: Freelanceresearch), I have been a lifelong academic researcher and I understand a great deal about source materials (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/Robert_Priddy). There is a little secondhand information in my hundreds of web pages, but it is always presented exactly for what it is, if so, also often with by accompanying links or references. The vast majority of my writings are either sourced to other documents (not least in my critiques of Sathya Sai Baba's own discourses, which are referenced thoroughly)or my direct first-hand experiences through two decades when I was mostly the national leader of the Sai Organisation in Norway and was also frequent visitor to the ashrams, where I had numerous personal meetings with Sai Baba and some of his closest confidantes. So much for de Witt's with all her endless unsourced, third-hand gossip and totally unrestrained slander, sexual language and name calling! (on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sathyasaibaba2/messages2 as conscientiousobjector2000.--] 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:ProEdits, can you please stop whining and babbling on this Talk Page. Before you came along, the discussions were relatively on-topic. No one was engaging in personal attacks. This Talk Page is not a place for venting your hatred, frustrations and anger. You were the one who began with the attacks, naming names and making long, rambling diatribes. Personally, I am sick of your venom. Have Andries educate you on Misplaced Pages policy before you get banned for vandalizing the Sathya Sai Baba article by removing referenced material. Just because you don't agree or like the content, does not entitle you to remove it. The material on Aitkens is referenced to a reliable source. Just imagine how the article would look if others decided to remove referenced material simply because they didn't like it. Either you learn to be fair and stop pushing your Anti-Sai agenda or face the consequences. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 15:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


SSS108, can you not yourself "please stop whining and babbling on this Talk Page. Before '''you''' came along, the discussions were relatively on-topic." You have long been engaging in personal attacks all over the place, including on Misplaced Pages, and you continue in the above! I am not pushing my agenda here like your pusing of your pro-Sai agenda. You talk about fairness - that is a travesty of anything remotely like your attitude! The Aitken material is merely an on-line webpage - which is not a primary source- and the contents are subjective judgements made by Aitken about critics and many other matters - not encyclopaedic material by any count. Hence removal was entirely justified. It should be removed, and I ask jossi to state a sensible opinion on this - though I can see he is clearly biased towards you (viz. his absurd doubting of The Times as a reliable source!) and also Pjacobi and GRBerry, if you please.--] 16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hard to believe that you are actually in your seventies and still act like this, Priddy. Why do you always play the victim when you are the bully who starts the mudslinging to begin with? For all the supposed experience you claim to have in doing research you have very little to show for it as well as your ethics. Maybe you should try researching just why you are so angry and feel you have to take it out on Sai Baba or anybody who disagrees with you and confronts you with your sloppy research and bullying attitude. ] 10:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

== Regarding RFC ==
Who requested the RFC? Where is it at? When was it made? And where on this talk page was the RFC made known? Thanks. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 21:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:I filed an RFC on 3 Sept. It was made known on the talk page hereabove by me. ] 04:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Instructions For Filing A RFC'''
#'''Create a section for the RfC on the article Talk page with a brief, ] statement of the issue.''' ]
#'''In the relevant topic area, listed below, link to ''that section'' on the Talk page.'''
#'''Sign entries with the date only. Use five tildes: <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>.'''
#'''After all parties agree the issue has been resolved, strike it from the listing.'''
:Andries stated he was filing a RFC but never posted the direct link for this RFC on this page . Rather, he just posted a general link to the ]. The RFC instructions were not followed, I was not directly informed about it (although I was a party to the discussion) and I never agreed to the issue being resolved before the edits were made. You did not follow proper procedure. Let me know if I am wrong about this. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 05:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:what do you mean that you were not directly informed about it. I did try to summarize it neutrally, but only after I got responses from the RFC. And of course. ] 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

==Critical External Links Must Go==
ArbCom ruled:
*''"Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. '''This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him.''' It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)."''
]
Therefore, all critical external links must be removed from ''"in the article"'' in accordance with this ruling. All these links contain original research and personal accounts. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 01:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:Andries is also violating the ArbCom ruling by re-inserting a link to his personal Anti-Sai Website on his userpage despite the ruling specifically stating that ''"It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)"''. View Andries re-insertion of his personal Anti-Sai Website link on his userpage: . ] <sup>]-]</sup> 06:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
::I don't think the ruling applies to the userspace, but it applies to this article and its talk page. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Jossie, I informed FloNight about it. Hopefully, she can give a clarification. Thanks. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

*Just to be completely clear here, the ruling does ''not'' mean that ''all'' critical external links must go, as those which provide references for valid criticism should without question remain. However, I would suggest that it is entirely reasonable to exclude ''all'' links which are not ], with reliabel sources defined explicitly to include identified authorities (that is, credible authorities on whose expertise significant criticism has been based). No link, pro or anti, should point to a blog or any other commentary without unambiguously establishing the credibility of the source. It is futile to deny that SSB is widely regarded as a fraud and a charlatan, and information to that effect which is well sourced from reputable authorities undoubtedly has a place here. <b>]</b> 16:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
::No one is arguing that, Guy. What needs to be deleted is the links to non-reliable sources that contain OR as per policy, with the additional caveat presented at ], and the additional ruling related to ''links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences'' ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
::: I know you will be clear on this, but to my reading it was not evident from the comment, and it's very apparent that there are those who wish to exclude ''all'' critical material. I was just offering a clarification after reading the case. <b>]</b> 11:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Misplaced Pages is NOT to be used as a tabloid soapbox for personal opinions. Sai Baba has NEVER been PROVEN in a court of law to be a fraud OR a child molestor. Accusations and opinions are NOT proof of criminal behavior. Thank you Arbitration Committee for resolving what should have been a common sense issue to begin with. ] 20:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:And in the 80 years he has been alive, '''not even one''' alleged victim (to date) has filed a basic police report, complaint or court case against him for '''any kind''' of inappropriate behavior '''in India'''. There was Alaya Rahm, but alas, he '''self-dismissed''' his case before it ever went to court because he attempted to sue the wrong defendents in the wrong court and in the wrong country! ] <sup>]-]</sup> 21:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem sourcing that ''SSB is widely regarded as a fraud and a charlatan'', it's just not entering the domain of crime and court decisions. --] 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:There are many reputable source describing him as a fraud, but I do not know reputable sources that say that he is widely regarded as a fraud. ] 19:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Baloney Andries, rationalists aka athiests have a conflict of interest and are NOT "reliable" sources when they don't even believe in God to begin with! And then there are the evangelical Christians who perceive Baba as the anti-Christ. Get real Andries, you are not fooling anyone but yourself. Please read your wikipedia rules for questionable sources (with conflict of interest) Andries. Of course, you should know this by now but you are more interested in pushing your agenda. There is VOLUMUS documentation both medically and by governmment officials in India regarding Baba's miracles and anyone who says this isn't so is a blatant liar. And for the record pjacobe, I am not against well-documented sources but the anti-Sais continually try to use questionable and unreliable sources like Robert Priddy who blatantly lie as you have seen on this board. Very little of their claims can be reliably documented. In other words they are accusations based on emotionalism and it's getting VERY old.] 20:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

: ] (and similiar accounts), would you please step aside and let Misplaced Pages contributors do their work. You are obviously not interested in this project to write an encyclopedia, but only continuing a struggle started elsewhere. Per policy and its ArbCom prececedence interpretation at ], this can ultimately lead to your blocking.
: Unfortunately I have no ArbCom powers, otherwise I'd allow editing this article only editors who have never heard of SSB before.
: --] 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::do you think that authors who had never had of SSB before would have the interest in improving and expanding it? The history of the article before I edited it indicates that this is not the case. ] 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


NO, I will NOT step aside. I have made it VERY clear I am here to make sure Andries follows Misplaced Pages guidelines and will not touch the article until I know he is contained and made to quit propagandizing and bullying me and others like you just attempted to do. Andries did this when I first came here and it didn't work. People can look at the record and see very clearly that Andries attempts to bully others into submission and monopolize the article by playing mind games with the rules. Andries of all people should know and be able to follow the rules by now but continues to willingly violate them in favor of your POV. Trust me piacobe , you won't win this one. I am not vandalizing the article and when I do edit I follow Misplaced Pages guidelines.
] 22:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

: You accuse those who are not believers of having a conflict of interest, but appear to deny that you also have one. 100% of your main space involvement is with this article, that makes you a ]. Single purpose accounts may be banned from an article or Misplaced Pages without recourse to ArbCom. Tone down the rhetoric ''right now'' or I will block you. <b>]</b> 11:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

==Prema Sai Baba Issue==
Andries once again re-inserted a link to his Anti-Sai Website before getting an answer or obtaining a consensus from FloNight. . Andries also attempted to justify his re-insertion of links to his Anti-Sai Website by citing the '''proposed decisions''': . For Andries information, that link is not ArbCom's final ruling. Andries needs to substantiate his actions by referring to and not the one's that were formerly proposed. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:For the record, Andries just stated on the ] page that he is '''not''' attempting to modify Misplaced Pages policy so that he can push links to Anti-Sai Sites on Sathya Sai Baba-related articles . Just making this known now in case Andries changes his mind later. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 19:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

== Footnotes size ==

The footnotes section is running at 46K, and an article recommended ''overall size'' is 50Kb. Quoting long portions from a published work, can be construed as a copyright violation. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 20:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:You can shorten some footnotes after linking to convenience webpages. I do not think that the combination of short footnotes and lack of convenience links will help the reader. ] 20:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::No, Andries. Helping the reader means summarizing a reliable source, maybe adding a footnote if it is needed, and providing the ISBN number of the source, as done in thousands of articles in WP. This article is becomimg so bad in that respect, that is deserving a {{tl|cleanup}} tag and maybe a {{tl|copyvio}} tag as well. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 20:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::You may want to read ]. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::And specifically this: ] ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 20:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Then remove what you think are copyright violations and for the rest please back up your opinion about the length of citations by referring to guidelines or policies. I oppose short citations unless there is a link to an online version. ] 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:::: It is fixation of some editors here, to prefer online over print sources. There is nothing wrong giving a print source as a reference. --] 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:::: Exactly. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::It is highly unpractical and inconvenient to use dead-tree references. ] 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::You will need to do somre serious convincing to the community at large to make the current policy of ] be based on the availablity of online sources. Until that time, please drop it. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::No, you are either misunderstanding me or making a caricature of my opinions. Of course I realize that ] is independent upon the online availability of sources, but what I mean to say is that decreasing online availability unnecessarily will not help the reader and hurts Misplaced Pages. ] 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
<<<<small>outdent</small>You are painting the issue as if it is an option between having a "convenience link" that is contrary to the ArbCom ruling and having a long quote that violates copyright. What Pjacobi and I are arguing that there is another, more viable option, and that is to summarize the reliable source's viewpoint and provide the source. That works remarkably well for WP so far. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 22:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:I've started removing '''all cites''' from the references. This is the easiest way to go. The most relevant conclusion of the referenced work has to stand in the main text, and if somebody needs context he has to read the referenced work.
:I'll temporarily extract the old cites to temp pages if some surgery is required from there.
:It will take a while to remove all cites, reformat, split and collapse footnotes. So it's totally at random whether by now more ''pro'' or more ''con'' footnotes are removed.
:] 12:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

::Fine. Down to half the site. I can edit it from behind my firewall/proxy again instead of being forced to RDP on DMZ computer.
::This is the link to version before my cite removals: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&oldid=74377264
::Andries stated, that he put in cites because of accusations, that he misrepresented the sources. Anybody interested should check now, whether -- reading the context in the cites of the old version -- he considers anything misrepresented. If no specific cases are brought forward I'll consider the sources represented faithfully.
::During my series of edits I also removed the "Media Articles" section -- with so many media articles referenced in the sources, why linking to another three dozens? If one of the unlinked media articles is considered especially illuminating, please complain now, and perhaps we will add it back.
::During the edits I've superficially got the impression, that some paragraphs are based solely on anecdotical evidence, both of good and bad effects of being a SSB follower. I'd suggest deleting most of them and referring to the rest only briefly. Heck, every small Catholic pilgrimage chapel holds bundles of anectdotical evidence of healings and other wishes become true. We don't add all these to ] or ].
::] 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Pjacobi, a discussion was already had about Andries translations to Dutch articles. His translations were found to be accurate, albeit selective and wholly one-sided. Regarding media articles, I will wait for Andries to respond before I do. Most of the major media articles are already linked to in the refs. Thanks. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Sorry, where were my translations found from Dutch "inaccurate, albeut selective and wholly one-sided". I do not remember this and I believe it to be untrue. Back up your accustion. You requested yourself without my involvement that other editors check Dutch translations. You selected the text yourself and it was thoroughly negative about SSB. All this indicated that I was not selective and that my translations were not inaccurate. ] 17:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I support removal of the section with media articles and I will restore contents that SSS108 inappropriately removed from the article with the flawed justification that this is already I oppose removal of the short quotes in the citations. I have some understanding for removing the long ones, with the exception of the Dutch language ones that necessary to satisfy ]. ] 18:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

:@SSB: If you want to register problems with the translations please point out specific cases.
:@Andries: I've noted your opposition against some of the cite removals but please stay put until new arguments or supporters of your view arrive. Feel free to discuss make the controversy known at ] or wherever we can hope to get more eyeballs.
::Pjacobi, I did so here ] Again, I have some understanding for your removal of long text in citations but nor for short ones or for non-English languages. ]

::You obviously misread my comments. I said they were found to be ''"accurate"''. Regarding your Dutch references being selective and wholly one-sided, I discussed this in the RFA . Before Andries restores anything, I think he should tell us what exactly he is trying to restore, why and where any consensus was obtained. Thanks. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:Sorry, I misread. Regarding consensus I have no intention to request your approval to make edits. I want to restore Dutch language quotes and their tranbslation in citations to satisfy ]. ] 18:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Pjacobi, can you tell me why you are keeping the ''"Other Websites"''? Not sure why this is being kept if media articles are not. Thanks. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:Andries, same standard across the board. If you insist on re-adding the text, I will insist on it too on refs I find important. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I fear you are totally misreading ] and ]. A citation is giving the properly formatted source in the references section, with ] discussing three possible citation styles. We are using ]. What does the footnore contain?
:''References typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication. Different professions, academic disciplines, and publishers have different conventions as to the order in which this information should be arranged, or whether additional information is required. Usually, the list is in alphabetical order by the author's surname. The name of the publisher and its city is optional. The ISBN of a book is optional. Journal articles should include volume number, issue number and page numbers''
See? Not a small or large quote from the publication. What you want to use from the cited source goes into the ''main article prose'', usually in your own words, in some delicate cases as as short (!) verbatim quote. --] 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:Pjacobi, why is it that Andries continually insists on removing the source to a potentially libelous comment on Misplaced Pages. See . I think that statement should be openly referenced to Shepherd and not stated so matter-of-factly. This very issue was discussed before with Jossie . What is your opinion? ] <sup>]-]</sup> 19:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:Pjacobi, I have bad experience with using my own words to summarize reputable sources because then I get accused of misparaphrasing POV pushing etc. You can safely assume that all cases in this article are delicate. In other words it is better to use verbatim quotes. ] 23:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

=== Formal stuff ===
Cum grano salis I've now removed all cites from the references and split all footnotes holding multiple references. I've begin collapsing multiple references to the same article using the name="xyz" method. There will arise a problem: I'd would be very happy to collapsing all references to Erlendurs book into one, but that would lose the page number information. Are there workarounds known for this situation. --] 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:I am not an expert, but a possible work around could be to list all the used page numbers. ] 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:35, 26 December 2024

Archiving icon
Archives
Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sathya Sai Baba article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former featured article candidateSathya Sai Baba is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 1, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
May 14, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 3, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on April 24, 2011.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 24, 2020.
Current status: Former featured article candidate
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconAlternative views Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHinduism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconParapsychology (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology
WikiProject iconReligion: New religious movements Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconSkepticism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconVeganism and Vegetarianism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

To-do list for Sathya Sai Baba: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2011-04-25

  1. Include a "Bibliography" section, with informations about his writings (the several "Vahini" books that Sathya Sai Baba has written)
  2. Add some more info from Erlendur Haraldsson's book, e.g. M. Krishna (partially done)
  3. Improve the article based on Jossi proposals recommended by the arbitration commitee.
  4. Remove unreliable and poorly sourced material from the article
  5. Add some more info from the book "Love is my form" (the book cost USD 99.00 and it may be difficult to order)
  6. Write about the Prashanti Council in the section organizations
  7. Ensure only professional critics are sourced, rather than unfounded authors who otherwise specialize in other areas.
  8. Add more interesting pictures, such as that of his books, centers etc.
  9. Add a photo of Sathya Sai Baba (done)


Why there is no mention of his family?

Does he have a wife, kids? Why there is no mention of his family? 176.33.65.11 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation

The recently added section "Anomalies and possible unnatural death" contains misinformation, based on short-lived rumors and conspiracy theories. Please remove the section. Anuradha Rao (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

ALL information is properly sourced and cited. the times of India, Indian express and other sources are reliable and credible.
the title accurately depicts the content. anomalies in the narrative provided by the police, ashram, trust and other agencies in relation to what information was printed or reported on.
much like the murders at ashram. facts, narratives and official stories don't add up. yet the various pieces of information are reported and documented. why don't you take down that page?
just because its been 13 years and things have been brushed aside and washed cleaned doesn't mean these events weren't reported on.
they appeared in the times of India.
this section does not reflect conspiracy theories but reported on events.
there is a "criticism " section is there not? why are those "events" or conspiracy theories not removed? some scenarios are plain redundant, willful character assassination and unproven lies. yet the section exists.
why? because it was written about and played a role in the information surrounding Sai Baba. although irrelevant or dated or based on opinion, it was written about.
as were the anomalies and pieces of information contrary to the "official narrative".
the section, as the "criticism" section, provides cited information that appeared in reputable news outlets and has a place, is relevant and although, difficult to swallow without getting emotional, it was written about.
your passions and emotions dont take precedent.
section is well cited, properly cited and from credible sources.
it holds the same place as the criticism section. J929 (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
All misinformation and conspiracy theories on the page need to go, and not just the Anamolies.. section. Why are we hounding someone who spent every moment for the upliftment of humanity? It is not about editors'/readers' passions and emotions, but about truth and facts which a Misplaced Pages article should stick to, isn't it? Anuradha Rao (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Sai Baba’s virtues, divinity comment and unfettered devotion to serving humanity is not in question.
The section is well sourced, properly cited, and correctly quoted J929 (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The times of India and various other sources are, according to Misplaced Pages, reliable and credible. Criticism section, like I said, has events that are unproven and most likely untrue BUT still are reported on.
Therefore, when correctly cited and worded, appear in Misplaced Pages.
Same with this section.
if you feel all these sections should be removed then the “issue” is with you and your view, not the way it is presented - which as I have stated and also agreed by the person who Undid your edits - which is in accordance with Misplaced Pages guidelines. J929 (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
please review previous talk page issues. most importantly the criticism section and see how much effort and time, consensus and argument went into getting a phrasing that would satisfy everyone.
try to edit the criticism section and you will find warnings not to edit certain parts because of these efforts...
that being said, emotional responses and opinions of what wikipedia is or is not does not justify removing a section - one that is well cited, sourced and worded. J929 (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the page reads much better now than it did earlier, thanks to the efforts.
Some of the cited sources in Anomalies part have attributed quotes to unnamed/unverifiable sources and have a speculative tone than factual reporting. Unilateral claims, reactions, rumors and speculation can be condensed into a few lines than given so much prominence. Anuradha Rao (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
All the information is correctly cited from credible sources. If condensed and left unsourced, it will then look like a story/speculation etc.
which will not hold up to Misplaced Pages standards and decrease the quality of the page. J929 (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
You can condense the part and still cite the sources.
The problem is not with the citations but giving disproportionate space to ephemeral speculative reports arising in the wake of the confusion following the demise of the Guru. Anuradha Rao (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Gunnar Otis, not a real person

I've removed a paragraph from the article, citing "Gunnar Otis, professor of psychology, University of Reykjavik" as an authority, from a book by Paul William Roberts. The encounter between Roberts and "Gunnar Otis" is said to have taken place in 1976, but the University of Reykjavik was founded in 1998. No professor of psychology with that name has ever existed in Iceland. 147.161.214.97 (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

From what I’ve been able to find (ie. nothing), no person with that name has ever existed on Earth. 🆃🆁🆂™ 08:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: